Post on 21-Aug-2020
transcript
Supplementary appendixThis appendix formed part of the original submission and has been peer reviewed. We post it as supplied by the authors.
Supplement to: Landrigan PJ, Fuller R, Acosta NJR, et al. The Lancet Commission on pollution and health. Lancet 2017; published online Oct 19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32345-0.
1
Appendix
Introduction
Climate Change, Pollution, and Health
Climate change and pollution are closely linked. Both arise from the current linear,
unsustainable resource-intensive model of economic development, and they are both
produced by many of the same industrial and agricultural sources. Climate change is
expected to alter pollutants’ fate, transport, use, and environmental distribution, magnify
the risk of toxic exposures and thus increase risk for PRD. The following are specific
examples of links between climate change and pollution:
Air pollution. Rising temperatures will result in increased need for electricity for cooling
and air conditioning and thus will increase airborne emissions of carbon dioxide, short-
lived climate pollutants, particulates, and toxic chemical pollutants from electric power
plants. Rising temperatures will also increase long- range atmospheric transport and
distant deposition of toxic chemicals. Rising temperatures will melt permafrost leading
to increased mobilization of Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) and mercury
sequestered in permafrost.1 Rising temperatures, drought and desertification will lead to
increased formation of airborne dust 2.Air stagnation increases pollutant concentrations
and aggravates the health effects of air pollution.3
Pesticides. Rising temperatures and increased precipitation will result in expanded
geographic ranges and longer active seasons for insect pests and weeds. Increased
applications of insecticides and herbicides will follow.4 Rising temperatures will also
increase the volatility of some pesticides, leading to further exposure risk.5
Toxic Metals. Ocean acidification may modify the bioavailability of contaminated
sediments,6 increasing movement of toxic chemicals up the food chain,7 thus
increasing exposures of marine species to these pollutants. Extreme weather events
such as floods, cyclones and hurricanes have been shown to liberate dioxins, heavy
metals and toxic chemical wastes from storage depots and waste sites 8,9 thus
increasing runoff into lakes and rivers results that can result in human exposure.10
2
Wildfires release legacy toxins into the atmosphere that have been sequestered in
forest soil and plants (including depositions of lead from gasoline as well as
mercury).11,12
Climate change will further increase incidence and prevalence of pollution-related
disease by increasing human sensitivity to pollutants. For example, high summer
temperatures may increase cardiovascular sensitivity to airborne particulate pollution.13
On a positive note, measures taken to mitigate climate change and encourage transition
towards a more circular economy such as a switch to renewable non-polluting sources
of energy, upgrading and incentivizing of active commuting and public transport, and
designing waste out of industrial processes will help to control pollution.
Emerging Chemical Pollutants
Synthetic chemicals have been responsible for repeated episodes of disease, death and
environmental degradation. A recurrent theme in these episodes is that new chemicals
have been brought to market with great enthusiasm but with little premarket assessment
of their potential hazard, used widely, and then found belatedly to have caused harm to
human health or the environment.14 A root cause of virtually all these episodes has
been failure to conduct adequate premarket evaluations of the safety of new chemicals
before they came to market.14 The consequences are that:
• Information on potential toxicity is publicly available for only about half of the
synthetic chemicals in current wide use; and
• Information on developmental toxicity or capacity to harm infants and children is
available for fewer than 20% of the most widely used synthetic chemicals.15
Developmental neurotoxicants. Evidence is strong that a number of widely used
industrial chemicals and pesticides have been responsible for injury to the brains of
millions of children worldwide and that these exposures have resulted and continue
today to result in a global ‘pandemic of neurodevelopmental toxicity’.16,17 Loss of
cognition – expressed as reduction in IQ, shortening of attention span, impairment of
3
executive function, and behavioral disorders are among the consequences of exposures
to toxic chemicals in early life, and chemical exposures are associated also with
attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, learning disabilities, dyslexia, and autism.
Prospective epidemiological birth cohort studies that enroll women during pregnancy,
measure prenatal exposures to chemicals in real time as they occur, and then follow
children longitudinally with periodic examinations to assess growth and development
have been powerful engines for the discovery of etiologic associations between prenatal
exposures to chemical pollutants and neurodevelopmental disorders.18 Examples of
pollution-related diseases in children that have been identified through prospective
studies are:
• Cognitive impairment with loss of IQ in children exposed prenatally to PCBs;19
• Reduced IQ and shortening of attention span in children exposed prenatally to
methyl mercury;16
• Microcephaly at birth, anatomic and functional delays in brain development, and
autistic behaviors in children exposed prenatally to the organophosphate
pesticide, chlorpyrifos;20,21
• Autistic behaviors in children exposed prenatally to phthalates;22
• Cognitive impairment, shortened attention span, and disrupted behavior in
children exposed prenatally to brominated flame retardants;23 and
• Neurodevelopmental delays in children exposed prenatally to polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs).24,25
In total, approximately twelve chemicals have been shown to date through clinical and
epidemiologic studies to be developmental neurotoxicants.
An important yet unanswered question is whether there are additional chemicals in use
today whose ability to cause silent injury to human health has not yet been
discovered.26,27 Particular attention has focused on the possibility that there may be
undiscovered neurotoxicants capable of causing injury to the developing human brain.
Such toxicants may be found among the 200 chemicals in current use that have been
shown to cause neurotoxicity in adult workers and among the 1,000 chemicals known to
cause neurotoxic effects in experimental animals.16,17
4
Endocrine disruptors. Endocrine disruptors are synthetic chemical pollutants that
mimic, block, or alter the actions of normal hormones such as estrogen, testosterone,
growth hormone, insulin, and thyroid hormone.28
Initial recognition of the power of an endocrine disruptor to produce widespread
ecological damage and injure health came in 1962 with publication of Rachel Carson’s
Silent Spring,29 which described widespread contamination of the environment with DDT
and the consequent near extinction of the American bald eagle. It has subsequently
been shown that DDT decimated the eagle pollution by interfering with estrogen
function and thus impairing the birds’ ability to produce viable eggs; the eagle
population has rebounded in the United States since the banning of DDT in 1972.30
DDT has subsequently been found to interfere with estrogen function in humans, and
adult women in California who were exposed in utero to high levels of DDT 40-50 years
ago have been shown to be at heightened risk for breast cancer.31
The first recognition of the ability of an endocrine disruptor to alter the course of human
development and increase risk of disease emerged from the diethylstilbestrol (DES)
tragedy. DES, a synthetic estrogen, was prescribed to as many as 5 million pregnant
women in the US in the 1960s and early 1970s to block spontaneous abortion and
promote fetal growth. A decade later, gynecologists began to observe cases of a rare
malignancy, adenocarcinoma of the vagina, in young women. Peak incidence occurred
in the years after puberty. Epidemiologic analysis found that the great majority of these
young women had been exposed in utero to DES.32 Their mothers were physically
unaffected. Further long-term follow-up has shown that after age 40 DES daughters
have a 2.5-fold increased incidence of breast cancer.
Synthetic endocrine disruptors include phthalates, bisphenol A, perchlorate, certain
pesticides, brominated flame retardants, certain metals, and dioxins. These chemicals
are manufactured in volumes of millions of pounds per year. They are widespread in
consumer products such as soaps, shampoos, perfumes, and plastics. Exposures to
even extremely low doses of endocrine disruptors during sensitive periods in early
5
development can lead to permanent impairments in organ function and to increased risk
of disease.
Phthalates are a class of endocrine disruptors in current wide use that have been
shown to cause disease and dysfunction but whose contributions to the global burden of
disease have not yet been quantified. Phthalates are used as plasticizers to confer
flexibility to rigid plastics and in personal-care products, lacquers, varnishes, and timed-
release coatings for some medications. Several phthalates have been shown to
possess anti-androgenic activity and reduce testosterone levels. Evidence of anti-
androgenic effects associated with early-life exposures to phthalates in animal studies
include impaired Leydig cell function, hypospadias, and undescended testicles. In
humans, prenatal exposure to phthalates has been linked to subnormal serum
testosterone levels in newborn and adult males and with adverse effects on adult
sperm. Prenatal exposure to phthalates in baby boys has been linked to shortening of
the ano-genital distance, a marker of in utero feminization.33,34 Prenatal exposures to
phthalates are deleterious also to infant brain development and increase risk for autistic
behaviors.22
Pesticides. Pesticides, including insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, and rodenticides
are compounds deliberately engineered to be toxic. Pesticides come in many classes,
and more than 600 unique pesticide chemicals and more than 20,000 commercial
pesticide products are currently on world markets. Pesticide chemicals are used in large
and ever-increasing quantities worldwide – more than 1.1 billion pounds are used in the
United States each year and an estimated 5.2 billion pounds globally.35 Some of the
heaviest applications occur in low- and middle-income countries where use and
exposure data are often scant.
Chronic, lower-level exposures to pesticides can cause chronic toxicity and increase
risk for non-communicable diseases, including neurodevelopmental disorders
(organophosphate pesticides), chronic lung disease (the herbicide, paraquat),36 and
cancers (multiple herbicides).36 However, despite their wide use and known adverse
6
effects on human health, the contributions of pesticide pollution to the global burden of
disease cannot yet be estimated, except in the case of acute poisonings, because data
are not available in most countries on the sizes of the populations chronically exposed
to pesticides or on their levels of exposure. Gaps exist also in knowledge of the toxicity
of these agents and thus in knowledge of the full range of their effects on human health.
Experience with three categories of pesticides – the organophosphate insecticides, the
neonicotinoid insecticides, and the synthetic herbicide, glyphosate - illustrate these
challenges.
Organophosphate insecticides. The organophosphate insecticides are a large and
widely used class of pesticides. These compounds were deliberately designed to be
neurotoxic, and in both insects and mammalian species they cause neurotoxicity by
inhibiting the enzyme acetylcholinesterase. The chemical warfare agents sarin and
soman are members of the organophosphate family.
Evidence is now strong that organophosphate insecticides are developmental
neurotoxicants. Initial recognition of the developmental toxicity of these compounds
emerged from an anthropological study undertaken among 4-5-year-old children in an
agricultural community in Mexico who were exposed to high levels of organophosphate
as well as organochlorine pesticides prenatally and in early childhood.37 Compared to
genetically similar children of the same tribe in the nearby foothills that did not use
chemical pesticides, children in the agricultural community manifested multiple aspects
of neurotoxicity including reduced hand-eye coordination, impairment in ability to draw
simple figures, and deficits in short-term memory (Figure A1).
7
Figure A1. Human figures drawn by Mexican children exposed (Valley) and not
exposed (Foothills) to organophosphate and organochlorine pesticides.37
Further strong evidence for the developmental neurotoxicity of the organophosphates is
provided by three epidemiological studies of children exposed prenatally to chlorpyrifos
in different regions in the United States. These studies, each of which measured
chlorpyrifos exposures prenatally and then followed children longitudinally, found that
prenatal exposures are associated with persistent deleterious effects on cognitive and
behavioral function in children through at least the age of 7 years.21 Further evaluation
of children in one of these populations using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) found
that even low to moderate prenatal exposures to chlorpyrifos are associated with long-
term, potentially irreversible changes in brain structure.20 Toxicological studies of
rodents exposed perinatally to chlorpyrifos also find strong anatomical and functional
evidence for developmental neurotoxicity.38 Despite this strong evidence for the
developmental neurotoxicity of the organophosphate insecticides, the contribution of
these compounds to the global burden of disease has not yet been estimated.
Neonicotinoids. The neonicotinoids are a novel class of neurotoxic pesticides that
were developed in the 1980’s to replace the organophosphates and carbamates. Use of
neonicotinoids has risen dramatically in the past decade and the neonicotinoid
8
insecticide, Imidacloprid is now the most widely used insecticide in the world.39 In the
United States, agricultural use of neonicotinoids in 2014 was nearly 8 million pounds.40
Neonicotinoids target nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs) in the insect nervous
system,41,42 acting as potent agonists of these receptors and impairing neural
transmission.43 Neonicotinoids are most commonly applied by prophylactic seed
coating. This application leads to systemic absorption by plants, and neonicotinoids can
be detected in relevant concentrations in plant tissues for many months after
application.44 Neonicotinoids are water-soluble and can persist for years in soils, dust,
wetlands, and groundwater.45 They enter rivers, lakes and the oceans, and they are
detected in fish.46 They are detected in commonly consumed foods.
Substantial evidence from both laboratory and field studies indicates that neonicotinoids
can have negative impacts on the behavior, health, and abundance of bees and other
pollinators at environmentally relevant concentrations.43,47,48 Neonicotinoid
concentrations in the field, including in nectar and pollen consumed by bees, are
typically between 2 and 6 ppb47 although they can occasionally reach much higher
values.43,47,49 While these concentrations are generally below the levels acutely toxic
for bees,43,47 these sub-lethal exposures have nonetheless been shown to significantly
affect bees’ immune function,50,51 neuronal activity,52 learning capacity,53,54 ability to
navigate,55,56 and foraging performance.57,58 Field studies and studies under semi-field
conditions have shown also that chronic neonicotinoid exposure can reduce rates of
colony growth in bumblebees49,59,60 and reduce the abundance of wild bees.49,61
Studies of the effects of neonicotinoid exposure on colony growth in honeybees are less
definitive49,62 and suggest that effects may depend on factors such as colony size63 or
genetic background.62 Lastly, neonicotinoid exposure reduces delivery of pollination
services to food crops.64 Because both biodiversity65 and global agricultural yields27
depend heavily on pollination services, a reduction in pollinators (especially bees) is
predicted to have significant adverse effects on human health28.
Neonicotinoids were originally thought to pose only a minimal direct threat to vertebrate
wildlife and to humans because of their selective affinity for the insect nAChR receptor
and their inability to cross the blood-brain barrier4,29. Since their approval for commercial
9
use, neonicotinoids (and their metabolites) have however been linked to adverse effects
in vertebrates even at sub-lethal levels. These effects include impaired growth, slowed
development, and impaired reproduction. 30-33 Sub-lethal exposure also has effects on
neurobehavioral function in both mammals and birds. 30,34,35 In rats, neonicotinoids alter
brain function with effects similar to those of nicotine36, a known developmental
neurotoxicant. Neonicotinoids also have indirect effects on vertebrate wildlife, for
example by reducing availability of prey. 30
Despite their extensive use in agriculture, only very limited information is available on
the possible human health effects of the neonicotinoids. A recent systematic review was
able to identify only 8 published studies of human toxicity, 4 examining acute poisoning
episodes and 4 examining chronic effects. The studies of chronic effects produced
“suggestive but methodologically weak findings” mainly in the area of
neurodevelopmental outcomes.38 Clearly more research on this class of pesticides is
needed. It is not possible at this time to estimate the possible contribution of
neonicotinoid exposures to the global burden of disease.
Chemical herbicides. Herbicides account for nearly 40% of global pesticide use and
herbicide use is increasing sharply.35 A major use of herbicides today is in the
production of genetically modified (GM) food crops, mainly corn and soybeans that have
been engineered to be tolerant to glyphosate (Roundup), the world’s most widely used
herbicide. Glyphosate-resistant, “Roundup-Ready” crops now account for more than
90% of all corn and soybeans planted in the United States and their use is growing
globally. Their advantage, especially in the first years after introduction, is that they
greatly simplify weed management. Farmers can spray herbicide on “Roundup-Ready”
crops both before and during the growing season to kill weeds while leaving their crops
unharmed. Glyphosate is widely detected today in air and water in agricultural areas,
and glyphosate residues are detected in foods.66
The adoption of glyphosate-resistant crops has led to overreliance on herbicides and to
the emergence of glyphosate-resistant weeds, which now infest more than 100 million
acres of North American cropland. In the United States, glyphosate use has increased
by more than 250-fold in the past 40 years — from 0.4 million kg in 1974 to 113 million
10
kg in 2014. Over the same time, global use has increased more than 10-fold. Use is
projected to grow still further as glyphosate-resistant weeds continue to emerge and
spread. Simultaneous application of multiple herbicides is proposed as a strategy to
overcome glyphosate resistance.67
Epidemiologic studies of agricultural workers exposed occupationally to glyphosate and
other herbicides have found evidence for increased incidence of non-Hodgkin’s
lymphoma. Toxicological studies of experimental animals exposed to glyphosate show
strong evidence of dose-related carcinogenicity at multiple anatomical sites. On the
basis of these findings, the International Agency for Research on Cancer has
determined that glyphosate is a “probable human carcinogen”.36 The contribution of
herbicides to the global burden of disease cannot yet be estimated.
Chemicals at the Pole
Indigenous peoples of the Arctic are among the world’s most chemically contaminated
populations. Mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and other Persistent Organic
Pollutants (POPs) are the chemicals of greatest concern. These chemicals originate
from industrial sources in Europe, Asia, and North America and are transported to the
Arctic through long-range migration in air and water.
In the Arctic ecosystem, persistent chemicals biomagnify in the food chain and reach
extremely high concentrations in marine mammals, such as ringed seals and polar
bears, which contain some of the highest levels of these chemicals on the planet.68
These same animals are integral components of the diets and lifestyles of Arctic
Indigenous Peoples.68 Their consumption has long provided basic nutrition as well as
social, cultural and economic well-being.69 The presence of chemical contaminants in
traditional foods has caused many Indigenous Peoples to shift away from their ancient
diets and lifestyles. This shift has resulted in rising rates of obesity, diabetes and
cardiovascular disease.70
Arctic contamination has been the focus of initiatives such as the Northern
Contaminants Program initiated in 1991 by the Canadian government and the multi-
country circumpolar Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme. These programs
11
have provided solid evidence that the concentrations of many legacy and emerging
chemicals are increasing in the Arctic ecosystem and peoples, and that current levels
represent a hazard to human health.71,72
Pollution at the pole is also an environmental justice issue, since the Arctic communities
that suffer chemical exposure and adverse health outcomes derive no benefit from the
industrial processes that emit the chemicals nor do they have any opportunity to
participate in decisions on how to prevent pollution or mitigate risk
Pollution and children’s health. Children are exquisitely sensitive to pollution in all its
forms and are highly susceptible to pollution-related disease.14,73 Four key differences
have been identified between children and adults that contribute to children’s
heightened vulnerability:74
• Children have proportionately heavier exposures to pollutants compared to adults.
This reflects children’s greater intake kilogram-for-kilogram of food, water and air
coupled with their unique age-related behaviors, in particular, their oral-exploratory
behaviors.
• Children’s metabolic pathways, especially in the first months after birth, are
immature. In many instances, children are less able than adults to excrete and
detoxify toxic compounds.
• Children are undergoing rapid growth and development. Early development creates
windows of great vulnerability.
• Because children have more years of future life than most adults, they have more
time to develop chronic diseases that may be initiated by early exposures.
Rates of a number of non-communicable diseases are increasing in children worldwide.
Chemical pollutants are among the forces responsible for these increases. Two
recent reports from the World Health Organization further document the
disproportionate effects of pollution and other unhealthy environmental exposures on
the health of children. These analyses find that more than 1 in 4 deaths of children
under 5 years of age - 1.7 million deaths per year - are attributable to environmental
risks – air pollution, second-hand smoke, unsafe water, lack of sanitation, and
12
inadequate hygiene. These include 570,000 children under the age of 5 years who
die from respiratory infections, and 361,000 children under 5 years of age who die of
diarrheal disease.28,75 Pollution exposures in early life are linked also to increased
risks of non-communicable disease in later life.76,77
13
The power of prevention.
In 2007, 1.7 million people died from HIV/AIDS, 1.3 million from tuberculosis and 1.1
million from malaria - 4.1 million deaths total.78 HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria
appeared to be unstoppable. Today thanks to bold, science-driven, well-funded
interventions by UN agencies, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria,
the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), and the work of many other
organizations and individuals, the number of people who die each year from these
diseases has been reduced to about 3 million, a 33% reduction in mortality within a
decade, an extraordinary accomplishment.79,80
Successes in Managing Toxic Chemicals
Mandatory testing of chemicals for safety and potential toxicity coupled with strict
regulation of toxic chemicals are the linchpins of chemical safety policies intended to
protect human health and the environment.14 In response to rising concern about the
effects on human health of widespread exposures to untested and potentially
dangerous chemicals, high-income countries have begun in recent years to enact
legislation that requires the testing of new and existing chemicals.14
In 2007, the European Union enacted the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and
Restriction of Chemical Substances (REACH) legislation.81 This legislation places
responsibility on industry to generate data on potential risks of commercial chemicals
and to register this information with the European Chemical Agency in Helsinki.82 The
European Union is using this information to craft regulations to protect health, and it has
banned and restricted certain toxic products.
In June 2016, the United States passed new legislation to revamp the obsolete and
outdated Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976.83 This law - the Frank R. Lautenberg
Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act84 requires that the US Environmental
Protection Agency make an affirmative finding on the safety of any new chemical before
it is allowed to enter the market; prioritize existing chemicals for safety testing within
clear and enforceable deadlines; and use a risk-based standard to evaluate the safety
of chemicals that is blind to cost-benefit ratios or the costs of protective action.
14
Implementation of this new law is barely beginning and close vigilance will be required
to determine whether it fulfills its promise.
Because they are faced with a large backlog of untested chemicals, the recently
enacted chemical safety policies in the European Union and the United States will need
to rely heavily on new, highly efficient approaches to chemical testing such as those that
have been recommended by the National Academy of Sciences and are now coming
on-line at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the US
Environmental Protection Agency through the Tox21 program.85–87 These new high-
throughput approaches incorporate multiple new technologies including exposure
modeling, sensors, biomonitoring, omics technologies, novel computational methods,
big data mining and bioinformatics as well as the integration of toxicological findings
with genomic and health outcome data.
Many countries, especially low-and middle-income countries do not yet have health-
based chemical policies. As a result of global variations in chemical policy, hazardous
materials no longer permitted in Western Europe or North America can be shipped
overseas and sold into developing markets often in contravention of existing global
conventions.82 To address these challenges, UN Environment has called for “a global
commitment to the sound management of chemicals” and UN Environment’s report,
Global Chemicals Outlook report, presents case studies showing that sound
management of chemicals in low- and middle-income countries can produce substantial
economic returns.88 UN Environment also supports international agreements limiting the
manufacture, environmental release and global transport of persistent pollutants,89
pesticides,90 hazardous waste,91 and mercury.92 The Strategic Approach to International
Chemicals Management (SAICM) process housed within UN Environment93 provides a
platform for discussion on control of chemical pollution and toxic waste amongst a broad
range of stakeholders.
.
15
The Commission on Pollution and Health.
This Lancet Commission on Pollution & Health was formed in August, 2015. Its launch
was announced simultaneously in Geneva at the meeting of the International
Conference on Chemicals Management and in Jakarta at the annual meeting of the
Pacific Basin Consortium for Environment and Health.
This Commission has brought together a diverse group of Commissioners and
contributors from many disciplines including health, environmental science, economics,
law, social science, political science, and engineering; academia, government,
international organizations; and diverse geographical backgrounds. The Commission
met twice - in New York on November 9-11, 2015 and in New York again on June 16-
17, 2016.
The Global Alliance on Health and Pollution94 has served as secretariat for the
Commission. The Global Alliance is a collaborative body that facilitates the provision of
technical and financial resources to governments and communities to reduce the effects
of pollution on health in low- and middle-income countries.
This Commission sought input and consultation from the members of the Global
Alliance on Health and Pollution, experts at the World Bank, the World Health
Organization, UN Environment, the Consortium of Universities in Global Health, the
Pacific Basin Consortium for Environment and Health, the Superfund Research
Program of the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and a number
of non-governmental organizations.
16
Section 1
Additional Details on Contaminated Sites Methodology.
The Blacksmith Institute/Pure Earth version of this protocol has been streamlined to
accommodate application in low- and middle-income countries by trained, non-
professional, local investigators.95 At each site, these investigators use standardized
procedures to identify the principal pollutant and to measure levels of environmental
contamination. The investigators use publicly available demographic data to estimate
the size and age distribution of the exposed population.95,96 The toxic pollutants
identified most commonly are lead (found at 44% of sites worldwide), mercury,
hexavalent chromium, asbestos, cadmium, and the pesticides: DDT, lindane, and
Aldrin. To date 2,591 sites in 49 countries have been assessed.4 The methodology is
well described in Ericson et al.95,97
Two particularly common types of contaminated sites are used lead-acid battery (ULAB)
recycling sites, where lead is the principal pollutant, and Artisanal and Small Scale Gold
Mining (ASGM) sites, where the principal pollutant is elemental mercury used to extract
gold from ore. To assess the burden of disease associated with exposures to heavy
metals at these sites, the Commission used the methodology of Ericson et al.97 for lead
battery recycling sites and the methodology and data of Steckling et al.98,99 for gold
mining sites.
Assessing Lead Poisoning at Used Lead-Acid Battery (ULAB) Recycling Sites.
Used lead-acid battery recycling sites are major loci of lead production in low- and
middle-income countries worldwide and are important sources of both occupational and
community exposure to lead. To assess the burden of disease associated with lead
17
exposure at these sites, the Commission used the methodology of Ericson et al.97
described.
Step 1. The first step in the methodology developed by Ericson et al.97 is to estimate the
amount of lead recycled each year in each country and globally. This estimation is
undertaken by obtaining data on the total amount of lead entering the recycling market
in each country and then subtracting out the amount recycled in commercial smelters;
information on commercial smelters is obtained from the United States Geological
Service. The total amount of lead entering the recycling market in a country is estimated
from information on the number of the metric tons of lead recycled annually from
automotive and other batteries, uninterrupted power supplies, electric bicycle batteries,
and other applications such as green energy storage units. Data provided by the
Organisation Internationale des Constructeurs d’Automobiles were used to determine
the number of cars, trucks, and buses on the road in each country. Information on the
number of motorbikes was provided by Ministries of Transport for several South Asian
countries, and estimated elsewhere. For China, a widely quoted estimate of 200 million
electric bicycles was used. A model developed by the International Lead Association is
used to determine the amount of lead contained in each type of battery.
Step 2. Estimate soil lead levels at recycling sites. For this purpose, Ericson et al97
developed a series of nine exposure scenarios, based on three smelter sizes and three
levels of exposure. This distribution of smelter sizes and exposure levels was based on
data collected through 28 field assessments carried out by Blacksmith Institute/Pure
Earth at informal used lead-acid battery recycling sites in 11 countries.
Smelting operations were divided into three categories: small, accounting for 50% of
recyclers globally, with 500 people exposed per site; medium, accounting for 35% of
sites with 500 persons exposed per site; and large, accounting for 15% of all operations,
with 2000 persons exposed per site. Then to capture information on varying degrees of
exposure, sites of each size were divided into three exposure categories - low, medium
and high on the basis of soil lead concentrations. Fifty per cent of sites fell into the low
exposure category (mean soil lead concentration 850 mg/ kg); 35% fell into the medium
18
exposure category (2500 mg/ kg); and 15% into the high exposure category (5000
mg/kg).
Step 3. Estimate the distribution of blood lead levels at sites from soil lead data using
the US Environment Protection Agency’s Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Models
for Lead in Children (IEUBK) and Adults.
Step 4. Estimate the burden of disease at each site by combining blood lead data with
data on population size and age structure and using exposure-response algorithms
developed by the World Health Organization. No mortality from lead poisoning was
assumed in this analysis, and therefore the estimated burden of disease is based solely
on Years Lived with Disability (YLDs)
Artisanal and Small-Scale Gold Mining has become the world’s largest source of
mercury pollution. Chronic occupational mercury poisoning caused by inhalation of
mercury vapor is a major health problem among gold miners. Symptoms are mainly
neurological and involve both central and peripheral neurologic dysfunction. To assess
the burden of disease resulting from mercury exposure in gold mining, the Commission
relied on the methodology and data of Steckling et al.98,99
Step 1. The first step in the methodology developed by Steckling et al.98,99 is to estimate
the size of the global population of artisanal and small-scale gold miners. This
information was derived from a country-by-country census of gold mining populations
undertaken by Seccatore et al.100 supplemented by a structured literature review.
In step 2 estimates were developed of the prevalence of moderate mercury poisoning
among miners by compiling a dataset of all available studies that measured urine
mercury levels and that had also assessed frequency of symptoms of mercury
poisoning in miners using a standardized diagnostic tool developed by Drasch and
Doering.101,102 Severe cases were not included in the analysis of because severely
poisoned miners can no longer be employed. Cases in workers' families and
communities were also not considered.
19
In step 3, the burden of disease associated with moderate mercury poisoning among
miners was quantified in each country and globally by multiplying the number
of prevalent cases by the appropriate disability weight and the number of miners. No
mortality was assumed in this analysis, and therefore the estimated burden of disease is
based solely on Years Lived with Disability (YLDs).
In future iterations, this methodology will be expanded to include severe cases of
mercury poisoning caused by elemental mercury in artisanal and small-scale gold
mining as well as community cases.
Note that the totals for air pollution, water pollution and all pollution are less than the arithmetic sum of the individual risk factors within each of these categories due to overlapping contributions e.g. household air pollution also contributes to ambient air pollution and vice versa.
Table 1. Global estimated deaths (millions) by pollution risk factor and region, 2015103
Household
Air Pollution
Ambient Particulate Pollution
Total Air
Total Water Occupation Total
Lead Total
Africa 0.6 0.3 0.8 0.7 0.03 0.02 1.4
Eastern Mediterranean 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.03 0.1 0.7
Europe 0.1 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.8
Americas 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5
South East Asia 1.3 1.4 2.3 0.8 0.2 0.1 3.2
Western Pacific 0.7 1.3 1.9 0.1 0.4 0.1 2.2
20
Section 2
2A. Measurement of Productivity Losses
A. Methodology
We estimate the present discounted value of the loss in GDP attributable to premature deaths associated with each pollutant. The loss in GDP in the present year if a worker dies, I(0), is equal to labor’s share of GDP (s) multiplied by GDP, divided by the number of persons who are employed (e). To measure the loss in GDP if a person of working age dies, we weight I(0) by the fraction of persons of working age who are employed, i.e., by e divided by the working age population of the county, WPop. The loss in GDP in the current year if a person of working age dies is therefore given by
(A.1) I′(0) = [sGDP/e][e/WPop],
which may be written as the product of labor’s share of GDP times per capita GDP, divided by the fraction of the country’s population that is of working age,
(A.2) I′(0) = s[GDP/Pop] / [Wpop/Pop].
If a person of working age dies in the current year, their contribution to GDP will be lost for all future years of their working life. To compute the value of GDP lost in future years we assume that GDP per capita in country i grows at rate gi. If labor’s share of GDP and the fraction of population of working age remain constant, this implies that lost GDP t years hence will equal I′(0)(1+gi)t. This must be weighted by the probability that an individual would have survived to year t. We therefore weight the loss in GDP in future years by the probability that an individual who dies this year would have survived to each future year of his working life.
To discount the value of GDP lost t years in the future to the current year we use the Ramsey formula, which forms the basis for discounting future benefits and costs in many economic applications104 and now forms the basis for discounting project benefits by the World Bank.105 The formula says that the rate at which future losses should be discounted in country i, ri, equals society’s pure rate of time preference (di) plus the rate of growth in per capita GDP (gi) multiplied by a term that measures how the value of additional output declines as output grows. If we assume that the latter term equals 1,
(A.3) ri = di + gi .
When equation (A.3) is used to discount future GDP losses, which are growing at rate gi, the rate of increase in per capita GDP cancels out the gi term in the discount rate and the discount rate reduces to di. We assume that the pure rate of time preference is
21
constant for all countries, and use d = 3.0 for our base case and d = 1.5 as a sensitivity analysis. A value of d = 3 is consistent with the World Bank’s choice of a discount rate of 6% when the rate of growth in per capita income is 3% .105
B. Data
For each country and source of pollution we compute the present value of GDP lost due to premature mortality for persons who die between the ages of 15 and 64. We assume that a person’s contribution to GDP continues until age 65; i.e., the present value of lost GDP is calculated from the current age through age 64. This is consistent with international practice that views the working age population as extending from age 15 to age 64. For a child who dies before age 15 we discount the present value of lost GDP beginning at age 15 to the present.
Data on GDP per capita, population and working-age population come from the World Bank World Development Indicators.106,107 Labor’s share of GDP is taken from the World Bank.108 Survival probabilities are calculated from country-specific life tables provided by IHME.
C. Results
Table A.1 which reports productivity losses in dollar terms, by pollutant and WB income group, indicates that productivity losses are greatest in dollar terms for AAP—approximately $51.6 billion in 2015.1 More adults of working age die due to AAP than any other category of pollutant studied (see Table A.2). While it is true that there are more child deaths for other pollutant categories, it is many years before children reached working age; hence their future output is more heavily discounted than the future output of persons who die between 15 and 64. Half of deaths due to AAP occur in High and Upper Middle income countries, which have higher per capita GDP. It is, therefore perhaps not surprising that over 75% of the productivity losses due to AAP occur in High and Upper Middle income countries (see Table A.3).
HAP results in reductions in future GDP equal to $20.5 billion in 2015. HAP results in fewer deaths than AAP and 74% of deaths due to HAP occur in Low and Low Middle income countries, which have lower GDP per person of working age than in higher income countries. This results in lower dollar productivity losses. Overall, 90% of the dollar value of productivity losses due to HAP occur in Low Middle and Upper Middle income countries (Table A.3) with India and China accounting for 23% and 30% of lost GDP associated with HAP.
1 Thesumofproductivitylossesfromthefivepollutantcategoriesis65.970(AAP)+23.646(WSH)+3.045billion(Lead).
22
According to the GBD103 deaths due to unsafe water and unsafe sanitation combined are lower than either deaths due to AAP or HAP; moreover, these deaths occur primarily in Low and Low Middle income countries. It is therefore not surprising that productivity losses from unsafe water and sanitation are lower than losses due to air pollution. In 2015 losses due to unsafe water were $16.5 billion and losses due to unsafe sanitation $10 billion; the losses due to both risk factors together was $23.6 billion. In Low income countries, however, losses due to unsafe water and sanitation are greater than losses due to air pollution. The larger productivity losses reflect the age distribution of deaths due to unsafe water and sanitation (Table A.2): only 33% of deaths due to lack of safe water and sanitation occur after age 64. The larger number of YLLs below age 65 gives rise to larger productivity losses. Given that fact that over 90% of deaths due to unsafe water and sanitation occur in Low and Low Middle income countries,103 it is not surprising that these countries account for 87% of the productivity losses associated with unsafe water and 91% of the productivity losses due to unsafe sanitation (Table A.3).
The $3 billion in productivity losses associated with lead reported in Table A.1 represent the deaths of adults of working age primarily from cardiovascular disease. Close to 70% of these deaths occur in Low and Low Middle income countries, which together account for approximately 23% of productivity losses. About a third of deaths of people under 65 due to lead exposure occur in Upper Middle income countries which account for roughly a third of productivity losses due to lead.
Table A.4 displays productivity losses due to pollution as a fraction of GDP. Productivity losses due to pollution are greatest as a percent of GDP in Low and Low Middle income countries. In our preferred specification (d = 3%), all five pollution categories together account for productivity losses equal to 1.3% of GDP in Low Income and 0.61% of GDP in Low-Middle income countries. The largest sources of productivity losses in these countries are lack of access to safe water and sanitation and the use of solid fuels for cooking. Productivity losses are greatest in dollar terms for High and Upper Middle income countries (Table A.1), but remain small as a percent of GDP (Table A.4). Productivity losses from all sources are only 0.05% of GDP in high income countries and 0.15% of income in Upper Middle income countries. Ambient air pollution is the largest source of productivity losses in both High and Upper Middle countries, although household air pollution is also important in Upper Middle income countries.
Using a lower discount rate significantly increases the magnitude of productivity losses. We use as a sensitivity analysis a pure rate of time preference of 1.5%. This implies that, if per capita GDP were growing at 2%—the current rate in many high income countries—the discount rate applied to future earnings would be 3.5%. This, coincidentally, is the forward rate used by the UK government in evaluating project over the next 30 years.109 This discount rate raises productivity damages for all pollution
23
categories. Total productivity losses worldwide rise from $93 billion to $114 billion. The percent of GDP lost due to premature deaths increases to 1.90 % in Low and 0.82% in Low Middle income countries.
Results by WHO Region
Tables A.5 and A.6 summarize productivity losses by WHO region. Table A.5 shows the percent of productivity losses by pollutant accounted for by each of the six regions. Table A.6 presents productivity losses as a percent of GDP for each region. Europe, the Western Pacific region and the Americas account for 74% of productivity losses due to AAP. The Western Pacific region has second largest number of deaths due to AAP (after South-East Asia), so it is not surprising that it accounts for a large share (28%) of productivity losses. Europe and the Americas combined have significantly fewer deaths than South Asia, but much higher per capita GDP, which accounts for the higher productivity losses in these regions. The majority of productivity losses due to HAP occur in the Western Pacific (34%) and Southeast Asia (31%) regions, followed by Africa (22%), mirroring the pattern of deaths by WHO region, but reflecting the higher average per capita GDP in the Western Pacific. Productivity losses in Africa and Southeast Asia account for the highest percent of productivity losses worldwide from lack of access to safe water and sanitation, while Europe and the Americas account for over half of the productivity losses from premature mortality due to lead exposure.
Losses as a percent of GDP (Table A.6) are highest in Africa (0.92% of GDP), reflecting the large burden imposed by lack of access to safe water and sanitation, but also a considerable burden from household air pollution. Interestingly, productivity losses due to AAP, as a percent of GDP, are higher in Africa than in Europe and the Americas. Productivity losses due to pollution are 0.55% of GDP in Southeast Asia. This reflects a multiplicity of pollution problems—household air pollution, ambient air pollution but also lack of access to safe water and sanitation.
Uncertainties in the Estimates
Our productivity estimates depend on a number of assumptions, which, if changed, would alter the estimates. For simplicity, we assume that labor’s share of GDP in each country remains constant over time at its current value. We also assume that the country-specific life tables remain constant over the period of the analysis, which for children is up to 60 years. This will understate losses in low and low-middle income countries, where survival probabilities are likely to increase in the future.
24
Our assumption that working age ends at 64 is also likely to understate estimates of productivity losses. In equation (A.2), raising the working age will raise the ratio of the working age population to total population, which will lower I’(0). At the same time, the number of years of working life over which productivity losses are computed will increase for all persons who die prematurely from pollution-related illnesses, and the number of these persons will also increase. The latter two effects are likely to outweigh the first. We therefore view our estimates of productivity losses as a conservative one.
25
2B. Willingness to Pay to Avoid Premature Mortality
A. Methodology
The willingness to pay (WTP) approach captures individuals’ preferences for avoiding increases in risk of death by analyzing their behavior in risky situations (the revealed preference approach) or in hypothetical choice situations involving changes in their risk of death (the stated preference approach).110 An example of the former approach is a labor market study of jobs with different mortality risks, in which the analyst uses knowledge of those different risks and the wages that different jobs command to derive a wage premium (the willingness to be paid) for bearing extra risk.111 A good example of the latter is a survey that asks participants to choose among several hypothetical situations where mortality risks can be reduced at a cost.112
Either of these approaches yield values consistent with the centrality of individual preferences in modern welfare economics, in contrast to the productivity approach discussed above, which is regarded as embedded in WTP values. The amount that a person would pay (or accept) in exchange for a small change in risk of death should reflect losses in output when the individual dies—losses that may exceed the person’s contribution to GDP. WTP should also reflect the utility received from living, and should therefore exceed the value of productivity losses.2
The value of mortality risk reductions is typically expressed in terms of the Value per Statistical Life (VSL)—the sum of what people would pay for small risk reductions that sum to one statistical life saved. To illustrate, if each of 10,000 people were willing to pay $100 over the coming year to reduce their risk of dying by 1 in 10,000 during this period, on average, one statistical life would be saved and the VSL would equal $100x10,000 or $1,000,000. To evaluate WTP to reduce risk of death by 1 in 10,000, one would multiply the VSL by .0001.
There is a large literature using revealed and stated preference approaches to estimating the VSL, primarily in OECD countries but also in middle income countries.112,113 Because many countries have no studies representing preferences of their population towards reducing risk of death, analysts typically transfer estimates from one country (a base country) to other countries, adjusting for differences in per capita income.113 This adjustment is made using equation (B.1), where Y denotes per capita income and ε denotes the elasticity of the VSL with respect to income.
(B.1) VSLTransfer = VSLBase*(YTransfer/YBase)ε
2WTPmaynotreflectcoststothirdpartiesassociatedwithanindividual’sdeath.
26
We select a base VSL based on a meta-analysis of stated-preference studies reported in OECD.114 This meta-analysis forms the basis of the VSL used by the OECD for policy analysis and is also the basis of VSL transfers by the International Monetary Fund in their computation of health-based fuel taxes.115 It is the same baseline value used in the IHME-World Bank study The Cost of Air Pollution.116 The base VSL is $3.83 million international dollars. In transferring the VSL to other countries, per capita income is usually measured in international (i.e., in purchasing power parity or PPP) dollars. We measure per capita incomes using 2015 Gross National Income (GNI) in PPP dollars from the World Development Indicators. This implies that the VSL is also measured in PPP terms. Because the costs of pollution control projects are in general measured using market exchange rates, we convert the VSL to US dollars, using 2015 market exchange rates.
The elasticity of the VSL with respect to income (ε) represents the percentage change in the VSL for a one percent change in income (Y). If the VSL were proportional to income (i.e., if ε = 1) then the ratio of the VSL to income (Y) would be the same in all countries. Using the OECD VSL as a base value implies a ratio of VSL/Y of ~ 96:1. Studies in Low Middle income countries, however, suggest that the ratio of the VSL/Y falls as per capita income falls,113 implying a value of ε > 1. We therefore use a value of ε > 1 when transferring the base VSL to Low and Low Middle income countries. Studies in the United States, however, suggest a ratio of the VSL/Y that is greater than our base value, implying a value of ε < 1 for high income countries. We therefore use an ε < 1 when transferring the OECD value to countries with PPP incomes above the OECD average ($40,002 PPP).
Treatment of Age
We use the same VSL irrespective of age at death, and use the same VSL for children as for adults. The age distribution of deaths associated with pollution varies widely, raising the question of whether the same VSL should be used to evaluate the deaths of children and the elderly, who lose very different numbers of life years. There is limited and contradictory evidence that VSLs are lower for elderly people than for younger adults.117 In the case of children, the VSL should be based on parents’ WTP to reduce risks of death to their children. There is a growing literature on parents’ WTP however, it consists primarily of studies in high income countries.118 Because of the lack of studies in low and middle income countries and differences in child mortality between high and low income countries we do not attempt to transfer studies of parents’ WTP to reduce child mortality to low and middle income countries.
B. Results
Table B.1 shows country-specific VSLs obtained by transferring the OECD base VSL of $3.83 million ($2015) to countries based on the ratio of their PPP GNI to the
27
OECD GNI ($40,002). Transfers assume an elasticity of the VSL with respect to income of 0.8 for high income countries, 1.0 for high middle income countries and 1.2 for low middle and low income countries, as defined by the World Bank. These elasticities imply median ratios of VSL/Y of 97, 96, 64 and 50 for High, Upper Middle, Low Middle and Low income countries. Values are listed in both PPP and MER terms.
As a check on our results we compare the transferred VSL for China and India with the results of original VSL studies conducted in these countries. A recent study by Krupnick, Hoffman and Qin119 yields an estimate of the VSL for China in 2010 PPP terms of $1 million dollars, a value quite close to the transferred VSL reported in Table B.1. Estimates of the VSL for India vary by an order of magnitude—from $150,000120 to $1.5 million121 in PPP terms—but bracket the amount reported in Table B.1.
To generate values that could be used for policy evaluation we use the VSL to value the average risk of death associated with each pollutant in each country. The average risk of death from, e.g., AAP, is the estimated number of deaths due to AAP, divided by the size of the exposed population. Multiplying this by the country’s VSL provides an estimate of WTP to reduce the average risk of death from AAP.3 Equivalently, it is per capita WTP to eliminate deaths due to AAP. We perform similar calculations for each pollutant. Results are summarized, by World Bank income group in PPP terms in Table B.2, and in MER terms in Table B.3.4 Which set of numbers is relevant depends on the context. Expressing damages in PPP terms is useful for making comparisons across countries; however, when evaluating pollution control policies, values calculated using market exchange rates are appropriate if costs are also calculated using market exchange rates.
Table B.2 indicates that in Low income countries per capita WTP to eliminate deaths due to AAP is $34 in PPP terms and $13 at market exchange rates (MER). The figure is even higher for deaths due to unsafe water and unsafe sanitation and highest for HAP. In Low Middle income countries per capita WTP is highest for AAP ($85 MER), followed by HAP ($66 MER) and unsafe water ($39 MER). In Upper Middle income countries WTP per capita is also highest for AAP ($523 MER) followed by HAP ($214 MER) and lead ($47). This ranking is consistent with the ranking of pollutants in terms of deaths. Table B.4 presents per capita WTP by WHO region.
Aggregate Damages
3ThisisequivalenttocalculatingtheproductoftheVSLtimesthenumberofAAPdeathsandthendividingbytheexposedpopulation;i.e.,itisequivalenttoexpressingVSLdamagesinpercapitaterms.4Theaverageforeachincomegroupandpollutantiscomputedas∑iVSLi(Deathsi)]/∑iExposedPopulationiforallcountriesiintheincomegroup.
28
Table B.5 presents per capita WTP aggregated across the exposed population—i.e., deaths per pollutant multiplied by the VSL. When aggregated across the exposed populations of low and low middle income countries the VSL yields much higher benefits than indicated by the productivity losses discussed above. To illustrate, aggregate WTP to eliminate deaths due to either APP or HAP in low income countries is approximately 8 times as large as the productivity losses estimated in Table 1 of the main text. This reflects the fact that productivity losses ascribe no value to the deaths of persons over age 64, who constitute a high fraction of air pollution deaths. In the case of Low Middle income countries aggregate WTP to eliminate deaths due to AAP or HAP is approximately 20 times the value of productivity losses. Added across all countries and income groups the social value of eliminating all deaths due to the five pollution categories we consider is approximately $4.6 billion, or approximately 6.2% of 2015 global GDP.
Uncertainties in the Estimates
Extrapolating estimates of the VSL from high- to low- and middle-income countries involves many judgment calls, both in the choice of a base VSL value to be transferred and in the choice of income elasticities to be used in the transfer. Our choice of the base VSL matches the one used in the World Bank-IHME study The Cost of Pollution116 as do the income elasticities that we use for the transfer. Arguments could be made for choosing a higher baseline VSL122 and also higher income elasticities.123 Our goal, however, is to match the VSL/Y ratio implied by the joint choice of baseline VSL and income elasticities to VSL/Y estimates in the literature.113 A higher baseline VSL will, other things equal, require a higher income elasticity when transferring the VSL to lower income countries in order to achieve a given VSL/Y ratio. We view our VSL transfer as a conservative one, which yields median VSL/Y ratios of 64:1 for low-middle income countries and 50:1 for low-income countries.
Comparison with IHME-World Bank Estimates
Although our methodology for measuring welfare losses is identical to that used in The Cost of Pollution care must be taken in comparing results from the two studies. The Cost of Pollution evaluates health risks from the 2013 GBD, whereas we evaluate risks from the 2015 GBD. We translate all values into 2015 USD using market exchange rates, whereas values are reported in 2011 purchasing power parity (PPP) dollars in The Cost of Pollution. Our estimate of the welfare costs from ambient and household air pollution in 2013, using 2013 GBD health risks and purchasing power dollars is $5.16 billion compared to $5.07 billion in The Cost of Pollution.
29
2C. Measurement of Health Expenditures Attributable to Pollution
Healthcare expenditures account for a sizeable fraction of world GDP. The fraction of GDP spent on healthcare in 2013 ranged from 12% in high income countries to 5% in Low and Low-Middle income countries (see Table C.1). The amount of this expenditure associated with pollution constitutes an additional economic burden which we attempt to quantify.
To estimate health care expenditures associated with pollution requires estimating expenditures associated with each disease affected by pollution and then attributing a portion of expenditure on the disease to pollution. Table C.2 shows the diseases underlying the IHME estimates of deaths due to pollution in 2015.124 For AAP and HAP estimates of deaths are based on integrated exposure response functions for ischemic heart disease (IHD) and stroke, lower respiratory infections, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and cancers of the lung, bronchus and trachea. Cardiovascular disease (IHD and ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke) accounts for 53% of AAP deaths and 46% of HAP deaths worldwide. Lower respiratory infections and COPD account for 49% of HAP deaths and 40% of AAP deaths. Cardiovascular disease is responsible for the majority of deaths associated with lead exposure. Deaths due to lack of safe water and sanitation are due primarily to diarrhea (88-89%), with the remainder attributed to typhoid and paratyphoid fever.
Table C.3 shows the percent of DALYs attributable to AAP and HAP combined, by disease and WB income group. AAP and HAP together are estimated to cause about 40% of DALYs due to IHD and stroke in Low income and about 30% of DALYs due to IHD and stroke in Low-Middle income countries. AAP and HAP together account for over 50% of DALYs due to COPD in Low and Low Middle income countries. The percent of IHD, stroke and COPD deaths attributed to air pollution is somewhat lower in Upper Middle income countries, but is still substantial.
Table C.4 shows the percent of DALYs attributable to unsafe water and unsafe sanitation combined. The IMHE attributes virtually all DALYs associated with diarrhea to unsafe water and sanitation in low and middle income countries: 97% in Low, 96% in Low Middle and 92% in Upper Middle income countries. This is likewise true for typhoid and paratyphoid fever.
In the case of lead exposure (Table C.5) most DALYs are associated with cardiovascular disease in adults. Lead exposure is, however, also associated with chronic kidney disease and accounts for 19% of the DALYs associated with idiopathic intellectual disability in Low income countries. Table C.6 summarizes the percent of DALYs attributable to each risk factor, by World Bank income group.
30
The fraction of DALYs, by disease, attributable to each pollutant is similar to the percent of deaths attributable to each pollutant. This is due to the fact that the DALYs attributed to each pollutant are primarily life years lost (YLLs). Worldwide, 97% of the DALYs associated with AAP are YLLs. The figure is slightly lower for HAP (93%), which includes YLDs due to cataracts. Approximately 92% of the DALYs associated with unsafe water, unsafe sanitation and lead exposure are YLLs. Thus, while a significant fraction of DALYs by disease are attributable to pollution, it is not clear that this attributable fraction will equal the fraction of disease expenditures attributable to pollution.
To investigate the relationships between DALYs by disease as estimated by the IHME125 and health expenditures, we examine health expenditures by disease category for countries for which these data are available.5 In the United States the Bureau of Economic Analysis has provided this information since 2010.126 Other OECD countries127 also provide such information. Table C.7 summarizes expenditures on cancer, cardiovascular diseases and respiratory diseases, as a percent of total health expenditures, for seven OECD countries. Taking an arithmetic average across countries, cancer accounts for approximately 7% of total health expenditures, cardiovascular disease for approximately 12% and respiratory illness approximately 6% of total health expenditures.6
Table C.7 also compares the percent of a country’s DALYs associated with each disease category as estimated by IHME with the percent of heath care expenditure on that disease category. As Table C.7 indicates, the fraction of DALYs attributable to each disease category in general differs from the fraction of expenditures attributable to the disease. In general, DALYs lost due to cancer exceed the percent of health care expenditures allocated to cancer. The same is true for cardiovascular disease (CVD). For respiratory illness, where DALYs are more evenly divided between YLLs and YLDs, the fraction of DALYs attributable to respiratory illnesses is approximately equal to the fraction of health care expenditures associated with these illnesses.
Table C.7 can be used to calculate an average cost per DALY for cancer, CVD and respiratory illness based on the seven OECD countries in the table.7 If these weights are applied to the DALYs attributable to the specific diseases in Table C.3 for high income countries, the total expenditure associated with air pollution in high income countries is approximately $103 billion, or 1.7% of total health care expenditures. This is
5Thisanalysisisconductedusinghealthexpendituredatafor2013,as2015datawerenotavailableatthetimeoftheanalysis.Wethereforecomparehealthexpendituresin2013withDALYsbycauseforthesameyear(2013).6Asnotedinthetable,thesumofhealthexpendituresallocatedtovariousdiseasesisonaverage79%oftotalhealthexpenditures.Respiratorydiseaseincludesbothchronicrespiratorydiseaseandlowerrespiratoryinfection.7ThecostperDALYforcancer=(Totalhealthexpenditure/TotalDALYs)*(0.07/0.18).Forhighincomecountries,this=($5,932billion/365.0millionDALYs)*0.39.
31
clearly an approximation—the cancer weight based on Table C.7 may not apply to all cancers, and likewise for individual cardiovascular diseases; however, it provides an order of magnitude estimate of medical expenditures associated with air pollution in High income countries.
To estimate the healthcare expenditures associated with pollution in Low and Middle income countries requires estimates of expenditures by disease in those countries. Sri Lanka is the only such country for which we were able to find medical expenditures by disease category. As Table C.7 indicates, the percent of healthcare expenditure on cancer and CVD in Sri Lanka is much lower than in the OECD countries in the table, while the percent spent on respiratory illness is much higher. The associated weights attached to cancer, CVD and respiratory illness thus differ from those based on the OECD country averages. Calculating healthcare expenditures for lack of access to safe water and sanitation would require similar expenditure data on diarrheal disease and typhoid fever. We do not attempt to quantify the fraction of health care expenditures due to pollution in Low and Middle income countries due to lack of data on health care expenditures by disease in these countries.
32
Table A.1 – Productivity Losses by Pollutant and World Bank Income Group (billions 2015 USD)
World Bank Income Region
Ambient Air
Pollution (AAP)
Household Air
Pollution (HAP)
Unsafe Water
Source Unsafe
Sanitation Lead
Exposure AAP and
HAP Combined
Unsafe Water and Sanitation Combined1
High income 20.059 0.188 0.063 0.006 1.245 20.125 1.265 Upper middle income 19.393 8.390 2.014 0.881 1.077 25.396 3.816
Lower middle income 11.216 10.145 12.457 7.651 0.680 18.144 15.952
Low income 0.945 1.820 1.955 1.459 0.043 2.304 2.613
Total 51.613 20.545 16.489 9.996 3.045 65.970 23.646 1Includes no handwashing with soap.
Table A.2 – Pollution Deaths by Pollutant and Age at Death
Risk factor 0-14 15-64 65+ Total
Ambient Air Pollution (AAP) 222,000 1,391,000 2,882,000 4,495,000
Household Air Pollution (HAP) 319,000 942,000 1,593,000 2,854,000
AAP and HAP Combined 449,000 2,044,000 3,993,000 6,485,000 Unsafe Water Source 565,000 326,000 360,000 1,251,000
Unsafe Sanitation 370,000 209,000 229,000 808,000
Unsafe Water and Sanitation Combined1 749,000 442,000 576,000 1,767,000 Lead Exposure 0 123,000 372,000 495,000
33
1Includes no handwashing with soap. Table A.3 – Percent of Productivity Losses by Pollutant and World Bank Income Group
World Bank Income Region Ambient Air
Pollution (AAP)
Household Air Pollution
(HAP) Unsafe Water
Source Unsafe
Sanitation Lead
Exposure
High income 38.9% 0.917% 0.383% 0.0587% 40.9%
Upper middle income 37.6% 40.8% 12.2% 8.81% 35.4%
Lower middle income 21.7% 49.4% 75.5% 76.5% 22.3%
Low income 1.83% 8.86% 11.9% 14.6% 1.42%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Table A.4 – Productivity Losses as a Percent of GDP by Pollutant and World Bank Income Group
World Bank Income Region
Ambient Air
Pollution (AAP)
Household Air
Pollution (HAP)
Unsafe Water
Source Unsafe
Sanitation Lead
Exposure AAP and
HAP Combined
Unsafe Water and Sanitation Combined1
High income 0.044% 0.0068% 0.0023% 0.00021% 0.0027% 0.044% 0.0028% Upper middle income 0.098% 0.042% 0.0101% 0.0044% 0.0054% 0.13% 0.019%
Lower middle income 0.197% 0.18% 0.22% 0.13% 0.012% 0.32% 0.28%
Low income 0.25% 0.49% 0.52% 0.39% 0.012% 0.62% 0.699%
Total 0.072% 0.072% 0.057% 0.035% 0.0042% 0.092% 0.033% 1Includes no handwashing with soap.
34
Table A.5 – Percent of Productivity Losses by Pollutant and WHO Region
WHO Region Ambient Air
Pollution (AAP)
Household Air Pollution
(HAP)
Unsafe Water
Source Unsafe
Sanitation Lead
Exposure
African Region 5.36% 22.03% 41.7% 46.96% 2.19%
Eastern Mediterranean Region 6.38% 4.996% 8.81% 6.16% 9.46%
European Region 22.8% 4.14% 0.639% 0.444% 24.5%
Region of the Americas 22.9% 4.27% 3.77% 2.19% 29.7%
South-East Asia Region 14.6% 30.99% 40.8% 41.04% 14.02%
Western Pacific Region 27.9% 33.6% 4.34% 3.198% 20.1%
Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Table A.6 – Productivity Losses as a Percent of GDP by Pollutant and WHO Region
WHO Region Ambient
Air Pollution
(AAP)
Household Air
Pollution (HAP)
Unsafe Water
Source
Unsafe Sanitatio
n Lead
Exposure
AAP and HAP
Combined
Unsafe Water and
Sanitation
Combined1
African Region 0.17% 0.28% 0.42% 0.29% 0.0041% 0.38% 0.54%
Eastern Mediterranean 0.11% 0.035% 0.049% 0.021% 0.0098% 0.13% 0.066%
35
Region
European Region 0.058% 0.022% 0.0027% 0.0011% 0.0037% 0.061% 0.0043%
Region of the Americas 0.049% 0.018% 0.013% 0.0046% 0.0037% 0.051% 0.0075%
South-East Asia Region 0.203% 0.17% 0.18% 0.11% 0.012% 0.31% 0.23%
Western Pacific Region 0.076% 0.059% 0.0061% 0.0027% 0.0032% 0.101% 0.0079%
Total 0.072% 0.072% 0.057% 0.035% 0.0042% 0.092% 0.033% 1Includes no handwashing with soap. Table B.1 – VSL Values Transferred from OECD to Low and Middle Income Countries
World Bank Income Region VSL (PPP) VSL (MER)
Upper middle income (ε=1) 1,351,932 628,093
Lower middle income (ε=1.2) 342,554 145,345
Low income (ε=1.2) 80,473 31,686
India (ε=1.2) 394,657 104,237
China (ε=1) 1,355,761 748,733 Table B.2 – VSL Damages Per Capita by Pollutant and World Bank Income Group (PPP)
World Bank Income Region Ambient Air
Pollution (AAP)
Household Air Pollution
(HAP) Unsafe Water
Source Unsafe
Sanitation Lead
Exposure
High income 1,615 178 21 2 283
36
Upper middle income 996 394 25 10 94
Lower middle income 285 218 122 74 32
Low income 34 59 38 29 3
Average 732 274 71 41 92 Table B.3 – VSL Damages Per Capita by Pollutant and World Bank Income Group (MER)
World Bank Income Region Ambient Air
Pollution (AAP)
Household Air Pollution
(HAP) Unsafe Water
Source Unsafe
Sanitation Lead
Exposure
High income 1,472 98 11 1 264
Upper middle income 523 214 13 5 47
Lower middle income 85 66 39 23 10
Low income 13 23 15 11 1
Average 459 123 25 14 64 Table B.4 – VSL Damages Per Capita by Pollutant and WHO Region (MER)
WHO Region Ambient Air
Pollution (AAP)
Household Air Pollution
(HAP) Unsafe Water
Source Unsafe
Sanitation Lead
Exposure
African Region 47 52 51 33 4 Eastern Mediterranean Region 168 26 18 7 31
37
European Region 1,168 102 4 1 212
Region of the Americas 715 69 21 6 142
South-East Asia Region 96 74 38 23 9
Western Pacific Region 659 281 5 2 48
Average 459 123 25 14 64 Table B.5 – VSL Damages by Pollutant and World Bank Income Group (MER, billions)
World Bank Income Region
Ambient Air
Pollution (AAP)
Household Air
Pollution (HAP)
Lead Exposure
AAP and HAP
Combined
Unsafe Water and Sanitation Combined1
High income 1,693 15 303 1,691 159 Upper middle income 1,309 535 118 1,691 89
Lower middle income 240 185 28 367 143
Low income 7.6 14 0.7 18 12
Total 3,249 749 451 3,767 404 1Includes no handwashing with soap.
38
Table C.1 – 2013 Total Health Expenditures (THE) by World Bank Income Group
World Bank Income Region
Total, billions USD
As a Percent of the World THE
As a Percent of GDP
High income 5,932 81% 12% Upper middle income 1,131 15% 6%
Lower middle income 0.238 3% 5%
Low income 0.029 0.4% 5%
Total 7,330 100% 10% Table C.2 – Percent of Deaths Attributable to Pollution Globally, by Disease
Ambient
Air Pollution
(AAP)
Household Air
Pollution (HAP)
Unsafe Water
Source Unsafe
Sanitation Lead
Exposure
Lower respiratory infections 15% 26%
Tracheal, bronchus, and lung cancer 6% 5%
Ischemic heart disease 34% 27% 49%
Ischemic stroke 8% 7% 14%
Hemorrhagic stroke 11% 12% 18%
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 25% 23%
39
Diarrheal diseases 88% 89%
Typhoid fever 10% 9%
Paratyphoid fever 2% 2%
Hypertensive heart disease 10% Other cardiovascular and circulatory diseases 3%
Chronic kidney disease 6%
Total1 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1The parts may not add up to the total due to rounding. Table C.3 – DALYs Attributable to Air Pollution (AAP and HAP), by Disease and World Bank Income Group
High income Upper middle income
Lower middle income
Low income Global
Lower respiratory infections 12% 34% 57% 64% 53%
Tracheal, bronchus, and lung cancer 8% 29% 38% 48% 24%
Ischemic heart disease 13% 24% 35% 43% 28%
Ischemic stroke 9% 20% 28% 36% 22%
Hemorrhagic stroke 11% 24% 31% 37% 27% Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 16% 41% 52% 51% 44%
Cataract 0.019% 14% 25% 35% 19%
40
Table C.4 – DALYs Attributable to Unsafe Water and Sanitation, by Disease and World Bank Income Group
High income Upper middle income
Lower middle income
Low income Global
Diarrheal diseases 34% 92% 96% 97% 96%
Typhoid fever 83% 90% 95% 97% 95%
Paratyphoid fever 75% 90% 95% 97% 95% Table C.5 – DALYs Attributable to Lead Exposure, by Disease and World Bank Income Group
High income Upper middle income
Lower middle income
Low income Global
Ischemic heart disease 2% 2% 3% 3% 3%
Ischemic stroke 2% 2% 3% 3% 2%
Hemorrhagic stroke 2% 2% 3% 3% 3%
Hypertensive heart disease 4% 4% 5% 5% 4%
Rheumatic heart disease 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Cardiomyopathy and myocarditis 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Atrial fibrillation and flutter 2% 1% 2% 2% 2%
Aortic aneurysm 1% 1% 2% 2% 1%
Peripheral vascular disease 1% 1% 2% 1% 1%
41
Endocarditis 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Other cardiovascular and circulatory diseases 1% 1% 2% 2% 1%
Chronic kidney disease 2% 1% 2% 1% 2%
Idiopathic intellectual disability 4% 9% 15% 19% 12% Table C.6 – Percent of DALYs Attributable to Each Risk Factor, by World Bank Income Group
World Bank Income Region
Ambient Air
Pollution (AAP)
Household Air
Pollution (HAP)
Unsafe Water
Source Unsafe
Sanitation Lead
Exposure AAP and
HAP Combined
Unsafe Water and Sanitation Combined1
High income 2.3% 0.44% 0.12% 0.013% 0.32% 2.3% 0.18%
Upper middle income 4.8% 2.1% 0.44% 0.19% 0.39% 6.3% 0.78%
Lower middle income 5.0% 4.5% 4.4% 2.7% 0.43% 8.0% 5.6%
Low income 3.2% 6% 5.8% 4.4% 0.22% 7.7% 7.8%
Total 4.3% 3.5% 2.9% 1.9% 0.38% 6.8% 3.9% 1Includes no handwashing with soap.
42
Table C.7 – Percent of Total Health Expenditures (THE) and DALYs by Disease Category, 2013
% of THE
due to cancer
% of DALYs due to cancer
% of THE due to CVD
% of DALYs due to CVD
% of THE due to Resp
diseases
% of DALYs due to Resp
diseases
Disease expenditure
/ THE
France 5% 20% 9% 13% 6% 5% 82%
Germany 6% 17% 12% 18% 4% 5% 79%
Hungary 7% 20% 16% 24% 5% 5% 88%
Korea 10% 18% 11% 12% 10% 5% 85%
Netherlands 4% 21% 7% 14% 3% 7% 62%
Slovenia 8% 18% 14% 17% 6% 5% 85%
United States 7% 15% 13% 16% 8% 7% 72% Average (w/o Sri Lanka) 7% 18% 12% 16% 6% 6% 79%
Sri Lanka 3% 1% 7% 19% 14% 10% 83%
Productivity Losses as a Percentage of GDP by Pollutant
3%DiscountRate 1.5%DiscountRate
Country
WorldBank
IncomeGroup
AAPandHAP
Combined
UWandUS
Combined
LeadExposure Total
AAPandHAP
Combined
UWandUS
Combined
LeadExposure Total
AntiguaandBarbuda H 0.0461% 0.0181% 0.0033% 0.0674%
0.0531% 0.0256% 0.0035% 0.0822%
Australia H 0.0135% 0.0011% 0.0031% 0.0176%
0.0149% 0.0014% 0.0033% 0.0196%
Austria H 0.0419% 0.0011% 0.0013% 0.0442%
0.0457% 0.0014% 0.0014% 0.0485%
Bahrain H 0.0503% 0.0062% 0.0003% 0.0568%
0.0582% 0.0085% 0.0003% 0.0670%
Barbados H 0.0795% 0.0205% 0.0048% 0.1048%
0.0901% 0.0272% 0.0052% 0.1224%
Belgium H 0.0517% 0.0027% 0.0048% 0.0591%
0.0563% 0.0032% 0.0051% 0.0646%
Brunei H 0.0155% 0.0028% 0.0003% 0.0186%
0.0176% 0.0038% 0.0004% 0.0218%
Canada H 0.0230% 0.0016% 0.0010% 0.0256%
0.0251% 0.0019% 0.0011% 0.0281%
Chile H 0.0356% 0.0031% 0.0007% 0.0394%
0.0399% 0.0040% 0.0008% 0.0447%
Croatia H 0.1096% 0.0031% 0.0059% 0.1186%
0.1193% 0.0037% 0.0063% 0.1294%
Cyprus H 0.0455% 0.0016% 0.0034% 0.0505%
0.0503% 0.0021% 0.0036% 0.0560%
CzechRepublic H 0.0707% 0.0046% 0.0016% 0.0769%
0.0769% 0.0054% 0.0017% 0.0840%
Denmark H 0.0372% 0.0021% 0.0016% 0.0410%
0.0405% 0.0026% 0.0017% 0.0448%
Estonia H 0.0635% 0.0055% 0.0070% 0.0759%
0.0692% 0.0064% 0.0074% 0.0830%
Finland H 0.0275% 0.0009% 0.0008% 0.0292%
0.0298% 0.0010% 0.0009% 0.0317%
France H 0.0368% 0.0024% 0.0024% 0.0416%
0.0403% 0.0028% 0.0025% 0.0457%
Germany H 0.0484% 0.0021% 0.0018% 0.0523%
0.0528% 0.0024% 0.0019% 0.0571%
Greece H 0.0615% 0.0012% 0.0045% 0.0672%
0.0682% 0.0014% 0.0049% 0.0745%
Hungary H 0.1450% 0.0038% 0.0075% 0.1563%
0.1580% 0.0047% 0.0081% 0.1707%
Iceland H 0.0247% 0.0024% 0.0019% 0.0290%
0.0272% 0.0029% 0.0020% 0.0322%
Ireland H 0.0278% 0.0018% 0.0021% 0.0317%
0.0307% 0.0022% 0.0023% 0.0351%
Israel H 0.0284% 0.0020% 0.0008% 0.0311%
0.0316% 0.0025% 0.0008% 0.0349%
Italy H 0.0392% 0.0010% 0.0028% 0.0430%
0.0431% 0.0012% 0.0030% 0.0473%
Japan H 0.0296% 0.0020% 0.0007% 0.0322%
0.0328% 0.0023% 0.0007% 0.0358%
Kuwait H 0.0417% 0.0033% 0.0001% 0.0451%
0.0486% 0.0046% 0.0001% 0.0533%
Latvia H 0.1600% 0.0090% 0.0124% 0.1813%
0.1751% 0.0105% 0.0133% 0.1988%
Lithuania H 0.1394% 0.0080% 0.0102% 0.1576%
0.1533% 0.0094% 0.0110% 0.1737%
Luxembourg H 0.0273% 0.0014% 0.0008% 0.0295%
0.0300% 0.0018% 0.0009% 0.0327%
Netherlands H 0.0437% 0.0020% 0.0017% 0.0474%
0.0477% 0.0024% 0.0018% 0.0519%
NewZealand H 0.0135% 0.0010% 0.0025% 0.0170%
0.0149% 0.0013% 0.0026% 0.0189%
Norway H 0.0197% 0.0010% 0.0010% 0.0218%
0.0215% 0.0013% 0.0011% 0.0239%
Oman H 0.0426% 0.0076% 0.0013% 0.0514%
0.0496% 0.0099% 0.0014% 0.0608%
Poland H 0.1172% 0.0053% 0.0078% 0.1303%
0.1275% 0.0062% 0.0083% 0.1420%
Portugal H 0.0385% 0.0050% 0.0077% 0.0511%
0.0426% 0.0058% 0.0084% 0.0568%
Qatar H 0.0175% 0.0016% 0.0000% 0.0192%
0.0202% 0.0022% 0.0000% 0.0223%
SaudiArabia H 0.0604% 0.0091% 0.0024% 0.0718%
0.0690% 0.0124% 0.0026% 0.0840%
44
Seychelles H 0.0694% 0.0210% 0.0064% 0.0968%
0.0802% 0.0272% 0.0069% 0.1143%
Singapore H 0.0268% 0.0026% 0.0018% 0.0312%
0.0296% 0.0030% 0.0020% 0.0346%
Slovakia H 0.0866% 0.0066% 0.0047% 0.0979%
0.0950% 0.0081% 0.0050% 0.1081%
Slovenia H 0.0605% 0.0025% 0.0017% 0.0647%
0.0657% 0.0030% 0.0018% 0.0705%
SouthKorea H 0.0382% 0.0013% 0.0016% 0.0411%
0.0424% 0.0015% 0.0017% 0.0456%
Spain H 0.0336% 0.0021% 0.0034% 0.0390%
0.0372% 0.0024% 0.0037% 0.0433%
Sweden H 0.0145% 0.0012% 0.0007% 0.0165%
0.0158% 0.0015% 0.0008% 0.0182%
Switzerland H 0.0300% 0.0014% 0.0012% 0.0327%
0.0329% 0.0018% 0.0013% 0.0361%
TheBahamas H 0.0504% 0.0128% 0.0039% 0.0672%
0.0577% 0.0171% 0.0042% 0.0791%
TrinidadandTobago H 0.0498% 0.0114% 0.0011% 0.0623%
0.0560% 0.0157% 0.0012% 0.0729%
UnitedArabEmirates H 0.1440% 0.0055% 0.0004% 0.1499%
0.1648% 0.0069% 0.0004% 0.1721%
UnitedKingdom H 0.0424% 0.0027% 0.0022% 0.0473%
0.0467% 0.0033% 0.0024% 0.0523%
UnitedStates H 0.0500% 0.0035% 0.0038% 0.0573%
0.0548% 0.0041% 0.0040% 0.0629%
Uruguay H 0.0391% 0.0076% 0.0055% 0.0523%
0.0436% 0.0102% 0.0060% 0.0598%
Albania UM 0.0966% 0.0067% 0.0115% 0.1148%
0.1116% 0.0100% 0.0125% 0.1341%
Algeria UM 0.0392% 0.0181% 0.0038% 0.0611%
0.0462% 0.0264% 0.0042% 0.0768%
Angola UM 0.6215% 0.5794% 0.0077% 1.2086%
0.8641% 0.8500% 0.0085% 1.7226%
Argentina UM 0.0486% 0.0099% 0.0098% 0.0684%
0.0549% 0.0132% 0.0106% 0.0787%
Azerbaijan UM 0.0935% 0.0173% 0.0064% 0.1172%
0.1151% 0.0268% 0.0069% 0.1488%
Belarus UM 0.2372% 0.0076% 0.0249% 0.2697%
0.2594% 0.0089% 0.0267% 0.2950%
Belize UM 0.0996% 0.0385% 0.0036% 0.1418%
0.1205% 0.0549% 0.0040% 0.1794%
BosniaandHerzegovina UM 0.2321% 0.0036% 0.0286% 0.2643%
0.2561% 0.0047% 0.0310% 0.2919%
Botswana UM 0.1282% 0.1209% 0.0024% 0.2515%
0.1511% 0.1584% 0.0026% 0.3122%
Brazil UM 0.0855% 0.0289% 0.0047% 0.1191%
0.0984% 0.0403% 0.0051% 0.1438%
Bulgaria UM 0.1674% 0.0072% 0.0114% 0.1860%
0.1850% 0.0095% 0.0122% 0.2066%
China UM 0.1438% 0.0073% 0.0042% 0.1553%
0.1632% 0.0104% 0.0045% 0.1782%
Colombia UM 0.0522% 0.0166% 0.0022% 0.0711%
0.0621% 0.0242% 0.0024% 0.0887%
CostaRica UM 0.0452% 0.0115% 0.0039% 0.0606%
0.0515% 0.0162% 0.0042% 0.0719%
DominicanRepublic UM 0.0699% 0.0335% 0.0070% 0.1104%
0.0842% 0.0506% 0.0076% 0.1424%
Ecuador UM 0.0261% 0.0187% 0.0039% 0.0487%
0.0325% 0.0276% 0.0042% 0.0643%
EquatorialGuinea UM 0.5050% 0.2334% 0.0088% 0.7472%
0.6706% 0.3327% 0.0095% 1.0129%
Fiji UM 0.1823% 0.1039% 0.0110% 0.2972%
0.2152% 0.1455% 0.0121% 0.3729%
Gabon UM 0.1014% 0.0868% 0.0051% 0.1933%
0.1293% 0.1190% 0.0057% 0.2539%
Georgia UM 0.2059% 0.0093% 0.0189% 0.2341%
0.2315% 0.0132% 0.0205% 0.2652%
Grenada UM 0.0811% 0.0299% 0.0083% 0.1193%
0.0955% 0.0408% 0.0090% 0.1453%
Guyana UM 0.1275% 0.0687% 0.0176% 0.2138%
0.1458% 0.0984% 0.0190% 0.2632%
Iran UM 0.0627% 0.0078% 0.0138% 0.0843%
0.0719% 0.0108% 0.0151% 0.0978%
Iraq UM 0.1373% 0.0561% 0.0166% 0.2099%
0.1662% 0.0839% 0.0183% 0.2684%
Jamaica UM 0.0791% 0.0213% 0.0076% 0.1080%
0.0920% 0.0305% 0.0083% 0.1307%
Jordan UM 0.0752% 0.0189% 0.0005% 0.0945%
0.0918% 0.0279% 0.0005% 0.1202%
Kazakhstan UM 0.1591% 0.0151% 0.0097% 0.1840%
0.1822% 0.0212% 0.0106% 0.2140%
Lebanon UM 0.0623% 0.0071% 0.0024% 0.0718%
0.0704% 0.0098% 0.0027% 0.0829%
Macedonia UM 0.1877% 0.0054% 0.0098% 0.2030%
0.2095% 0.0079% 0.0106% 0.2280%
Malaysia UM 0.0929% 0.0387% 0.0026% 0.1342%
0.1051% 0.0497% 0.0028% 0.1576%
45
Maldives UM 0.0382% 0.0165% 0.0011% 0.0558%
0.0453% 0.0237% 0.0012% 0.0702%
Mauritius UM 0.0699% 0.0121% 0.0067% 0.0887%
0.0784% 0.0161% 0.0072% 0.1017%
Mexico UM 0.0453% 0.0183% 0.0027% 0.0662%
0.0542% 0.0260% 0.0029% 0.0831%
Montenegro UM 0.1769% 0.0028% 0.0092% 0.1889%
0.1952% 0.0037% 0.0099% 0.2087%
Namibia UM 0.2725% 0.3605% 0.0016% 0.6346%
0.3468% 0.5186% 0.0018% 0.8673%
Panama UM 0.0411% 0.0374% 0.0030% 0.0814%
0.0504% 0.0551% 0.0032% 0.1087%
Paraguay UM 0.1326% 0.0417% 0.0056% 0.1799%
0.1577% 0.0611% 0.0060% 0.2249%
Peru UM 0.0595% 0.0177% 0.0025% 0.0797%
0.0753% 0.0252% 0.0027% 0.1033%
Romania UM 0.1611% 0.0127% 0.0129% 0.1867%
0.1807% 0.0168% 0.0139% 0.2114%
Russia UM 0.2178% 0.0196% 0.0125% 0.2500%
0.2409% 0.0237% 0.0135% 0.2781%
SaintLucia UM 0.0567% 0.0207% 0.0049% 0.0823%
0.0660% 0.0288% 0.0053% 0.1001%SaintVincentandtheGrenadines UM 0.0753% 0.0307% 0.0096% 0.1157%
0.0869% 0.0436% 0.0104% 0.1409%
Serbia UM 0.2326% 0.0056% 0.0115% 0.2497%
0.2561% 0.0073% 0.0124% 0.2757%
SouthAfrica UM 0.1676% 0.1767% 0.0059% 0.3503%
0.2004% 0.2377% 0.0064% 0.4445%
Suriname UM 0.0974% 0.0449% 0.0073% 0.1495%
0.1147% 0.0660% 0.0079% 0.1886%
Thailand UM 0.1047% 0.0292% 0.0035% 0.1374%
0.1176% 0.0361% 0.0038% 0.1574%
Turkey UM 0.0587% 0.0097% 0.0050% 0.0734%
0.0675% 0.0139% 0.0055% 0.0868%
Turkmenistan UM 0.2176% 0.0633% 0.0159% 0.2968%
0.2755% 0.0973% 0.0175% 0.3904%
Armenia LM 0.1649% 0.0154% 0.0203% 0.2006%
0.1879% 0.0225% 0.0219% 0.2323%
Bangladesh LM 0.3930% 0.1700% 0.0228% 0.5857%
0.4880% 0.2427% 0.0253% 0.7560%
Bhutan LM 0.3760% 0.3359% 0.0070% 0.7190%
0.4609% 0.4738% 0.0078% 0.9425%
Bolivia LM 0.1307% 0.0811% 0.0087% 0.2206%
0.1673% 0.1233% 0.0096% 0.3002%
Cambodia LM 0.2959% 0.1279% 0.0051% 0.4289%
0.3711% 0.1837% 0.0056% 0.5604%
Cameroon LM 0.6723% 0.6503% 0.0049% 1.3275%
0.9359% 0.9612% 0.0054% 1.9026%
CapeVerde LM 0.1572% 0.0943% 0.0041% 0.2556%
0.1953% 0.1326% 0.0045% 0.3325%
Congo LM 0.4097% 0.2686% 0.0131% 0.6913%
0.5340% 0.3760% 0.0145% 0.9245%
Coted'Ivoire LM 0.6540% 0.6677% 0.0055% 1.3273%
0.8948% 0.9770% 0.0061% 1.8779%
Djibouti LM 0.4751% 0.5932% 0.0588% 1.1270%
0.6284% 0.8310% 0.0657% 1.5251%
Egypt LM 0.1798% 0.0636% 0.0212% 0.2647%
0.2239% 0.0980% 0.0232% 0.3451%
ElSalvador LM 0.0943% 0.0301% 0.0068% 0.1312%
0.1131% 0.0411% 0.0075% 0.1617%
FederatedStatesofMicronesia LM 0.1512% 0.0496% 0.0039% 0.2048%
0.1751% 0.0667% 0.0043% 0.2461%
Ghana LM 0.3857% 0.2121% 0.0042% 0.6020%
0.4950% 0.3007% 0.0046% 0.8003%
Guatemala LM 0.2148% 0.1833% 0.0033% 0.4014%
0.2952% 0.2705% 0.0036% 0.5693%
Honduras LM 0.1958% 0.0987% 0.0120% 0.3066%
0.2367% 0.1418% 0.0132% 0.3917%
India LM 0.4078% 0.3245% 0.0116% 0.7439%
0.4992% 0.4525% 0.0127% 0.9644%
Indonesia LM 0.1789% 0.1374% 0.0134% 0.3298%
0.2106% 0.1909% 0.0147% 0.4163%
Kenya LM 0.4920% 0.9555% 0.0024% 1.4498%
0.6897% 1.3295% 0.0026% 2.0218%
Kiribati LM 0.1930% 0.1986% 0.0168% 0.4084%
0.2338% 0.2806% 0.0186% 0.5329%
Kyrgyzstan LM 0.2595% 0.0684% 0.0317% 0.3596%
0.3208% 0.1058% 0.0347% 0.4612%
Laos LM 0.4590% 0.2850% 0.0054% 0.7494%
0.6215% 0.4296% 0.0060% 1.0571%
Lesotho LM 0.5955% 0.8835% 0.0046% 1.4836%
0.7571% 1.2235% 0.0050% 1.9856%
Mauritania LM 0.3590% 0.4082% 0.0019% 0.7691%
0.4937% 0.6051% 0.0021% 1.1009%
Moldova LM 0.1769% 0.0190% 0.0344% 0.2303%
0.1967% 0.0241% 0.0370% 0.2579%
Mongolia LM 0.3699% 0.0262% 0.0309% 0.4270%
0.4494% 0.0393% 0.0338% 0.5225%
46
Morocco LM 0.0846% 0.0373% 0.0109% 0.1328%
0.0989% 0.0518% 0.0119% 0.1627%
Myanmar LM 0.3459% 0.1645% 0.0144% 0.5248%
0.4350% 0.2273% 0.0158% 0.6780%
Nicaragua LM 0.0797% 0.0298% 0.0019% 0.1114%
0.1018% 0.0449% 0.0021% 0.1488%
Nigeria LM 0.3947% 0.8593% 0.0013% 1.2553%
0.5582% 1.2998% 0.0014% 1.8595%
Pakistan LM 0.4295% 0.3780% 0.0203% 0.8278%
0.5486% 0.5627% 0.0223% 1.1336%
Palestine LM 0.1041% 0.0309% 0.0062% 0.1412%
0.1226% 0.0433% 0.0069% 0.1728%
PapuaNewGuinea LM 0.2630% 0.1137% 0.0022% 0.3789%
0.3264% 0.1564% 0.0024% 0.4852%
Philippines LM 0.2423% 0.0904% 0.0114% 0.3441%
0.2954% 0.1304% 0.0126% 0.4383%
Samoa LM 0.1069% 0.0356% 0.0023% 0.1448%
0.1243% 0.0481% 0.0025% 0.1749%
SaoTomeandPrincipe LM 0.6674% 0.5365% 0.0134% 1.2174%
0.8747% 0.7827% 0.0150% 1.6725%
SolomonIslands LM 0.4048% 0.1138% 0.0050% 0.5236%
0.4803% 0.1575% 0.0055% 0.6434%
SriLanka LM 0.2013% 0.0520% 0.0031% 0.2564%
0.2277% 0.0698% 0.0034% 0.3009%
Sudan LM 0.1680% 0.1252% 0.0189% 0.3121%
0.2191% 0.1954% 0.0210% 0.4355%
Swaziland LM 0.5682% 0.6737% 0.0021% 1.2440%
0.7166% 0.9509% 0.0023% 1.6698%
Tajikistan LM 0.2140% 0.1152% 0.0141% 0.3434%
0.2859% 0.1794% 0.0156% 0.4809%
Timor-Leste LM 0.2799% 0.2415% 0.0047% 0.5261%
0.3932% 0.3689% 0.0052% 0.7673%
Tonga LM 0.0964% 0.0438% 0.0025% 0.1427%
0.1151% 0.0606% 0.0027% 0.1785%
Tunisia LM 0.0816% 0.0164% 0.0069% 0.1049%
0.0933% 0.0223% 0.0075% 0.1232%
Ukraine LM 0.2462% 0.0129% 0.0073% 0.2664%
0.2704% 0.0156% 0.0079% 0.2939%
Uzbekistan LM 0.2258% 0.0374% 0.0246% 0.2878%
0.2891% 0.0563% 0.0269% 0.3723%
Vanuatu LM 0.3608% 0.1052% 0.0046% 0.4706%
0.4347% 0.1483% 0.0051% 0.5881%
Vietnam LM 0.1913% 0.0639% 0.0079% 0.2630%
0.2243% 0.0878% 0.0086% 0.3207%
Zambia LM 0.5163% 0.6457% 0.0095% 1.1714%
0.6916% 0.8903% 0.0105% 1.5923%
Afghanistan L 0.9970% 0.3756% 0.1283% 1.5009%
1.3086% 0.5755% 0.1432% 2.0274%
Benin L 0.8799% 0.7869% 0.0078% 1.6746%
1.2047% 1.1478% 0.0086% 2.3611%
BurkinaFaso L 0.9395% 1.2861% 0.0017% 2.2273%
1.3676% 1.9310% 0.0018% 3.3004%
Burundi L 0.8686% 1.1156% 0.0014% 1.9857%
1.2325% 1.6292% 0.0016% 2.8632%
CentralAfricanRepublic L 0.3478% 0.3122% 0.0090% 0.6690%
0.4695% 0.4366% 0.0099% 0.9160%
Chad L 1.7549% 3.0469% 0.0026% 4.8044%
2.5954% 4.6635% 0.0029% 7.2618%
Comoros L 0.3647% 0.4386% 0.0057% 0.8090%
0.4922% 0.6067% 0.0063% 1.1052%DemocraticRepublicoftheCongo L 0.6889% 0.5976% 0.0106% 1.2971%
0.9793% 0.8795% 0.0117% 1.8704%
Ethiopia L 0.4554% 0.5036% 0.0034% 0.9625%
0.6283% 0.7174% 0.0038% 1.3494%
Guinea L 0.6950% 0.5860% 0.0036% 1.2846%
0.9793% 0.8576% 0.0039% 1.8409%
Guinea-Bissau L 0.9024% 1.0836% 0.0059% 1.9920%
1.2384% 1.6216% 0.0065% 2.8665%
Haiti L 0.4017% 0.3246% 0.0226% 0.7490%
0.5208% 0.4991% 0.0249% 1.0448%
Liberia L 0.4267% 0.5991% 0.0081% 1.0339%
0.5969% 0.8836% 0.0090% 1.4894%
Madagascar L 0.5650% 0.6364% 0.0095% 1.2109%
0.7583% 0.9232% 0.0106% 1.6921%
Malawi L 0.4868% 0.6403% 0.0015% 1.1286%
0.7064% 0.9373% 0.0017% 1.6454%
Mali L 0.4539% 0.7211% 0.0023% 1.1774%
0.6489% 1.0924% 0.0026% 1.7439%
Mozambique L 0.3669% 0.4572% 0.0106% 0.8347%
0.4906% 0.6367% 0.0116% 1.1389%
Nepal L 0.3306% 0.2602% 0.0008% 0.5917%
0.4261% 0.3630% 0.0009% 0.7900%
Niger L 1.0729% 2.0023% 0.0013% 3.0765%
1.5812% 3.0819% 0.0015% 4.6646%
Rwanda L 0.7856% 0.5914% 0.0019% 1.3790%
1.1146% 0.8687% 0.0021% 1.9854%
Senegal L 0.3867% 0.5620% 0.0039% 0.9526%
0.5246% 0.8327% 0.0043% 1.3616%
47
SierraLeone L 1.0406% 1.0325% 0.0088% 2.0819%
1.4576% 1.5316% 0.0097% 2.9989%
Somalia L 1.2083% 2.0873% 0.0243% 3.3199%
1.7613% 3.0229% 0.0268% 4.8110%
SouthSudan L 0.8247% 1.4377% 0.0014% 2.2637%
1.1699% 2.0632% 0.0015% 3.2346%
Tanzania L 0.4287% 0.4106% 0.0027% 0.8420%
0.6039% 0.5770% 0.0030% 1.1839%
TheGambia L 0.4103% 0.4209% 0.0043% 0.8356%
0.5682% 0.6361% 0.0048% 1.2091%
Togo L 1.0563% 1.0164% 0.0080% 2.0806%
1.4297% 1.4826% 0.0088% 2.9210%
Uganda L 0.5131% 0.5059% 0.0042% 1.0232%
0.7195% 0.7375% 0.0046% 1.4616%
Zimbabwe L 0.3914% 0.6761% 0.0029% 1.0704%
0.5141% 0.9957% 0.0032% 1.5130%
48
Welfare Damages in Billion Dollars and as a Percentage of GNI by Pollutant
BillionDollars
Percent
Country
WorldBank
IncomeGroup
AAPandHAPCombined
UWandUSCombined
LeadExposure Total
AAPandHAP
Combined
UWandUS
Combined
LeadExposure Total
AntiguaandBarbuda H 0.032570076 0.007459991 0.00672394 0.046754007
2.6492% 0.6068% 0.5469% 3.8029%
Australia H 19.02641408 1.906293676 12.95867926 33.89138701
1.3319% 0.1334% 0.9071% 2.3725%
Austria H 18.03206729 0.554619854 2.875613562 21.4623007
4.4441% 0.1367% 0.7087% 5.2895%
Bahamas,The H 0.23664404 0.043066449 0.048154274 0.327864762
2.8619% 0.5208% 0.5824% 3.9651%
Bahrain H 0.44931481 0.034348269 0.005292501 0.488955579
1.6032% 0.1226% 0.0189% 1.7446%
Barbados H 0.183726778 0.045599818 0.027753724 0.25708032
4.3678% 1.0841% 0.6598% 6.1117%
Belgium H 24.31454679 2.425941989 6.537549871 33.27803865
4.8567% 0.4846% 1.3059% 6.6472%
Canada H 34.43880708 3.553788628 4.453260895 42.4458566
2.0223% 0.2087% 0.2615% 2.4925%
Chile H 9.607526878 1.116030035 0.521460859 11.24501777
3.8072% 0.4423% 0.2066% 4.4561%
Croatia H 5.838160409 0.14534064 0.947803077 6.931304126
10.8905% 0.2711% 1.7680% 12.9297%
Cyprus H 0.750585513 0.034292351 0.159135969 0.944013833
2.4840% 0.1135% 0.5267% 3.1242%
CzechRepublic H 14.92329938 0.814421215 0.86471384 16.60243443
7.8358% 0.4276% 0.4540% 8.7175%
Denmark H 12.20922075 1.196544731 1.497067104 14.90283259
3.6713% 0.3598% 0.4502% 4.4813%
Estonia H 1.625962826 0.035672366 0.405516064 2.067151256
6.7062% 0.1471% 1.6725% 8.5258%
Finland H 7.026883263 0.346672945 0.634757755 8.008313963
2.7649% 0.1364% 0.2498% 3.1511%
France H 82.06845947 10.36727406 19.70740882 112.1431424
3.0271% 0.3824% 0.7269% 4.1365%
Germany H 189.3323442 13.78811349 19.53608217 222.6565398
5.0788% 0.3699% 0.5240% 5.9727%
Greece H 15.18826536 0.540471493 2.939862528 18.66859938
6.9159% 0.2461% 1.3387% 8.5007%
Hungary H 13.96199128 0.269345842 1.627933526 15.85927065
10.9178% 0.2106% 1.2730% 12.4014%
Iceland H 0.284528816 0.034346173 0.076085324 0.394960313
1.7295% 0.2088% 0.4625% 2.4007%
Ireland H 5.14031905 0.559135872 1.081653975 6.781108897
2.3729% 0.2581% 0.4993% 3.1303%
Israel H 7.842409983 0.660618155 0.969709081 9.472737219
2.6405% 0.2224% 0.3265% 3.1895%
Italy H 115.9499346 4.278096204 36.01107342 156.2391043
5.8158% 0.2146% 1.8062% 7.8366%
Japan H 221.2772908 39.60369704 18.02719562 278.9081834
4.7501% 0.8502% 0.3870% 5.9873%
Korea,Rep. H 50.7893513 3.158840239 5.750791562 59.6989831
3.6567% 0.2274% 0.4140% 4.2982%
Kuwait H 2.360710671 0.161245617 0.007363699 2.529319988
1.4819% 0.1012% 0.0046% 1.5877%
Latvia H 3.74128145 0.061515909 0.589694537 4.392491895
12.6914% 0.2087% 2.0004% 14.9005%
Lithuania H 4.817200843 0.098341307 0.763632766 5.679174916
11.0352% 0.2253% 1.7493% 13.0098%
Luxembourg H 1.20164714 0.085442307 0.130009062 1.417098509
2.7394% 0.1948% 0.2964% 3.2306%
Netherlands H 32.16776747 3.000276988 3.70611995 38.87416441
3.8809% 0.3620% 0.4471% 4.6900%
NewZealand H 2.415302142 0.241624327 1.271919744 3.928846213
1.3113% 0.1312% 0.6905% 2.1330%
Norway H 11.83153036 1.592718756 2.012233989 15.43648311
2.4271% 0.3267% 0.4128% 3.1666%
Oman H 1.520931377 0.20055014 0.116853388 1.838334905
2.0018% 0.2640% 0.1538% 2.4195%
Poland H 46.17777331 1.937793291 6.952430531 55.06799713
9.0892% 0.3814% 1.3684% 10.8390%
Portugal H 8.177766776 1.518775506 3.60756864 13.30411092
3.8491% 0.7149% 1.6980% 6.2620%
Qatar H 1.586860558 0.084735608 0.003839196 1.675435362
0.8310% 0.0444% 0.0020% 0.8773%
49
SaudiArabia H 17.22063468 1.779871337 1.36784065 20.36834667
2.3184% 0.2396% 0.1842% 2.7422%
Seychelles H 0.045606314 0.013116936 0.008666105 0.067389355
3.3260% 0.9566% 0.6320% 4.9146%
Singapore H 7.318658869 1.456864649 0.974176732 9.74970025
2.5384% 0.5053% 0.3379% 3.3816%
SlovakRepublic H 6.700944093 0.398258787 0.919097309 8.018300189
7.1370% 0.4242% 0.9789% 8.5401%
Slovenia H 2.86487902 0.210094481 0.253904392 3.328877893
6.1397% 0.4502% 0.5441% 7.1341%
Spain H 42.3144972 4.01828066 14.92968486 61.26246272
3.1963% 0.3035% 1.1277% 4.6276%
Sweden H 12.16669868 1.567900024 2.447158162 16.18175687
2.1478% 0.2768% 0.4320% 2.8566%
Switzerland H 19.19859705 1.306331835 3.778593276 24.28352216
2.7521% 0.1873% 0.5417% 3.4810%TrinidadandTobago H 0.944326964 0.122549732 0.055515228 1.122391924
3.7329% 0.4844% 0.2194% 4.4367%
UnitedArabEmirates H 9.779663032 0.413039055 0.037123265 10.22982535
2.4739% 0.1045% 0.0094% 2.5878%
UnitedKingdom H 117.3044401 13.231359 17.76098248 148.2967816
4.1552% 0.4687% 0.6291% 5.2530%
UnitedStates H 486.3584027 39.72241004 103.2347691 629.3155819
2.7534% 0.2249% 0.5844% 3.5627%
Uruguay H 2.484368882 0.434782127 0.771349454 3.690500462
4.6055% 0.8060% 1.4299% 6.8413%
Albania UM 0.888104616 0.023921732 0.215656842 1.127683191
7.1653% 0.1930% 1.7399% 9.0982%
Algeria UM 5.739390116 1.209865598 1.163981084 8.113236798
2.9711% 0.6263% 0.6025% 4.1999%
Angola UM 9.383136008 5.674006407 0.273306306 15.33044872
8.9712% 5.4249% 0.2613% 14.6574%
Azerbaijan UM 4.526888148 0.274662303 0.717340448 5.518890899
7.1500% 0.4338% 1.1330% 8.7169%
Belarus UM 7.731750455 0.082340368 1.625065199 9.439156022
12.5814% 0.1340% 2.6444% 15.3597%
Belize UM 0.047973833 0.009991149 0.004477171 0.062442154
3.0209% 0.6291% 0.2819% 3.9320%
BosniaandHerzegovina UM 2.155824071 0.023759974 0.432139277 2.611723323
12.0891% 0.1332% 2.4233% 14.6457%
Botswana UM 0.931940914 0.491442836 0.032290693 1.455674444
6.3273% 3.3366% 0.2192% 9.8832%
Brazil UM 66.66321708 14.44324356 9.989506957 91.0959676
3.2569% 0.7056% 0.4880% 4.4506%
Bulgaria UM 7.51415864 0.157914753 1.182103775 8.854177169
14.4991% 0.3047% 2.2809% 17.0847%
China UM 1188.867629 25.30837604 47.49759183 1261.673597
11.0889% 0.2361% 0.4430% 11.7680%
Colombia UM 10.21988117 1.172376462 1.147680265 12.5399379
2.9720% 0.3409% 0.3338% 3.6467%
CostaRica UM 1.10780724 0.14988744 0.210907746 1.468602426
2.2568% 0.3053% 0.4297% 2.9918%
Dominica UM 0.015440852 0.004044024 0.005252223 0.024737099
3.1427% 0.8231% 1.0690% 5.0349%DominicanRepublic UM 2.362372726 0.418328866 0.624109516 3.404811108
3.6604% 0.6482% 0.9670% 5.2756%
Ecuador UM 1.993686461 0.70250714 0.647536061 3.343729663
2.0548% 0.7240% 0.6674% 3.4462%
EquatorialGuinea UM 0.604799737 0.173955944 0.025624141 0.804379822
9.1873% 2.6425% 0.3892% 12.2190%
Fiji UM 0.166359185 0.063520593 0.019734615 0.249614392
3.8848% 1.4833% 0.4608% 5.8290%
Gabon UM 0.958296933 0.421270428 0.099962604 1.479529965
6.0308% 2.6512% 0.6291% 9.3111%
Georgia UM 2.43030139 0.034099056 0.460813617 2.925214063
15.8795% 0.2228% 3.0109% 19.1132%
Grenada UM 0.032518767 0.007804613 0.009017414 0.049340794
3.6111% 0.8667% 1.0013% 5.4791%
Guyana UM 0.133918859 0.033907558 0.033518984 0.201345402
4.2685% 1.0808% 1.0684% 6.4176%
Iran,IslamicRep. UM 21.56411317 1.432660701 7.353193829 30.3499677
4.1616% 0.2765% 1.4191% 5.8572%
Iraq UM 8.506053182 1.409907147 2.184621538 12.10058187
4.2078% 0.6975% 1.0807% 5.9859%
Jamaica UM 0.557109649 0.068594344 0.132562541 0.758266534
4.0793% 0.5023% 0.9707% 5.5522%
Jordan UM 0.631478892 0.071314744 0.015111574 0.71790521
1.7767% 0.2006% 0.0425% 2.0199%
Kazakhstan UM 14.34495115 0.445146959 1.738305704 16.52840381
7.0609% 0.2191% 0.8556% 8.1356%
Lebanon UM 1.649264869 0.069329415 0.183254757 1.901849041
3.5547% 0.1494% 0.3950% 4.0991%
Macedonia,FYR UM 1.103580848 0.011842347 0.134566241 1.249989436
10.3300% 0.1108% 1.2596% 11.7005%
50
Malaysia UM 9.942554591 2.403166246 0.534090997 12.87981183
3.1012% 0.7496% 0.1666% 4.0174%
Maldives UM 0.050915979 0.008779387 0.003541066 0.063236433
1.8657% 0.3217% 0.1298% 2.3171%
MarshallIslands UM 0.011553539 0.002667214 0.002192918 0.016413671
4.9663% 1.1465% 0.9426% 7.0554%
Mauritius UM 0.446157357 0.056228891 0.08596843 0.588354679
3.6770% 0.4634% 0.7085% 4.8490%
Mexico UM 35.37834397 6.250340021 4.198681077 45.82736507
2.8689% 0.5069% 0.3405% 3.7162%
Montenegro UM 0.511047308 0.005145062 0.058734638 0.574927009
11.3413% 0.1142% 1.3035% 12.7589%
Namibia UM 0.785535408 0.489455927 0.014005867 1.288997201
6.1320% 3.8207% 0.1093% 10.0620%
Panama UM 1.187768275 0.332990832 0.2327443 1.753503406
2.5087% 0.7033% 0.4916% 3.7036%
Paraguay UM 1.204728333 0.173790178 0.129159815 1.507678326
4.3000% 0.6203% 0.4610% 5.3813%
Peru UM 8.16153329 1.72259039 0.660049717 10.5441734
4.1954% 0.8855% 0.3393% 5.4202%
Romania UM 22.29062511 0.603714939 4.426103057 27.3204431
11.8311% 0.3204% 2.3492% 14.5007%RussianFederation UM 162.5417973 4.69567351 20.40529594 187.6427668
9.8946% 0.2858% 1.2422% 11.4225%
Serbia UM 6.16964022 0.087602389 0.713491265 6.970733874
15.8032% 0.2244% 1.8276% 17.8552%
SouthAfrica UM 20.75941693 10.21981175 1.79644408 32.77567277
6.2436% 3.0737% 0.5403% 9.8577%
St.Lucia UM 0.047442472 0.010061297 0.011357416 0.068861185
3.4702% 0.7359% 0.8307% 5.0369%
St.VincentandtheGrenadines UM 0.02685168 0.005534317 0.008040703 0.040426699
3.6778% 0.7580% 1.1013% 5.5371%
Suriname UM 0.182899043 0.03983057 0.032944308 0.25567392
3.6220% 0.7888% 0.6524% 5.0632%
Thailand UM 28.1457387 5.505216602 1.190906255 34.84186155
7.3693% 1.4414% 0.3118% 9.1225%
Turkey UM 27.73539644 1.708809406 5.322972886 34.76717873
3.5434% 0.2183% 0.6801% 4.4418%
Turkmenistan UM 2.241087691 0.259616032 0.383358813 2.884062535
5.5534% 0.6433% 0.9500% 7.1467%
Armenia LM 0.681333265 0.017204808 0.176210987 0.874749059
5.8190% 0.1469% 1.5050% 7.4709%
Bangladesh LM 14.67450544 2.698775774 1.243181614 18.61646283
7.6593% 1.4086% 0.6489% 9.7168%
Bhutan LM 0.088516372 0.02753833 0.003683969 0.119738671
4.8202% 1.4996% 0.2006% 6.5205%
Bolivia LM 1.226010143 0.323942518 0.178971326 1.728923988
3.7116% 0.9807% 0.5418% 5.2341%
CaboVerde LM 0.072693255 0.017782339 0.004222328 0.094697922
4.2450% 1.0384% 0.2466% 5.5300%
Cambodia LM 0.791584308 0.163707081 0.028738784 0.984030173
4.7490% 0.9821% 0.1724% 5.9036%
Cameroon LM 1.841497478 1.050368976 0.03860945 2.930475903
5.9312% 3.3831% 0.1244% 9.4386%
Congo,Rep. LM 0.833010711 0.287290605 0.058969853 1.179271169
7.0981% 2.4480% 0.5025% 10.0486%
Coted'Ivoire LM 1.79685441 1.131793219 0.037817417 2.966465047
5.6136% 3.5358% 0.1181% 9.2675%
Egypt,ArabRep. LM 14.94885148 1.943115521 3.328395431 20.22036243
4.8910% 0.6358% 1.0890% 6.6158%
ElSalvador LM 0.787795413 0.136946773 0.128594485 1.05333667
3.2636% 0.5673% 0.5327% 4.3637%
Ghana LM 2.129878239 0.655854257 0.053218663 2.838951159
5.2503% 1.6167% 0.1312% 6.9982%
Guatemala LM 2.058618992 1.00249331 0.128932031 3.190044333
3.5088% 1.7087% 0.2198% 5.4372%
Honduras LM 0.723728069 0.152041681 0.098488332 0.974258082
3.9482% 0.8295% 0.5373% 5.3150%
India LM 188.5697265 67.42076037 9.990308622 265.9807955
9.0463% 3.2344% 0.4793% 12.7600%
Indonesia LM 32.67950205 16.72933077 4.269572402 53.67840522
3.6878% 1.8879% 0.4818% 6.0575%
Kenya LM 1.881082809 2.880376305 0.029092997 4.79055211
3.0484% 4.6678% 0.0471% 7.7633%
Kiribati LM 0.008275721 0.006384446 0.001069683 0.015729849
2.2790% 1.7582% 0.2946% 4.3318%
KyrgyzRepublic LM 0.300915625 0.023202238 0.063664657 0.38778252
4.3175% 0.3329% 0.9135% 5.5638%
LaoPDR LM 0.70098205 0.21528767 0.020370305 0.936640025
5.9569% 1.8295% 0.1731% 7.9595%
Lesotho LM 0.218919841 0.162755304 0.004851702 0.386526846
7.7096% 5.7317% 0.1709% 13.6121%
Mauritania LM 0.218162875 0.138992995 0.003259088 0.360414958
3.9149% 2.4942% 0.0585% 6.4677%
Micronesia,Fed. LM 0.008097882 0.001553195 0.000399427 0.010050504
2.4225% 0.4647% 0.1195% 3.0067%
51
Sts.
Moldova LM 0.482783247 0.013236191 0.16219534 0.658214779
6.1188% 0.1678% 2.0557% 8.3422%
Mongolia LM 0.748684728 0.022656201 0.113298517 0.884639446
6.6060% 0.1999% 0.9997% 7.8055%
Morocco LM 2.290321257 0.462463368 0.597624455 3.350409079
2.1915% 0.4425% 0.5718% 3.2059%
Nicaragua LM 0.266963796 0.037360538 0.018735942 0.323060276
2.2626% 0.3166% 0.1588% 2.7380%
Nigeria LM 20.84216075 30.16681214 0.21807579 51.22704868
4.0564% 5.8713% 0.0424% 9.9702%
Pakistan LM 20.69792305 6.897357932 2.1484318 29.74371278
7.6091% 2.5356% 0.7898% 10.9345%PapuaNewGuinea LM 1.08519056 0.3914566 0.016130713 1.492777873
6.3583% 2.2936% 0.0945% 8.7464%
Philippines LM 18.62143939 3.392534766 1.305851924 23.31982608
5.2237% 0.9517% 0.3663% 6.5417%
Samoa LM 0.01742724 0.003411531 0.000794377 0.021633149
2.2949% 0.4492% 0.1046% 2.8488%
SaoTomeandPrincipe LM 0.015296581 0.005787528 0.000677458 0.021761567
4.8121% 1.8207% 0.2131% 6.8460%
SolomonIslands LM 0.047831199 0.008652221 0.001111082 0.057594502
4.2247% 0.7642% 0.0981% 5.0871%
SriLanka LM 4.125776975 0.370002113 0.144594798 4.640373886
5.1785% 0.4644% 0.1815% 5.8244%
Sudan LM 3.688211803 1.229193015 0.646536021 5.56394084
4.9819% 1.6603% 0.8733% 7.5156%
Swaziland LM 0.30994929 0.183004975 0.003256823 0.496211088
7.4562% 4.4024% 0.0783% 11.9370%
Tajikistan LM 0.423592252 0.096111413 0.065988436 0.5856921
4.0275% 0.9138% 0.6274% 5.5687%
Timor-Leste LM 0.083296868 0.03011143 0.004605003 0.118013302
3.4846% 1.2597% 0.1926% 4.9369%
Tonga LM 0.009543538 0.002662892 0.000555461 0.012761891
2.1101% 0.5888% 0.1228% 2.8217%
Tunisia LM 1.350173874 0.151527125 0.231675333 1.733376331
3.0618% 0.3436% 0.5254% 3.9307%
Ukraine LM 11.63808854 0.140755849 0.894336538 12.67318092
9.8279% 0.1189% 0.7552% 10.7020%
Uzbekistan LM 3.092751878 0.174775176 0.766755021 4.034282074
4.5959% 0.2597% 1.1394% 5.9950%
Vanuatu LM 0.041009003 0.007211079 0.001041821 0.049261902
4.9036% 0.8623% 0.1246% 5.8905%
Vietnam LM 8.599280234 0.94197976 0.694593173 10.23585317
4.7360% 0.5188% 0.3825% 5.6373%WestBankandGaza LM 0.200316607 0.027909821 0.03105124 0.259277668
1.4660% 0.2043% 0.2272% 1.8975%
Zambia LM 1.368362623 1.195540216 0.063839353 2.627742191
5.6270% 4.9163% 0.2625% 10.8059%
Afghanistan L 1.780760892 0.357929729 0.313057788 2.451748409
8.6901% 1.7467% 1.5277% 11.9646%
Benin L 0.503833959 0.277276521 0.010579506 0.791689986
5.3848% 2.9634% 0.1131% 8.4613%
BurkinaFaso L 0.543158167 0.527411575 0.003349834 1.073919577
4.5454% 4.4136% 0.0280% 8.9870%
Burundi L 0.122046532 0.110776759 0.00070127 0.233524561
4.1991% 3.8113% 0.0241% 8.0345%
CentralAfricanRepublic L 0.128968969 0.072893792 0.007168266 0.209031028
8.2246% 4.6486% 0.4571% 13.3303%
Chad L 0.86160469 1.102107274 0.004911911 1.968623875
6.9749% 8.9218% 0.0398% 15.9364%
Comoros L 0.018556457 0.015483322 0.000792595 0.034832374
2.9791% 2.4857% 0.1272% 5.5920%
Congo,Dem.Rep. L 1.497973373 0.825929115 0.067224833 2.391127321
4.7285% 2.6071% 0.2122% 7.5479%
Ethiopia L 2.370945206 1.693359879 0.064755432 4.129060517
4.0432% 2.8877% 0.1104% 7.0413%
Gambia,The L 0.030693941 0.017565276 0.000831316 0.049090533
3.3515% 1.9180% 0.0908% 5.3603%
Guinea L 0.327748718 0.183762252 0.004967154 0.516478124
5.5307% 3.1009% 0.0838% 8.7154%
Guinea-Bissau L 0.075574403 0.058184064 0.001169815 0.134928282
6.9452% 5.3471% 0.1075% 12.3998%
Haiti L 0.486816826 0.165844937 0.060473139 0.713134902
5.5427% 1.8882% 0.6885% 8.1194%
Liberia L 0.054102322 0.047653497 0.00250842 0.104264239
3.1615% 2.7846% 0.1466% 6.0927%
Madagascar L 0.513933178 0.340401595 0.019447531 0.873782304
5.0490% 3.3442% 0.1911% 8.5843%
Malawi L 0.230925622 0.222935596 0.003519666 0.457380885
3.8326% 3.7000% 0.0584% 7.5910%
Mali L 0.527357828 0.544401455 0.009117746 1.080877029
3.7929% 3.9155% 0.0656% 7.7740%
52
Mozambique L 0.60602061 0.460974329 0.039627437 1.106622376
3.7346% 2.8408% 0.2442% 6.8196%
Nepal L 1.272231078 0.431934713 0.00824644 1.712412231
6.1121% 2.0751% 0.0396% 8.2268%
Niger L 0.391664234 0.508573963 0.001761785 0.901999982
5.0468% 6.5532% 0.0227% 11.6227%
Rwanda L 0.342141756 0.173856248 0.003009098 0.519007103
4.2101% 2.1393% 0.0370% 6.3864%
Senegal L 0.625496245 0.494248703 0.017074952 1.1368199
4.1343% 3.2668% 0.1129% 7.5140%
SierraLeone L 0.217208956 0.145092553 0.00477042 0.36707193
5.3427% 3.5689% 0.1173% 9.0289%
SouthSudan L 0.591591032 0.77914861 0.00359744 1.374337082
6.0686% 7.9925% 0.0369% 14.0980%
Tanzania L 2.10782838 1.511358012 0.045944829 3.665131221
4.3319% 3.1061% 0.0944% 7.5324%
Togo L 0.172337868 0.100723608 0.003158851 0.276220327
4.3691% 2.5535% 0.0801% 7.0027%
Uganda L 1.083627081 0.709756168 0.028479233 1.821862481
4.1436% 2.7140% 0.1089% 6.9665%
Zimbabwe L 0.469323777 0.391922514 0.010155771 0.871402063
3.5388% 2.9552% 0.0766% 6.5705%
53
WillingnesstoPay,Dollars
DeathRiskReducedper10,000
Country
WorldBank
IncomeGroup
AmbientAir
Pollution(AAP)
HouseholdAir
Pollution(HAP)
UnsafeWaterSource
UnsafeSanitation
LeadExposure
AmbientAir
Pollution(AAP)
HouseholdAir
Pollution(HAP)
UnsafeWaterSource
UnsafeSanitation
LeadExposure
AntiguaandBarbuda H 329.022 29.410 25.823 7.396 73.231
2.282 0.204 0.179 0.051 0.508
Australia H 800.407 544.913
1.422 0.968Austria H 2110.068 333.943
4.841 0.766
Bahamas,The H 590.249 23.488 19.750 3.782 124.103
2.588 0.103 0.087 0.017 0.544Bahrain H 329.577 1.698 9.214 0.664 3.843
1.684 0.009 0.047 0.003 0.020
Barbados H 643.781 3.251 18.538 5.486 97.650
3.779 0.019 0.109 0.032 0.573Belgium H 2171.760 579.276
5.214 1.391
Canada H 966.979 124.213
2.167 0.278Chile H 508.402 34.055 10.793 3.000 29.054
3.343 0.224 0.071 0.020 0.191
Croatia H 1185.138 242.795 3.287 0.370 224.364
8.633 1.769 0.024 0.003 1.634Cyprus H 650.735 136.562
2.488 0.522
CzechRepublic H 1371.287 57.201 10.410 0.294 81.954
7.512 0.313 0.057 0.002 0.449
Denmark H 2166.858 263.754
4.003 0.487Estonia H 983.197 283.228 1.139 0.374 309.083
5.156 1.485 0.006 0.002 1.621
Finland H 1284.106 115.789
2.905 0.262France H 1236.217 294.984
3.189 0.761
Germany H 2340.505 239.962
5.543 0.568Greece H 1417.886 271.613
6.736 1.290
Hungary H 1235.494 228.905 8.251 1.981 165.362
9.015 1.670 0.060 0.014 1.207Iceland H 861.966 229.988
1.863 0.497
Ireland H 1112.593 233.080
2.564 0.537Israel H 946.909 115.712
2.716 0.332
Italy H 1934.567 592.267
6.028 1.846Japan H 1751.317 141.946
4.958 0.402
Korea,Rep. H 1012.991 113.614
3.748 0.420Kuwait H 607.832 0.997 11.241 0.449 1.892
1.782 0.003 0.033 0.001 0.006
Latvia H 1675.210 253.908 1.295 0.580 298.060
10.621 1.610 0.008 0.004 1.890Lithuania H 1479.031 209.392 1.898 0.835 262.399
9.496 1.344 0.012 0.005 1.685
Luxembourg H 2125.519 228.216
3.231 0.347Netherlands H 1915.438 218.824
4.247 0.485
NewZealand H 525.639 276.763
1.339 0.705Norway H 2285.526 387.272
2.800 0.474
Oman H 334.692 8.328 11.640 1.242 26.022
2.038 0.051 0.071 0.008 0.158Poland H 1048.641 205.175 2.512 0.286 182.961
7.480 1.464 0.018 0.002 1.305
Portugal H 795.407 348.603
3.784 1.658Qatar H 716.877 0.175 17.380 1.020 1.717
1.127 0.000 0.027 0.002 0.003
SaudiArabia H 545.164 4.531 20.038 1.819 43.368
2.574 0.021 0.095 0.009 0.205Seychelles H 473.120 20.374 18.038 4.547 93.284
3.066 0.132 0.117 0.029 0.604
Singapore H 1326.715 176.003
3.065 0.407SlovakRepublic H 1169.089 82.331 3.590 0.275 169.449
6.578 0.463 0.020 0.002 0.953
Slovenia H 1200.369 233.765 2.335 0.333 123.030
5.263 1.025 0.010 0.001 0.539Spain H 923.224 321.634
3.282 1.143
54
Sweden H 1244.440 249.739
2.326 0.467Switzerland H 2334.988 455.968
3.162 0.617
TrinidadandTobago H 681.168 15.406 30.735 6.951 40.817
3.602 0.081 0.163 0.037 0.216
UnitedArabEmirates H 1084.716 0.224 22.515 0.683 4.054
2.940 0.001 0.061 0.002 0.011
UnitedKingdom H 1812.114 272.666
4.379 0.659
UnitedStates H 1529.857 321.203
3.114 0.654Uruguay H 707.321 19.546 19.272 4.628 224.781
4.106 0.113 0.112 0.027 1.305
Albania UM 217.123 106.598 0.580 0.053 74.643
5.286 2.595 0.014 0.001 1.817Algeria UM 144.444 1.151 16.218 4.942 29.344
3.098 0.025 0.348 0.106 0.629
Angola UM 170.695 268.797 154.888 97.594 10.923
4.265 6.716 3.870 2.439 0.273Azerbaijan UM 402.171 85.011 9.615 4.918 74.325
6.403 1.353 0.153 0.078 1.183
Belarus UM 799.739 17.173 0.554 0.265 170.826
12.930 0.278 0.009 0.004 2.762Belize UM 101.347 40.157 9.916 3.863 12.461
2.395 0.949 0.234 0.091 0.294
BosniaandHerzegovina UM 341.938 288.998 0.435 0.109 113.410
7.631 6.450 0.010 0.002 2.531
Botswana UM 192.845 260.900 144.451 94.073 14.272
3.094 4.186 2.318 1.509 0.229Brazil UM 251.403 79.201 23.769 6.464 48.073
2.666 0.840 0.252 0.069 0.510
Bulgaria UM 939.910 136.076 1.437 0.230 164.684
13.597 1.968 0.021 0.003 2.382China UM 644.374 322.235 3.623 2.032 34.644
8.606 4.304 0.048 0.027 0.463
Colombia UM 160.271 62.649 10.681 1.947 23.797
2.348 0.918 0.156 0.029 0.349CostaRica UM 211.929 22.644 16.749 1.491 43.867
2.168 0.232 0.171 0.015 0.449
Dominica UM 174.600 43.185 22.088 9.310 72.265
2.698 0.667 0.341 0.144 1.117DominicanRepublic UM 187.287 44.352 19.266 8.372 59.279
3.191 0.756 0.328 0.143 1.010
Ecuador UM 108.526 17.206 12.419 4.120 40.109
1.886 0.299 0.216 0.072 0.697EquatorialGuinea UM 315.544 535.613 113.717 29.743 30.322
4.231 7.181 1.525 0.399 0.407
Fiji UM 107.019 86.892 41.322 9.619 22.120
2.329 1.891 0.899 0.209 0.481Gabon UM 404.180 198.672 133.558 80.860 57.940
4.583 2.253 1.515 0.917 0.657
Georgia UM 434.446 269.481 2.313 1.063 125.255
10.907 6.766 0.058 0.027 3.145Grenada UM 274.465 34.552 13.610 5.331 84.413
3.400 0.428 0.169 0.066 1.046
Guyana UM 144.312 35.653 24.168 11.768 43.697
3.685 0.910 0.617 0.301 1.116Iran,IslamicRep. UM 272.112 3.562 7.251 2.026 92.950
4.339 0.057 0.116 0.032 1.482
Iraq UM 231.116 4.161 24.455 4.661 59.979
4.349 0.078 0.460 0.088 1.129Jamaica UM 159.781 52.036 6.846 2.732 48.630
3.331 1.085 0.143 0.057 1.014
Jordan UM 83.632 0.059 3.190 0.040 1.990
1.866 0.001 0.071 0.001 0.044Kazakhstan UM 654.474 196.881 5.927 3.136 99.082
5.903 1.776 0.053 0.028 0.894
Lebanon UM 283.732 0.059 6.063 0.407 31.322
3.737 0.001 0.080 0.005 0.413Macedonia,FYR UM 390.332 178.726 1.107 0.234 64.743
7.931 3.632 0.022 0.005 1.316
Malaysia UM 323.015 6.570 19.066 1.728 17.609
3.192 0.065 0.188 0.017 0.174Maldives UM 112.583 16.611 12.142 4.322 8.654
1.763 0.260 0.190 0.068 0.136
MarshallIslands UM 139.423 88.899 22.316 8.378 41.381
3.317 2.115 0.531 0.199 0.985
Mauritius UM 329.164 28.490 14.267 2.524 68.088
3.577 0.310 0.155 0.027 0.740Mexico UM 225.842 67.010 27.275 6.626 33.060
2.429 0.721 0.293 0.071 0.356
Montenegro UM 493.166 387.869 0.388 0.065 94.370
7.114 5.595 0.006 0.001 1.361Namibia UM 130.625 229.790 142.828 81.052 5.696
2.619 4.607 2.863 1.625 0.114
55
Panama UM 224.618 88.923 48.280 20.155 59.235
1.947 0.771 0.418 0.175 0.513Paraguay UM 98.465 96.842 11.244 5.518 19.454
2.437 2.397 0.278 0.137 0.481
Peru UM 160.494 125.228 8.212 4.314 21.036
2.704 2.110 0.138 0.073 0.354Romania UM 850.748 324.352 1.840 0.810 223.175
9.353 3.566 0.020 0.009 2.454
RussianFederation UM 1045.627 96.931 1.902 1.129 141.605
9.580 0.888 0.017 0.010 1.297
Serbia UM 545.842 383.867 1.625 0.598 100.517
10.365 7.290 0.031 0.011 1.909SouthAfrica UM 269.359 136.832 118.357 57.135 32.688
4.650 2.362 2.043 0.986 0.564
St.Lucia UM 211.038 51.820 14.444 6.882 61.392
2.983 0.732 0.204 0.097 0.868St.VincentandtheGrenadines UM 209.720 40.839 19.038 7.725 73.457
3.284 0.639 0.298 0.121 1.150
Suriname UM 273.185 74.366 32.392 9.153 60.674
3.068 0.835 0.364 0.103 0.681Thailand UM 308.158 134.844 23.427 1.083 17.524
5.727 2.506 0.435 0.020 0.326
Turkey UM 342.704 19.315 7.885 2.097 67.666
3.597 0.203 0.083 0.022 0.710Turkmenistan UM 414.317 4.448 21.191 7.722 71.342
5.762 0.062 0.295 0.107 0.992
Armenia LM 214.733 14.975 1.520 0.540 58.392
7.839 0.547 0.055 0.020 2.132Bangladesh LM 56.816 53.489 12.645 8.351 7.722
8.094 7.620 1.802 1.190 1.100
Bhutan LM 80.965 49.652 21.378 14.708 4.755
4.972 3.049 1.313 0.903 0.292Bolivia LM 80.759 42.773 10.082 6.143 16.688
3.899 2.065 0.487 0.297 0.806
CaboVerde LM 82.042 74.217 16.078 9.142 8.112
3.759 3.400 0.737 0.419 0.372Cambodia LM 24.806 32.575 6.001 3.812 1.845
3.990 5.240 0.965 0.613 0.297
Cameroon LM 42.605 53.472 31.206 22.383 1.654
5.587 7.012 4.092 2.935 0.217Congo,Rep. LM 90.416 122.580 38.960 28.133 12.763
5.381 7.295 2.319 1.674 0.760
Coted'Ivoire LM 28.327 62.129 34.373 23.536 1.666
3.469 7.608 4.209 2.882 0.204Egypt,ArabRep. LM 164.540 0.054 11.813 0.927 36.373
6.699 0.002 0.481 0.038 1.481
ElSalvador LM 102.348 34.887 7.949 3.814 20.990
3.723 1.269 0.289 0.139 0.764Ghana LM 28.814 59.714 12.806 8.735 1.942
3.212 6.656 1.427 0.974 0.216
Guatemala LM 74.439 67.692 37.011 18.394 7.889
3.026 2.752 1.505 0.748 0.321Honduras LM 55.965 43.338 13.870 6.812 12.197
3.945 3.055 0.978 0.480 0.860
India LM 95.265 77.688 40.059 25.814 7.620
9.139 7.453 3.843 2.476 0.731Indonesia LM 78.184 57.518 51.890 24.932 16.574
3.091 2.274 2.052 0.986 0.655
Kenya LM 11.678 33.977 48.748 36.202 0.632
1.522 4.428 6.353 4.718 0.082Kiribati LM 7.692 66.919 38.985 21.249 9.515
0.391 3.404 1.983 1.081 0.484
KyrgyzRepublic LM 32.305 21.897 1.846 1.311 10.687
4.750 3.219 0.271 0.193 1.571
LaoPDR LM 50.629 67.434 19.249 9.949 2.995
4.566 6.081 1.736 0.897 0.270Lesotho LM 42.402 73.684 57.138 43.118 2.272
5.532 9.613 7.455 5.626 0.296
Mauritania LM 31.834 32.729 24.230 16.971 0.801
3.905 4.015 2.972 2.082 0.098Micronesia,Fed.Sts. LM 35.412 45.874 6.533 2.163 3.824
1.871 2.424 0.345 0.114 0.202
Moldova LM 117.664 21.908 0.297 0.192 45.635
8.278 1.541 0.021 0.013 3.211Mongolia LM 141.040 136.117 0.439 0.293 38.288
4.973 4.799 0.015 0.010 1.350
Morocco LM 60.377 7.779 5.124 1.917 17.384
2.885 0.372 0.245 0.092 0.831Nicaragua LM 24.640 23.644 3.093 1.890 3.081
2.007 1.926 0.252 0.154 0.251
Nigeria LM 51.813 83.682 130.942 88.451 1.197
2.824 4.560 7.136 4.820 0.065Pakistan LM 68.394 59.118 28.829 11.793 11.373
7.418 6.412 3.127 1.279 1.234
PapuaNewGuinea LM 49.539 106.791 33.920 25.118 2.117
3.932 8.475 2.692 1.993 0.168
Philippines LM 101.776 102.575 16.240 4.138 12.968
4.056 4.087 0.647 0.165 0.517Samoa LM 10.735 81.195 7.871 1.155 4.111
0.421 3.184 0.309 0.045 0.161
56
SaoTomeandPrincipe LM 24.800 64.040 18.109 11.757 3.559
2.577 6.654 1.882 1.222 0.370
SolomonIslands LM 18.086 68.543 7.785 5.229 1.904
1.742 6.603 0.750 0.504 0.183
SriLanka LM 106.868 111.989 9.426 4.795 6.897
3.770 3.951 0.333 0.169 0.243Sudan LM 53.826 51.292 21.745 15.887 16.069
4.823 4.596 1.948 1.424 1.440
Swaziland LM 93.007 178.495 102.956 66.543 2.531
4.145 7.955 4.589 2.966 0.113Tajikistan LM 34.797 20.552 6.173 4.838 7.780
4.822 2.848 0.855 0.670 1.078
Timor-Leste LM 25.453 48.563 13.265 10.457 3.699
2.215 4.226 1.154 0.910 0.322Tonga LM 14.994 76.694 9.177 3.058 5.232
0.551 2.818 0.337 0.112 0.192
Tunisia LM 121.839 1.026 4.322 0.770 20.857
4.145 0.035 0.147 0.026 0.710Ukraine LM 239.430 21.782 0.259 0.130 19.787
13.233 1.204 0.014 0.007 1.094
Uzbekistan LM 80.609 23.730 0.787 0.672 24.497
5.702 1.679 0.056 0.048 1.733Vanuatu LM 45.263 120.101 13.535 8.449 3.937
2.505 6.646 0.749 0.468 0.218
Vietnam LM 61.078 40.557 5.253 2.864 7.574
4.759 3.160 0.409 0.223 0.590WestBankandGaza LM 44.035 1.774 2.166 0.421 7.022
2.250 0.091 0.111 0.022 0.359
Zambia LM 31.456 66.293 55.034 37.836 3.938
3.534 7.447 6.182 4.250 0.442Afghanistan L 30.485 33.395 6.183 4.346 9.625
9.210 10.089 1.868 1.313 2.908
Benin L 18.533 36.102 17.442 13.165 0.972
4.058 7.905 3.819 2.883 0.213BurkinaFaso L 12.398 23.447 21.855 16.541 0.185
3.717 7.029 6.551 4.959 0.055
Burundi L 4.642 8.513 7.484 5.665 0.063
4.153 7.616 6.696 5.069 0.056CentralAfricanRepublic L 11.478 20.216 10.636 8.082 1.463
8.677 15.283 8.040 6.110 1.106
Chad L 26.190 48.092 61.204 46.628 0.350
5.599 10.281 13.084 9.968 0.075Comoros L 7.153 19.193 14.355 10.908 1.005
1.841 4.940 3.695 2.808 0.259
Congo,Dem.Rep. L 8.390 14.979 7.226 5.374 0.870
4.773 8.522 4.111 3.057 0.495
Ethiopia L 9.407 18.572 12.713 9.837 0.652
3.162 6.243 4.274 3.307 0.219Gambia,The L 6.955 11.677 6.163 4.082 0.418
3.014 5.060 2.670 1.769 0.181
Guinea L 8.193 21.603 9.677 7.095 0.394
3.722 9.814 4.397 3.223 0.179Guinea-Bissau L 15.300 32.826 23.398 16.728 0.634
5.259 11.282 8.042 5.749 0.218
Haiti L 18.498 33.008 10.674 7.785 5.646
4.401 7.852 2.539 1.852 1.343Liberia L 1.855 10.953 7.858 5.489 0.557
1.139 6.723 4.823 3.369 0.342
Madagascar L 6.433 17.598 10.241 8.153 0.802
3.128 8.556 4.979 3.964 0.390Malawi L 4.445 11.076 9.587 7.457 0.204
2.702 6.733 5.828 4.534 0.124
Mali L 12.583 23.222 24.724 18.586 0.518
2.930 5.407 5.757 4.328 0.121Mozambique L 6.562 17.853 12.469 9.498 1.416
2.395 6.515 4.550 3.466 0.517
Nepal L 28.229 25.860 11.392 6.619 0.289
7.032 6.442 2.838 1.649 0.072Niger L 9.457 14.921 20.150 15.660 0.089
5.351 8.443 11.402 8.861 0.050
Rwanda L 12.985 22.716 9.593 7.278 0.259
3.635 6.360 2.686 2.037 0.073Senegal L 18.169 30.275 24.737 16.594 1.129
3.334 5.555 4.539 3.045 0.207
SierraLeone L 9.455 28.637 15.583 11.497 0.739
2.999 9.084 4.943 3.647 0.234SouthSudan L 18.046 38.542 50.084 38.471 0.292
4.525 9.664 12.558 9.646 0.073
Tanzania L 13.023 32.189 19.688 15.417 0.859
2.578 6.372 3.898 3.052 0.170
Togo L 9.076 18.614 9.683 6.940 0.432
3.473 7.122 3.705 2.655 0.165Uganda L 13.391 20.742 12.715 9.614 0.730
3.890 6.025 3.694 2.793 0.212
Zimbabwe L 10.859 23.370 18.473 11.519 0.651
2.509 5.401 4.269 2.662 0.150
57
DALYs Attributable to Air Pollution by Disease
CountryLower
respiratoryinfections
Tracheal,bronchus,andlungcancer
Ischemicheartdisease
Ischemicstroke
Hemorrhagicstroke
Chronicobstructivepulmonarydisease
Cataracts
HighIncomeCountriesAntiguaandBarbuda
14% 9.3% 14% 9.8% 11% 15% 1.8%
Australia 3.7% 2.3% 6.8% 3.8% 4.5% 5.5% 0%Austria 15% 10.2% 13% 8.9% 10.4% 20.1% 0%Bahrain 33% 24% 25% 19% 20.2% 35% 0.22%Barbados 13% 9.0% 14% 9.4% 10.4% 15% 0.10%Belgium 14% 9.4% 13% 8.6% 10.0% 19% 0%Brunei 2.7% 1.6% 6.6% 3.4% 4.3% 4.0% 0%Canada 5.4% 3.5% 8.6% 5.0% 6.3% 11% 0%Chile 18% 13% 17% 11% 13% 20.0% 3.2%Croatia 23% 16% 17% 12% 14% 28% 7.5%Cyprus 16% 11% 15% 9.6% 11% 22% 0%CzechRepublic
19% 13% 15% 11% 12% 23% 1.6%
Denmark 9.6% 6.5% 11% 7.3% 8.5% 14% 0%Estonia 13% 9.2% 12% 8.7% 10.2% 16% 8.3%Finland 5.6% 3.7% 8.8% 5.4% 6.5% 9.3% 0%France 11% 7.4% 12% 7.5% 9.0% 17% 0%Germany 12% 8.4% 12% 8.4% 9.5% 17% 0%Greece 12% 8.1% 13% 7.9% 9.2% 19% 0%Hungary 23% 17% 17% 13% 15% 28% 7.1%Iceland 6.1% 4.0% 9.2% 5.4% 6.3% 9.1% 0%Ireland 8.4% 5.6% 11% 6.6% 8.2% 13% 0%Israel 17% 12% 15% 10.2% 12% 23% 0%Italy 17% 12% 14% 9.2% 11% 24% 0%Japan 12% 8.0% 12% 7.8% 9.8% 17% 0%Kuwait 36% 27% 28% 21% 22% 34% 0.072%Latvia 21% 15% 17% 12% 14% 23% 6.3%Lithuania 19.5% 14% 16% 12% 14% 23% 5.7%Luxembourg 14% 9.9% 14% 8.9% 10.4% 19% 0%Netherlands 13% 8.8% 13% 8.6% 10.0% 17% 0%NewZealand 3.2% 2.0% 6.3% 3.5% 4.1% 4.6% 0%Norway 7.6% 5.1% 10.2% 6.2% 7.2% 11% 0%
58
Oman 32% 24% 24% 17% 19% 32% 0.85%Poland 24% 17% 18% 13% 16% 27% 7.3%Portugal 8.3% 5.6% 10.4% 6.7% 7.8% 14% 0%Qatar 44% 35% 29.7% 25% 27% 41% 0.0092%SaudiArabia 43% 34% 28% 22% 25% 40.0% 0.43%Seychelles 12% 8.1% 15% 9.2% 11% 13% 1.2%Singapore 16% 11% 15% 9.6% 12% 20.1% 0%Slovakia 19% 13% 16% 12% 13% 23% 2.7%Slovenia 21% 15% 15% 11% 13% 26% 6.3%SouthKorea 22% 16% 17% 12% 15% 26% 0%Spain 8.3% 5.6% 11% 6.4% 7.7% 16% 0%Sweden 4.1% 2.6% 6.9% 4.2% 4.8% 7.0% 0%Switzerland 11% 7.7% 12% 7.6% 8.9% 17% 0%TheBahamas 13% 8.5% 14% 9.6% 11% 16% 0.82%TrinidadandTobago
13% 8.7% 15% 9.8% 11% 14% 0.53%
UnitedArabEmirates
35% 27% 30.0% 24% 26% 40.0% 0.0053%
UnitedKingdom
11% 7.3% 12% 7.4% 8.8% 15% 0%
UnitedStates 6.9% 4.5% 11% 6.3% 7.8% 13% 0%Uruguay 10.4% 7.1% 12% 7.9% 9.4% 13% 1.0%
UpperMiddleIncomeCountriesAlbania 27% 18% 20.0% 14% 15% 29.6% 13%Algeria 24% 18% 19% 14% 15% 26% 0.32%Angola 58% 50.0% 40.5% 32% 33% 44% 29.5%Argentina 12% 8.5% 14% 8.8% 11% 15% 1.7%Azerbaijan 28% 19% 22% 16% 17% 29% 7.1%Belarus 17% 12% 16% 11% 13% 21% 1.0%Belize 29% 21% 23% 17% 18% 26% 8.5%BosniaandHerzegovina
51% 39% 32% 26% 29% 50.1% 28%
Botswana 39% 32% 29% 21% 24% 38% 19%Brazil 15% 11% 15% 9.7% 12% 19% 5.6%Bulgaria 26% 18% 19% 14% 15% 30.1% 6.1%China 46% 35% 31% 25% 28% 46% 21%Colombia 24% 17% 19% 13% 15% 25% 8.6%CostaRica 19% 14% 16% 11% 14% 20.0% 2.6%DominicanRepublic
22% 16% 18% 13% 14% 21% 5.4%
59
Ecuador 14% 9.6% 15% 10.1% 11% 15% 2.7%EquatorialGuinea
64% 57% 45% 36% 38% 49.5% 32%
Fiji 15% 9.9% 15% 9.9% 10.3% 13% 12%Gabon 37% 30.0% 25% 18% 21% 34% 11%Georgia 32% 22% 23% 17% 19% 33% 18%Grenada 15% 11% 16% 11% 12% 15% 2.5%Guyana 19.7% 14% 19% 13% 14% 18% 5.1%Iran 29% 21% 22% 16% 18% 31% 0.56%Iraq 31% 22% 24% 18% 18% 31% 0.88%Jamaica 22% 15% 17% 13% 14% 22% 6.6%Jordan 27% 19% 22% 15% 16% 29% 0.030%Kazakhstan 23% 16% 19.5% 14% 16% 25% 9.0%Lebanon 24% 17% 19% 13% 15% 27% 0.0086%Macedonia 40.2% 29% 27% 20.0% 23% 40.4% 17%Malaysia 14% 9.4% 16% 10.1% 12% 16% 0.61%Maldives 26% 18% 20.3% 14% 16% 26% 6.1%Mauritius 15% 10.0% 16% 10.0% 12% 16% 3.1%Mexico 24% 16% 19% 14% 16% 26% 6.6%Montenegro 37% 27% 26% 18% 21% 38% 22%Namibia 50.3% 43% 34% 26% 29% 47% 27%Panama 19% 13% 16% 11% 13% 18% 6.9%Paraguay 32% 23% 23% 16% 20.0% 30.4% 19%Peru 37% 28% 25% 19% 20.4% 33% 17%Romania 26% 18% 19% 14% 16% 29% 12%Russia 16% 11% 16% 11% 13% 19% 3.3%SaintLucia 17% 12% 15% 11% 12% 17% 4.5%SaintVincentandtheGrenadines
16% 11% 16% 11% 12% 16% 3.8%
Serbia 34% 25% 23% 18% 20.0% 36% 20.3%SouthAfrica 34% 23% 23% 18% 20.0% 32% 11%Suriname 21% 15% 18% 12% 14% 18% 5.8%Thailand 29.6% 21% 23% 17% 19.8% 31% 15%Turkey 27% 19.5% 21% 15% 16% 29.9% 2.5%Turkmenistan 23% 16% 19.8% 12% 16% 23% 0.42%
LowerMiddleIncomeCountriesArmenia 21% 15% 17% 12% 14% 25% 2.6%Bangladesh 67% 54% 46% 37% 42% 62% 32%Bhutan 49% 38% 32% 25% 28% 43% 18%
60
Bolivia 33% 25% 23% 18% 19.7% 34% 12%Cambodia 48% 35% 37% 27% 31% 39% 36%Cameroon 66% 57% 44% 37% 36% 55% 35%CapeVerde 48% 39.7% 29.8% 24% 26% 42% 21%Congo 61% 55% 42% 34% 37% 53% 29.6%Coted'Ivoire 58% 50.0% 41% 34% 33% 49.8% 28%Djibouti 45% 36% 30.1% 23% 27% 39% 15%Egypt 43% 34% 28% 22% 21% 40.3% 0.021%ElSalvador 35% 25% 24% 17% 19.7% 32% 9.9%FederatedStatesofMicronesia
19.9% 13% 18% 12% 13% 17% 18%
Ghana 57% 50.1% 41% 34% 37% 52% 32%Guatemala 45% 33% 29.9% 23% 23% 36% 22%Honduras 46% 35% 30.5% 24% 18% 40.2% 19.8%India 62% 46% 39% 32% 35% 56% 26%Indonesia 28% 18% 26% 17% 20.0% 26% 19.8%Kenya 55% 47% 37% 33% 36% 49% 32%Kiribati 18% 12% 14% 10.2% 10.3% 14% 22%Kyrgyzstan 29.8% 20.5% 23% 18% 20.4% 32% 17%Laos 51% 37% 39% 29% 31% 35% 35%Lesotho 51% 44% 35% 27% 30.4% 48% 28%Mauritania 63% 55% 41% 34% 34% 53% 28%Moldova 21% 15% 17% 13% 15% 25% 6.7%Mongolia 41% 29% 31% 23% 27% 34% 23%Morocco 22% 15% 18% 14% 14% 23% 4.0%Myanmar 56% 41% 40.4% 31% 35% 51% 34%Nicaragua 42% 31% 28% 21% 25% 37% 21%Nigeria 60.2% 52% 39.6% 34% 32% 48% 31%Pakistan 59% 46% 39.9% 32% 36% 47% 26%Palestine 18% 12% 19% 12% 13% 22% 1.4%PapuaNewGuinea
41% 29% 36% 26% 26% 33% 32%
Philippines 39% 27% 32% 22% 26% 34% 27%Samoa 24% 16% 18% 13% 14% 20.1% 26%SaoTomeandPrincipe
50.0% 43% 34% 28% 29% 45% 29.5%
SolomonIslands
36% 25% 30.3% 22% 23% 29% 29.7%
SriLanka 44% 32% 33% 23% 27% 41% 30.3%
61
Sudan 54% 40.1% 38% 29.8% 26% 41% 28%Swaziland 52% 45% 36% 28% 31% 47% 28%Tajikistan 45% 33% 31% 24% 27% 40.1% 17%Timor-Leste 45% 33% 33% 25% 26% 31% 32%Tonga 19% 12% 14% 9.2% 9.4% 15% 22%Tunisia 29% 21% 19.9% 16% 17% 31% 0.39%Ukraine 18% 12% 16% 11% 13% 22% 3.8%Uzbekistan 34% 24% 24% 19% 21% 34% 10.5%Vanuatu 35% 24% 29% 21% 22% 28% 29%Vietnam 36% 25% 25% 19% 23% 35% 25%Zambia 61% 52% 42% 35% 38% 53% 32%
LowIncomeCountriesAfghanistan 57% 43% 43% 35% 37% 46% 30.5%Benin 64% 56% 45% 38% 38% 56% 37%BurkinaFaso 66% 57% 44% 39% 38% 48% 37%Burundi 67% 59% 45% 39% 42% 52% 36%CentralAfricanRepublic
68% 59.8% 48% 40.1% 43% 58% 39.6%
Chad 67% 59% 45% 39% 33% 49% 37%Comoros 56% 49% 39% 32% 36% 48% 32%DemocraticRepublicoftheCongo
67% 59.5% 46% 39% 40.0% 52% 39.5%
Ethiopia 65% 56% 43% 36% 39% 54% 35%Guinea 63% 54% 44% 38% 36% 54% 35%Guinea-Bissau
65% 57% 46% 39% 35% 52% 35%
Haiti 56% 44% 39.9% 32% 33% 40.2% 29%Liberia 58% 51% 39% 33% 33% 48% 39%Madagascar 62% 54% 44% 37% 40.0% 45% 35%Malawi 64% 55% 41% 35% 35% 49% 35%Mali 67% 59% 46% 39% 34% 60.0% 36%Mozambique 61% 53% 41% 35% 38% 49% 36%Nepal 62% 51% 41% 33% 36% 56% 31%Niger 70.0% 61% 47% 41% 36% 55% 34%Rwanda 68% 59.7% 45% 39% 42% 53% 38%Senegal 62% 53% 42% 35% 37% 53% 33%SierraLeone 62% 54% 44% 38% 35% 50.5% 38%Somalia 62% 54% 42% 36% 39% 46% 35%
62
SouthSudan 65% 57% 44% 38% 41% 51% 39.5%Tanzania 62% 54% 41% 35% 38% 49.6% 33%TheGambia 68% 58% 46% 39.5% 39% 57% 33%Togo 64% 56% 46% 38% 38% 56% 36%Uganda 69.9% 61% 46% 39.8% 43% 52% 37%Zimbabwe 55% 48% 37% 29% 21% 48% 29.7%
63
Section 4
Effective Interventions - Prioritizing Solutions, Recognizing Co-Benefits
This Annex provides more detail, case studies and examples relevant to the issues of
pollution control, and disease prevention addressed in Chapter 4, including information
on prioritization and planning processes, benefit-cost and cost-effectiveness analyses,
effective interventions and preparation of Health and Pollution Action Plans.
The Annex is broken into two sections. The first reviews important elements for
success of pollution control and prevention programs. The second section outlines
examples of interventions related to various types of pollution.
Part 1. Planning and Prioritization.
The experience of this Commission suggests that a number of elements contribute to
successful pollution control programs:
1. Visionary leadership by the head of government and a clear mandate to all ministries and agencies calling for intervention against pollution and pollution-related disease;
2. A clear action plan for pollution control and prevention pollution-related disease that is data-driven, subject to constant evaluation and public input, and guided by clear priorities, measurable targets, clearly identified deliverables and specific timelines;
3. A sound body of environmental laws and policies backed by an effective and independent judiciary.
4. A cabinet-level environmental agency with responsibility for collecting data on sources and levels of pollution and the power to enforce environmental laws and regulations;
5. Robust and transparent environmental and public health data systems for monitoring the sources, levels and geographic distribution of pollution and for tracking pollution-related disease;
64
6. An active civil society and independent media that can direct public attention to problems of pollution, pollution-related disease and environmental injustice;
7. Transdisciplinary training programs that build future capacity in pollution prevention and upgrade technical skills; and
8. Sufficient financial resources to sustain pollution control programs and prevention of pollution-related disease now and in the future.
The following expand upon these elements.
1. Visionary leadership by the head of government. Visionary leadership by the head of government – the President, Prime Minister,
Governor or Mayor – is critical to pollution control. Major changes can result when the
top leadership of a city or country commit to ambitious and inspiring goals and issue a
clear mandate to ministries and agencies requiring immediate interventions against
pollution and pollution-related diseases. In other cases where government does not
take the lead, the emergence of a local leader, a champion, sometimes the leader of a
civil society organization may provide the catalyst to raise the profile of the issue and to
bring the challenges to the attention of the government’s leadership.
Clear and committed leadership can help to drive progress in tackling pollution, energy,
and climate challenges. In Canada, the “Clean50” awards are made each year in 16
categories covering many industries, academia, different levels of government and
other advocates and leaders. The awards recognize the individuals for their
contributions to broad sustainability over the previous two years.128
Leadership also has a key role in trying to drive progress in the direction of a less
resource intensive and more sustainable economy. Authorities in Denmark, for
example, are moving beyond merely regulating pollution and instead are actively
seeking to identify and promote better alternatives for harmful chemicals in the
environment. The Government is supporting an approach that they term “Circulating
65
Resources” and is setting up systems to help businesses to substitute better
substances for harmful chemicals and to seek for different approaches which eliminate
completely the harmful chemicals.129
Leadership is important also in the control of toxic chemical pollution. Canada has
recognized the importance of early-stage assessment of new chemicals that have
potential to harm health and the environment. This “Preventative Principle” aims to
address such substances before they are released to the market for general use in
consumer products. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA 1999) sets out
a range of risk management instruments and regulations that can be used by the
Government to minimize the risks associated with potentially harmful substances.
The UN’s Sustainable Energy for All (SEA)130 initiative lays out a shared framework for
accelerating progress, achieving energy goals, reducing pollution and slowing the pace
of global climate change. Under this initiative, countries must adopt an “energy
efficiency first” approach that focuses on control of ambient and household air pollution.
At the same time, access must be placed at heart of countries’ energy strategies. And
finally, there needs to be a global scaling up of renewables.”131
Two structural issues that heads of government will need to confront if they are to be
successful in controlling pollution and preventing pollution-related disease are (1) the
separation in most governments of environmental protection from public health, and (2)
the fact that Ministries of Health and Environment seldom have the financial resources
that they need to effectively control pollution. The formation of interagency task forces
that include all relevant ministries including Finance has been a strategy used by some
leaders to successfully overcome these barriers. A further challenge is to balance
economic development that will lift people out of poverty against prevention of pollution
and pollution-related disease.
2. A clear, data-driven action plan for pollution control and prevention of pollution-related disease.
High-level commitment to dealing with a pollution challenge is often expressed in a
government policy or a strategy, which typically identifies the major concerns and sets
66
out broad targets for dealing with them. The Health and Pollution Action Plan then
translates the strategy into a specific work program, designed to achieve the stated
aims of the strategy.
A well-articulated Health and Pollution Action Plan with clear goals, well defined
priorities, a is essential for the control of pollution and detailed roadmap, and a timetable
the prevention of pollution-related disease. The plan should define specific pollution
problems that are then prioritized for action, and given targets for reduction in exposure
and benefits to health. The plan should specify appropriate regulatory agencies as well
as other strategies, such as economic development, tax incentives and industrial policy
to be used to achieve the goals. Plans will be most effective when they assign high
priority to controlling pollution sources that directly impact health. The specific structure
and the level of detail of the Health and Pollution Action Plan will vary according to
context and purpose but it typically addresses the following.
• Clear statement of the context/challenge and the related objectives.
• Identification and assessment of priority problems, and possible interventions
• Agreement on set of activities which will achieve progress to the objectives
• Establishment and agreement of institutional responsibilities for each
action/activity
• Definition of measurable Specific, Measurable, Attributable, Realistic, and Time-
bound (SMART) indicators to be used to determine progress
• Clear timeline for achievement of outcomes for each activity
• Implementation of a focused stakeholder awareness and involvement process
• Identification of the financial and other resources available and required for
successful action
• Procedure for monitoring and reporting on progress against targets
• Process for review of progress and adaptive management of activities
A good Action Plan is a collective agreement to work to achieve a common goal: it
should not be just a “wish list”. There is no one ideal model for an Action Plan but the
67
variety and usefulness of different types of Plans can be seen from consideration of a
non-systematic sample of publicly available examples.
An important aspect of preparation of a Health and Pollution Action Plan is to strike the
appropriate balance between policy/institutional activities and the implementation of
specific projects and programs. This balance usually reflects the level at which the
planning is being carried out.
Identification of priority issues. Governments (and communities) face many
challenges in establishing a Health and Pollution Action Plan and in balancing pollution
control against other demands. Careful prioritization is therefore of critical importance.
It is essential that effort and resources are applied to those pollution issues where
impacts are greatest and where the potential benefits to action are highest. This
requires examination of a broad range of potential control targets using the most current
and comprehensive health and environmental data. Targets for intervention are
selected by giving heavy weight to those pollution sources that have greatest health
impacts; examining the range of possible pollution control options; determining
opportunities and constraints; and identifying institutions and resources that will guide
and assist the process of pollution control and disease prevention.
Selection of invention targets – Choosing ‘best buys’. In weighing the pros and
cons of various possible interventions against pollution there are two broad kinds of
economic analyses that can be carried out. The first is a standard benefit-cost analysis,
which calculates the costs and the estimated benefits of an intervention in monetary
terms and compares the two. At a minimum a positive benefit/cost ratio is required,
which indicates that the intervention would provide a net return for the investment of
public money. There are challenges in carrying out a credible and comprehensive
benefit-cost analysis but a major advantage is that the approach is well known and
understood by finance officials and is widely used in planning and budgeting.
A second approach to evaluating interventions is through a cost-effectiveness analysis.
This analysis examines the effectiveness of an intervention in reducing health risks and
other deleterious outcomes. A cost-effectiveness analysis can be used where different
68
interventions have the same or comparable outcomes. In the health sector, where
DALYs are often used for measuring and comparing the results of treatments or other
interventions, cost-effectiveness estimated as $/DALY is a clear and well understood
measure.132 Where it can be calculated, this $/DALY number provides a very good
indicator of the value of the intervention, since a range of figures are available in the
literature.133,134
Health and Pollution Action Plans for Urban Air Pollution. Air quality is mainly an
urban issue and many metropolitan areas have prepared and implemented Health and
Pollution Action Plans over recent decades. There are also several networks for cities
dealing with air pollution, including Clean Air Asia and the Instituto del Aire Limpio
(Clean Air Institute). These networks foster the sharing of experience and material
among cities. Current “Plans” for the larger cities (Bangkok, Delhi, Mexico, Santiago)
tend to be new initiatives building on past progress and current information, often
focused on very specific technical interventions. As an example, in 2016 the Mayor of
London put out for consultation new plans, including the extension of an “Ultra-Low
Emissions Zone” in the metropolitan area. In other cases, such as Tehran, lessons
learned from implementation of a First Action Plan are used to refine subsequent plans.
Shortcomings in levels of institutional cooperation and active public involvement that
were identified in the First Plan were given increased attention in the Second Action
Plan. By contrast, the Air Action Plan for the Province of British Colombia (Canada) has
selected “clean communities” as one of its three areas of activity – not just supporting
individual actions but also engaging the population and civil society in the entire
process. At the more local end of the spectrum of Plans, English local councils are
required to address air quality but have limited jurisdiction and resources. As a result,
their Action Plans typically identify some generic actions, such as traffic management
and promoting non-motorized options, and then apply these in detail to local hotspots.
Health and Pollution Action Plans for Water Pollution. For water pollution, there is
often a mismatch between physical extent of the relevant river or water body and the
administrative boundaries. This adds an extra complication to the process of preparing
69
an Action Plan. It presents a challenge but a cooperative Action Planning process may
be a way to define and agree on a set of cross-boundary activities. The Great Lakes
process between the USA and Canada has resulted in a number of specific Action
Plans to address identified priorities, with considerable success in reducing pollution.
Health and Pollution Action Plans in China. China has developed a number of
national “Action Plans” to address major issues related to pollution and health. These
include the National Action Plan on Environment and Health (2007 – 2015) which set
out basic principles, targets and actions. In 2013, the State Council issued an Action
Plan on Control of Air Pollution, followed in 2015 by an Action Plan for Water Pollution
Prevention and Control, which targeted key polluters and emphasized the need to
improve enforcement and to engage local stakeholders. In 2016, a further Action Plan
was issued for Soil Pollution Prevention and Control,135,136 following a once-in-a-decade
national soil survey and aimed at making contaminated arable land safe for human use.
These plans set goals and targets for different contexts (for 2020, 2030 and beyond)
and identify typical policies and interventions which Provincial and local authorities are
expected to adapt and apply as appropriate. A key element, especially of the water
plan, is the designation of a lead ministry for each specific activity, together with named
ministries and other agencies who are to support the implementation, as a way to
promote the necessary coordination which is often a challenge in any country. The
specification of defined targets is a critical mechanism to help track progress in such a
large and diverse country. The new Environment Protection Law which came into effect
at the beginning of 2015 has been described by the Ministry of Environmental
Protection as innovative, noting that it specifically takes into account: relevance to
reality, a view to the future, and the balance of rights and obligations for organizations
and citizens.137 The Government has acknowledged that the next level of progress in
managing environmental challenges will have to come from “strengthening of the
institutions, incentives and instruments that enable effective enforcement across sectors
and at an appropriate geographic scale”.138 This will involve strengthening “green
governance”, including setting binding targets, providing greater authority and resources
for enforcement efforts, replacing subsidies which discourage energy efficiency with
70
support to targeted groups, and providing more mechanisms for citizen involvement and
access to the judicial system.
An Action Plan is broadly consistent with a Logical Framework (LogFrame) or Results
Framework approach, which is often required for large projects, especially those
supported by international agencies. In practice, the Action Plan would normally put
more emphasis on the specific activities that are to be undertaken, detailing the parties
responsible and the resources to be applied. Both of these complementary approaches
provide a structured framework for planning, implementing, communicating and
monitoring major programs.
External Review of Health and Pollution Action Plans. Health and Pollution Action
Plans always benefit from expert scrutiny by disinterested outside experts with
experience in pollution control and pollution-related disease prevention. An effective
high-level review can be conducted in a relatively short time, including one or two days
of workshop with the appropriate officials and other key players. The outputs of the
review include refining the roadmap and creating or expanding a comprehensive Action
Plan to improve health outcomes for the population.
Key elements of this review are as follows:
• Include all relevant agencies. Senior representatives of Ministries of Health,
Environment, Industry, Development, Finance, Transportation, Planning, and
legislative branches if appropriate should be involved.
• Make health impacts the focus of the review and focus interventions on those types
of pollution that cause the most premature death or disability.
• Review each pollution aspect to understand the sources of exposures and to clarify
the linkages to health.
• Review existing programs for efficacy and reach. Determine where there are
performance gaps: areas where expansion can impact more people, or further
reduce pollution-related disease. Review legal, regulatory and enforcement gaps.
71
• Outline potential interventions (new and expanded) for those exposures for which
there is high health impact, significant co-benefits, and an appetite for solutions, and
evaluate these for cost–effectiveness.
• Focus not only on traditional pollution aspects, but also on pollution aspects that
have likely had less attention historically. These include:
o Household air, especially with respect to enhancing fuel types, such as
support for bottled gas instead of burning dung or wood.
o Contaminated sites. Not just those near large industry, but a focus on
toxins from smaller industry, especially in high-density areas. These may
include mercury contamination from artisanal mining, and lead
contamination from battery recycling.
o Distributed lead exposure issues, which include lead in pottery glazes,
lead in paint, and other pathways that may be specific to a particular
culture.
o Occupational risks, including those of asbestos.
• Review co-benefits of interventions aside from health improvement. Gender, climate
change, tourism, economic growth, education, and political factors need to be
included in discussions.
Citizen Participation in Health and Pollution Action Plans. Governments extend
their reach and increase the effectiveness of pollution control programs when they
reach out to non-governmental organizations, the private sector, academia and other
stakeholders and use the tools of information technology to aggregate good practices
online that can be used by individuals, companies, and governments. The public should
have the right to contribute to formulation of the pollution action plan and to access
information and records held by the environmental agency and other relevant
authorities, subject to only carefully limited and defined exceptions, and with the right to
prompt judicial review if the information and records are not provided. Members of the
public should have the right to participate in administrative proceedings to issue
regulations and permits. Environmental and other citizen groups and/or individual
members should have the right to judicial review of standards, regulations, permits,
72
environmental impact assessments, and agency disposition of petitions to take actions.
Modest changes by the many will have a profound impact on pollution reduction.
Government agencies should conduct an environmental impact assessment based on
international standards for major new facilities or projects that may significantly affect
public health and/or the environment.
1. A sound body of environmental laws and policies backed by an effective and independent judiciary. Institutions and coordination.
A fundamental requirement for effective pollution control and management is a sound
body of environmental laws and policies backed by an effective and independent
judiciary. Most countries and cities have adequate basic environmental legislation and
pollution control regulations in place.
Key components of a model environmental law could include the following:
1. Framing the law. The preamble of such a law must state clearly the societal purpose
of the legislation and must define what is a pollutant. Such a clear preamble will
ensure that future judicial interpretation of cases brought under the law will be
required to consider both the technical and the societal elements of offences against
the law.
2. Sanctions. The law must establish sanctions for failure to comply and establish
penalties commensurate with the health and safety harms that each pollutant causes
both to individuals and to communities. In this aspect of the law, scientific and
environmental evidence is key.
3. ‘Polluter pays’ principle. The law should state clearly that the legal onus is on the
polluter and not those suffering from the polluter’s actions. This reverse onus of the
burden of proof in cases of environmental pollution and degradation is best suited to
situations of low resourced communities and offers a real chance for social justice as
an outcome.
4. Targets and timelines. A model law would include specific targets and timelines. The
ultimate goal is both control and elimination of pollution that harms the health and
safety of individuals and communities.
73
5. Monitoring. A model law must establish ongoing monitoring. While a law and its
subsequent regulations are essential, they are but a first step. Rigorous and
enforceable monitoring must be a part of all proposals and projects designed to
reduce the health and safety risks posed by locally created and driven polluting
practices. This process must be adequately funded, and implemented in a way that
provides training and employment to those living within affected communities in the
future. Several monitoring protocols have been developed for environmental
projects. Those that already exist internationally should be identified and amended
to meet specific local circumstances. These, then, can be used as templates for
action.
6. Legal redress. A model law must provide options for judicial review through the
courts. Yet while the courts have an important role to play, they should not be the
only option for redress. Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms exist in several
jurisdictions, and should be used as primary tools to address and resolve such
issues. The court process is lengthy and expensive, focussing inevitably on
individual rights. Effective ways to articulate and protect community interests in
healthier and safer conditions and environments are essential. Most pollution and
environmental cases involve entire communities, and the health and safety issues
affect most of the families who live there. Even choosing to pursue a class action on
their behalf ultimately leads to a lengthy judicial process, and only includes the rights
of individuals who form part of, or who have opted into, the class.
Ultimately, the purpose of the law will be to identify the pollution and polluter, offer legal
and alternative options and solutions to address the health and safety impacts of the
polluting activity, and to ensure that environmentally sound alternatives are offered and
undertaken directly by those within the affected community to benefit that larger
community and empower it to further action and control.
Every country has its own specific characteristics and institutions, and new legislation
and regulation must be designed and implemented to suit the local circumstances.
However, there are relevant models available in the legislation of a number of
developed countries. Canada has a broad suite of environmental legislation, covering
environmental protection, pollution prevention, biodiversity and conservation, and
74
sustainable development broadly. This legislation and associated regulations may help
countries in the design of their own systems.139
Laws and regulations140,141 are not sufficient142 to control pollution and prevent pollution-
. They need to be backed by the head of government, buttressed by related disease
strong and impartial enforcement and supported by an independent judiciary that has
effective authority, knowledge and capacity to enforce their decisions. Enforcement staff
may need to be expanded and trained.143 Fines or penalties need to have sufficient
substance to force polluters to change their behavior. They must be legally applied.
Regulatory and remediation programs should be based on Polluter Pays principle, but
some public funding should be provided where needed for public waste treatment and
other public facilities, laggard industry sectors undergoing modernization, and “orphan”
hazardous waste sites.
2. A cabinet-level environmental agency with responsibility for collecting data on sources and levels of pollution and the power to enforce environmental laws and regulations. A national, regional or city-wide environmental regulatory body
with general authority over pollution in air water and soils and a mission to protect
health and the environment is of central importance to successful intervention
against pollution. In addition to data collection and enforcement powers, this agency
should ideally have capacities also for scientific research and risk analysis,
engineering and economic analysis. The environmental regulatory body must have clear constitutional and statutory
authority to adopt standards and regulations to protect health and the environment and
to enforce regulations through requiring control and cleanup measures from industry to
achieve standards. It must also have the authority to impose meaningful and effective
sanctions, liabilities, and orders requiring specific actions on its own writ or by
application to the courts. There must also be mechanisms for effective cooperation with
other relevant government authorities in public health and medical care, toxicology and
epidemiology, finance, economic development, industrial policy and location, energy,
agriculture, mining, drinking water, maritime activities and environmental health and
75
management research institutions. The environmental regulatory body should have
regional branches and an appropriate allocation of authority with state, provincial or
regional authorities, and local authorities. The allocation of authority and responsibility
among these different units should be designed and implemented at scales appropriate
to the health and environmental problems and their solution.
The environmental regulatory body must have adequate staffing and resources,
including staffing in disciplines such as environmental health science, risk assessment,
engineering, economic analysis, and data management.
3. Robust, transparent environmental and public health data systems. High quality metrics that monitor pollution and and track pollution-related disease
progress towards national and local pollution prevention and disease control goals are
essential to the success of any Pollution Action Plan. Early establishment of public
health and environment monitoring systems should therefore be a priority
Two types of data are needed for effective intervention against pollution, and they both
need to be continually updated and monitored:
• Environmental data that monitor sources, levels and geographic distribution of
the various types of pollution; and
• Public health data that track geographic and temporal patterns of diseases
related to pollution.
This Commission encourages governments to consider creation of a Central
Data Bank (CDB) that acts as a repository of data on pollution – household,
ambient and occupational. The CDB should have controlled and restricted
accessibility to general public and full accessibility to researchers, regulators, and
scientists and policy makers.
Environmental data systems. Considerable expertise has been developed worldwide
in the design and operation of environmental monitoring, sampling and testing systems.
76
Advice can therefore be provided to cities and countries by donors, development banks,
and technical organizations.144,145
Modern technology continues to reduce the costs of data collection and information
processing and basic monitoring systems can often be established for relatively limited
costs. The use of satellite-based remote sensing, for example, to measure air pollution
is gaining increased attention although the coverage and interpretation of satellite data
is still being refined.146 Europe and the USA have acquired significant experience with
the use of satellite-derived data, which have been reported to be capable of accounting
for year-to-year variability, and are population-weighted and useful for long-term trends.
Satellite-based data have also been used to provide spatial coverage in sparsely
populated areas, such as in the mid-west region of USA, which lacks a robust network
of monitors. It is important to note that the use of satellite-derived estimates is
nonetheless built on a strong foundation of existing ground-level monitoring networks.
The use of satellite technology for measuring air quality is not without challenges.
Satellite-derived estimates have been reported to “average out” high particulate matter
concentrations leading to low bias in estimates of particulate matter concentrations in
cities where PM concentrations are known to be high. This has been observed in
Ulaanbaatar, a city known to have some of the highest PM2.5 concentrations ever
measured, and cities in China, Ukraine and Kazakhstan. Furthermore, satellite-derived
data have led to over-estimates of PM concentrations in desert countries affected by
natural dust and sea salt. For example, according to the GBD 2013 data sets,
Mauritania has the highest annual PM2.5 concentration of 70 µg/m3 and Mongolia 8
µg/m3, which is incorrect. Other shortcomings of application of satellite technology relate
to use of only day-time observations, no observations on cloudy days, and averaging
out of PM concentrations over large areas (typically 10x10km). At the same time,
satellite-based data has the potential to provide estimates for regions of the world with
no or limited ground-level monitoring (GLM) networks, if discrepancies between
satellite-based and GLM can be resolved. Also, satellite-based observations could
potentially reduce the cost of air quality monitoring in certain locations by reducing the
density of GLM, but this issue needs to be better understood.
77
Public health data systems. While there have been substantial improvements in the
quality of public health data worldwide, there are still many gaps especially in poor
countries with insufficient resources for systematic data collection.147 Thus only one-
third of the world’s population and only 5% of Africa is covered by usable information on
causes of death. China and India have both been redeveloping their verbal autopsy
registration systems in which cause of death is based on data provided by field-trained
personnel, and these data systems are improving.148 Limitations in the quality of public
health data reduce the accuracy of global estimates of the burden of disease related to
pollution.
Estimates of disease frequency from the Global Burden of Disease Study coordinated
by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation can serve as a starting point for
tracking the burden of pollution-related disease in a city or country, but these modeled
estimates need to be supplemented by data collected on the ground by local agencies.
This Commission is of the strong opinion that environmental and public health
monitoring data should be made available to the wider public in clear and accessible
form. Such “democratization” of the accumulated knowledge is essential to engage
society in understanding the issues and supporting key actions.149,150 Information should
be reported in a format that is readily understandable to the general public – data from
monitoring systems can often be highly technical.
Data collection and analysis can be an intensive and expensive exercise and new
sampling and monitoring systems have to be well justified. There would be strong
value in having a Central Data Coordination System (CDCS) whose role would be to
liaise with the many different collectors of data and to commission and publish
integrated reports.
4. An active civil society and independent media who can bring attention to pollution problems, and environmental pollution-related diseasediscrimination.
78
Civil society organizations (non-governmental organizations and community-based
organizations) are a playing an increasing role in holding governments and companies
to account for pollution control and prevention of . Heads of pollution-related disease
government and government agencies can gain powerful allies and great leverage
when they empower civil society to combat pollution. This can be achieved by improving
transparency (making information on air, soil, and water quality publicly available) and
participation (consulting private sector and civil society representatives in pollution
policy making).
Neglected in global health circles is advocacy for strengthening human rights
protections, enforced by a competent, independent, non-corrupt judiciary. Such rights
and the judicial mechanisms needed to support them are essential to protect people
and their lands from the damaging effects they may be subjected to through certain
industrial activities. This is particularly important for indigenous peoples who often
endure some of the lowest socio-economic conditions yet whose lands contain a large
percentage of the world’s natural resources. It also enables individuals and
governments to receive compensation for damages sustained and recoup funds needed
to rehabilitate lands damaged through industrial activities.
Private industry is also finding that responsible corporate citizenship (i.e., a sound
commercial, social, and environmental bottom-line) is good for business. Enlightened
business leaders can be powerful advocates for pollution control and disease
prevention. The creation by government of incentives for non-polluting industries can be
powerful catalysts for innovative action, as has been seen in the recent rapid
development of solar power systems and the organic food industry.
This Commission emphasizes that multiple stakeholders should have a role in
controlling pollution and preventing s, including not only top pollution-related disease
government leaders but also key civil servants, business and academia, and civil
society. Mapping the most important and influential stakeholders (both formal and
79
informal) can help to ensure that all the parties who can advance (or derail) programs
are taken into account.151
5. Transdisciplinary training programs that build future capacity in pollution prevention and upgrade technical skills.
Capacity building is essential to the success of Pollution Action Plans and to attainment
of the Sustainable Development Goals. UNDP has identified four main components to
upgrading national capacity in pollution control and prevention of pollution-related
disease: institutions; leadership; knowledge; and accountability.152 Education underlies
every aspect of capacity building.
To strengthen the capacity of governments and academic institutions in low- and
middle-income countries to control pollution and prevent pollution-related disease, this
Commission encourages countries to develop transdisciplinary education programs in
the environmental health sciences. These programs can build knowledge of the role
of toxic environmental exposures in human biology and disease and focus on
pathophysiologic, clinical, and public health endpoints. Regional partnerships across
countries, possibly supported by international organizations, are an effective way to
launch these programs and support research.
This Commission also encourages additional institutional capacity-building efforts
such as in-country training workshops in advanced techniques; distance learning; and
interaction with other national and regional efforts to strengthen the ability of
institutions to identify and undertake successful research and research training in
to influence teaching, implementation, and country policy. pollution-related disease
Specific training models include the following:
• Long-term (6 months or longer) training to build the full range of skills
necessary to plan, conduct, manage and disseminate the results of
research on with the understanding that the pollution-related disease
80
focus of thesis and training-related research will be in the low-and
middle-income country.
• Medium-term (3-6 months) training or mentoring, which may include
specialized research, policy, or administrative/business skills necessary
to conduct research that is planned or ongoing and translate results for
interventions and policy.
• Short-term (less than 3 months) training or mentoring that focuses on
building research skills.
International experts and agencies can guide and inform the building of professional
capacity within countries. The World Bank has gained great experience through their
Country Environmental Analysis (CEA) and more recently through studies specifically
focused on health and economic aspects.153 The Global Burden of Disease team
(GBD)103,124,154 project has developed detailed health impact data down to a country
level.
6. Sufficient financial resources to sustain prevention of pollution-related and pollution control programs now and in the future. disease
Interventions against pollution and are multi-year endeavors pollution-related disease
that require sustainable, reliable, long-term funding. Government funding is needed to
support core regulatory, data collection and capacity building operations. Beyond that
core, a range of financing mechanisms is typically required and the mix will vary from
country to country and also by type of pollution.
City-wide or regional systems for pollution control and pollution-related disease
prevention such as drinking water reservoirs, central sanitation, improved power plants,
or remediation of contaminated sites will typically require some form of physical upgrade
or up-front new investment. These types of interventions often require substantial public
financing. Assessing the cost-effectiveness of these interventions is critical, and they
need to be weighed against other government priorities. Economic impacts, social
81
impacts, and other priorities all come into play. Calculation of the costs of pollution and
of pollution-related disease can help put the costs of pollution control into perspective
and counter one-sided arguments against pollution control that are based solely on the
costs of control.
Government funds to support pollution control and infrastructure improvement activities
can be raised through general revenues (taxes or debt) supplemented in some cases by
fees or specific taxes levied on polluters. The use of government funds for pollution
control and prevention is justified by the benefits that these of pollution-related disease
programs provide to societal health and well-being. Basic funding of a government
department will normally come from the general budget but additional funding is often
required for special programs or for capital items. Where possible, regulatory and
remediation programs should be based on Polluter Pays principle, including recovery of
costs incurred in managing the process. However, some public funding is likely to be
needed for public waste treatment and other public facilities, laggard industry sectors
undergoing modernization, and “orphan” hazardous waste sites
A baseline estimate of the scale of government funding needed to sustain a successful
pollution control program comes from the EU countries where in in 2014 the average
annual expenditure of governments on ‘environmental protection’ amounted to 0.8 % of
GDP, with range from 0.3% to 1.6%.155 Pollution action programs in the EU countries
tend to be highly sophisticated and include expenditures on control of air and water
pollution, site remediation, pollution abatement, and biodiversity protection, all of them
buttressed by extensive data collection programs.
Policy actions may bring in charges, fees or other financial instruments and their impact
on different groups needs to be carefully assessed. Pollution charges requiring
industries to pay for their actions generally have broad public support. On the other
hand, user charges and taxes are often controversial. Fuel and similar taxes are often
seen as regressive – impacting the poor to a greater extent. Charges for water and
sanitation can make the services unaffordable for the poor, who would benefit most.156
82
Subsidies can be important tools in combatting pollution – both removal of subsidies to
activities that pollute (in sectors such as energy, agriculture and transport) and provision
of subsidies for “cleaner” or pollution abatement activities. Subsidies to bring the cost of
bottled gas in reach can mitigate health impact on poor families using wood and dung
as cooking fuel. Decisions are usually based on a complex mix of considerations.157,158
The use of pollution discharge fees or taxes and tradable pollution permits should be
seriously considered.
Substantial sanctions should be imposed for violation by regulated facilities or sites of
requirements for monitoring, record-keeping and reporting pollution discharges or site
conditions to the regulatory authorities. Sanctions and liabilities must be set at levels to
provide effective compliance incentives. Experience shows that relying exclusively or
primarily on criminal sanctions is generally not effective. Criminal sanctions should be
reserved for the most serious violations of law. Severe liabilities and penalties should be
imposed for all substantial violations, calibrated at levels that will recoup the economic
benefits that the violator gained from the violation plus an additional amount based on
the gravity of the violation.
******
83
SECTION 4: INTERVENTIONS
A wide range of experience in controlling pollution and preventing pollution-related
disease has been gained worldwide in countries and cities at every level of income.
Some of these processes, interventions, and successful strategies are summarized
here.
Control of active, large-scale industrial pollution: The principal strategy for control
of active large-scale industrial pollution is enforcement of laws and regulations and is
based on the ‘polluter pays’ principle that requires polluters to use their own internal
resources to reduce their pollution. Polluters can reduce their emissions by multiple
approaches that include increasing process efficiency, changing processes or
feedstocks, or capturing emissions by stack scrubbers or wastewater treatment. Modest
levels of pollution reduction may be financed out of an industry’s operational budgets,
but major improvements typically require allocation of capital. Such allocation of capital
is usually resisted by polluting industries whose managers use threats of job losses or
relocation to avoid pollution control.159 Visionary and forceful leadership is required to
overcome the ‘political economy’ of such vested interests.
Remediation of widely dispersed pollutants. Cost is a particular problem in dealing
with persistent and toxic substances that are dispersed on a large or global scale. Lead
is a key example, as even low levels of exposure to lead as occur broadly around the
world have been found to have profound impacts on children’s health and intelligence
and on adults’ risk of hypertension and cardiovascular disease. Persistent organic
pollutants such as PCBs, brominated flame retardants and chlorinated pesticides
provide another example. Remediation of these types of toxic substances at
concentrations that are relatively low but still pose a significant health risk is difficult and
costly.
Primary prevention of environmental dissemination needs to be the mainstay of
protection of planetary health against persistent pollutants. Such prevention is most
84
effectively achieved by bans on the production of highly hazardous substances, such as
are mandated under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants
(POPs).
Control of small-scale industrial and artisanal pollution: The difficulties in
identifying individual polluters and in bringing about improvements in their performance
can be substantial in the case of smaller active polluters, especially those in the informal
sector such as battery recyclers and gold miners. These polluters typically have no
capital reserves, and the strategies that can be used to curb emissions by larger
polluters have little traction. Some of the most successful approaches to control of
emissions from small polluters have involved market-based initiatives.160
Control of household pollution: Governments can play an important role in the
control of pollution at the household level in assisting households and communities to
secure alternative fuels for cooking and in accelerating the provision of clean water
sources and better sanitary facilities. Such programs can be moved forward by
redirecting and targeting ongoing infrastructure and service delivery programs or by
providing new support. A recent initiative in India to finance the provision of clean fuels
to 50 million households161 is notable for a number of reasons, not least that it is
planned to be funded by re-direction of liquefied petroleum gas subsidies voluntarily
from wealthier consumers to the targeted poor households.162 Non-governmental
organizations can play important roles in such efforts.
Provision of water and sanitation facilities to poorer communities and households has
for decades been implemented by government finances, with donor support.163 In urban
areas with large utilities, there may be an element of cross-subsidy, from industry to
households and from wealthier to poorer. However, since poor communities are often
difficult to service and generate limited revenue, there has often been slow progress by
utilities in reaching targets for coverage of poor communities.164
85
Behavioral changes for control of pollution: Behavioral strategies for pollution
control and prevention of pollution-related diseases that require individuals to change
the established patterns of their daily lives, such as changes in cooking methods, fuel
sources or sanitation behaviors, require no major physical investments, but can yield
great benefits for health.165,166 Successful interventions incorporate local community
involvement often coordinated by civil society, along with media and public awareness
campaigns.167
Interventions based on behavior change and technical interventions for clean cooking,
sanitation, or trash disposal must negotiate complex social, economic, and cultural
preferences in low- and middle-income countries. In resource-poor communities and
households, behavior change interventions have to be particularly mindful of how
livelihood risk affects behavioral outcomes. It is not uncommon for households and
communities to abandon the use of better practices or technologies in times of a
livelihood crisis. The history of household air pollution is illustrative of how sound and
elegant technical solutions of clean combustion or clean fuels are difficult to sustain
under real world conditions. Household air pollution interventions have to overcome
cheap availability of wood and other solid fuels secured daily by women and girls.
Complicating behavioral and technical interventions in low- and middle-income
countries are gender preferences and varying time horizons involved in the decision-
making around technical and social interventions. Provided that an intervention is
evidence-based, it is necessary to focus on understanding why behavior change is hard
to realize or technology that is beneficial is abandoned after a short duration of
experimentation. Research must also learn from the behavior of positive deviants who
shift voluntarily to better practices like hand washing or cooking with clean fuels.
There is an emerging body of methodologies in system science to engage communities
and vulnerable households to understand the underlying mechanism of feedback
structures that drive desired or bad behavior over time.168,169 Institutional level factors
include household and community level characteristics. The household level
characteristics can be awareness levels, gender-based decisions, willingness to pay,
86
and perceived/real opportunity costs. Community level characteristics include capacity
to mobilize, investments from a community, and social networks. System-level factors
include supply side and policy related determinants.
Control of ambient air pollution. Ambient air pollution is the product of a range of
emissions from stationary sources, principally industrial sources, as well as from mobile
sources – cars, trucks and buses. In rapidly industrializing cities and countries where
there is a mix of household air pollution and ambient air pollution, the burden of disease
can be high.161 Interventions in such locales need to be broad-based and encompass
control of pollution from both sources.
Each year, an estimated 6.5 million deaths worldwide are linked to ambient air pollution.
Inefficient and poorly regulated fuel combustion is the primary source of the main
pollutants. Despite the growing challenges, there are examples where major
improvements have been achieved.
Mexico City —In 1992, Mexico City was named the most polluted city in the
world by the World Health Organization. Since then, after some key interventions
both air quality has improved170 and the rate of greenhouse gas emission has
reduced significantly.171 The “Hoy no Circula” (“No Driving Today”) program
controls the city’s vehicle circulation by restricting diesel- and gasoline-fueled
vehicles from driving according to the day of the week and the last digit of the
vehicle’s license plate. It reduces vehicle circulation by 20% every day from
Monday to Friday.172
London — The city’s air was seriously polluted with the Great Smog in
December 1952 that killed approximately 4,000 people. The peak in number of
deaths coincided with peaks in the levels of airborne smoke and sulfur dioxide. In
the wake of this disaster, the first Clean Air Act was introduced in 1956 to combat
the bad air quality in London. The main points of this policy were regulations on
chimney heights, smoke control areas, and emissions from industrial
premises.173 The great reduction in both smoke and sulfur dioxide levels in
87
London that followed has been attributed to both the Clean Air Act and to a
general switchover from smoke-producing fuels such as coke and coal to gas.
California — Ambient ozone levels in Los Angeles in the 1960’s were the
highest levels ever recorded in the world. Thick smog was present year-round
and contained harmful substances such as formaldehyde, and peroxyacetyl
nitrate. To reduce this toxic pollution, the California Air Resources Board adopted
an aggressive strategy. They implemented source controls for cleaner engines
for cars, regulations on industrial emissions, and vapor recovery systems in cars.
Between the 1960’s and 2008 air pollution had been reduced by 75%.
Reductions in childhood asthma and improvements in lung function have been
documented.
Ambient air pollution, climate change, and health are closely linked problems that share
a number of common causes and solutions.174 Highlighting and leveraging the co-
benefits of air pollution reduction strategies encourages collaboration, increases funding
opportunities, and ensures greater traction, acceptance, and compliance. Actions to
reduce air pollution can have additional global benefits.175
While gaps in understanding details of sources and associated risks should not be a
reason for delaying actions to begin to tackle obvious problems, detailed source
apportionment studies are important for large and complex problems. These take time,
technical capacity, and resources. They provide a better understanding of sources of
toxicants, often identifying new issues, including those outside the immediate study
area.
Control of stationary sources of air pollution. Many countries have made real
progress in dealing with large stationary sources of ambient air pollution, although more
remains to be done. Emissions regulations – if they are consistently applied – can bring
about operational changes (including fuel improvements) and attract capital investment.
Thus large electricity generating plants in most countries around the world are now fitted
with or soon will have filters (for particulates) and scrubbers (mainly for sulphur gas and
other volatile pollutants). Fuel upgrades that can be introduced include coal washing (to
reduce dust in emissions) and transition to lower sulphur liquid fuels.176
88
For many low- and middle-income countries, the first step in an air pollution control
program is to reduce emissions of particulate matter. China, which has already done a
great deal to reduce emissions, still faces major challenges and has been planning for
additional efforts to reduce particulate emissions. Measures being implemented
include: demand-side management and structural measures; cleaner technology and
fuel; end-of-pipe control; and addressing general dust from other sources.177
Emissions controls can often improve the overall efficiency of electricity generating
plants. India has historically had relatively poor efficiency in its coal-fired plants.178 A
public rating of the performance of these179 reported that the best plants were 15%
more efficient than the average, with a number well below the average, indicating that
increasing performance of the poorer plants would not only provide more energy but
would also reduce both particulate and CO2 emissions.
Widespread small and medium polluting industries such as brickmaking may also need
to be regulated and upgraded. Small sources, such as district heating, can be
addressed by upgrading systems, using new heating equipment, and/or better fuels. In
low-income countries, burning of solid fuel contributes not only to household air
pollution, but also to ambient pollution and therefore needs specific attention.
Practical implementation of a national air quality monitoring (AQM) plan. Implementation of a pollution control plan is challenging. In Thailand, four main steps
were identified: (1) establishing the basic air quality system; (2) strengthening
compliance and enforcement; (3) carrying out action plans for major cities and specific
issues; and, (4) public participation and involvement. The national environmental
protection agency in Thailand has a set of existing and emerging strategies to take
these four steps and to continue to improve air quality in Bangkok and other target
areas,180 as summarized in the Table.
89
TABLE 2. Thailand’s Strategy for Controlling Ambient Air Pollution180
Strategies for AQM in Thailand
Existing Emerging
Ambient and emissions standards Improved fuel quality standards
Diesel emissions reductions Environmental Impact assessment
Control of high polluting buses and
trucks
VOCs emissions controls
Inspection and Maintenance
program
Continuous Emissions Monitoring
systems
Alternative fuels Enhanced capacity for compliance
Control of open burning City Action Plan and implementation
Co-benefits with Climate Change
strategies
Policies can be defined on paper, but often significant difficulties may be faced in
implementation. It is very useful to identify potential barriers early in the policy process
and to prepare some practical responses. In the context of urban transportation
policies, a useful practical checklist could be as outlined in the following Table derived
from the International Energy Agency.181 The most important aspect is to anticipate and
prepare for the process of negotiating a policy change through the various different
practical steps necessary for effective intervention.
TABLE 3. Strategic Considerations in Upgrading Public Transportation.
IDENTIFY
BARRIERS
What the potential barriers: financial; legal, regulatory, public
opposition, bureaucratic resistance?
Which existing policies or regulations could impede effective policy
action?
90
Are there identifiable groups which are likely to oppose the policy?
Where is the political support for implementation (and the opposition)?
How reliable or secure is the needed funding?
Is any critical data lacking? How will progress be monitored?
PREPARE Which actions can be designed to respond to specific barriers?
What changes to legal, regulatory or policy frameworks are needed?
Can the new policy process be adjusted to accelerate implementation?
How to engage and then involve stakeholders in overcoming barriers?
What concessions or compromises can be considered while still
achieving policy aims?
RESPOND How should responses be organised and orchestrated?
What is the best sequence and timing of responses?
How many different types of activities are required and are the
resources available?
Who needs to be involved and how will they be
supported/coordinated?
Are the relevant target audiences being addressed?
Is the overall process of dealing with barriers decisively managed and
adjusted as needed?
Control of mobile air pollution sources: Mobile sources are becoming the most
important contributors to ambient air pollution in many cities. Reflecting this increase,
the global percentage share of total oil demand by the road transport sector is projected
to increase from 57 percent in 2010 to 60 percent in 2035.151 Control of mobile
91
pollution sources is complex because of the number and variety of individual units and
because of the range of alternatives that have to be taken into account.
An overview of progress by governments in 193 countries around the world in
implementing Urban Air Quality Management Plans (UAQMP) has identified ten
successful policy elements, which include: clear objectives; robust monitoring;
establishing an emissions inventory; modeling; developing control strategies; and
obtaining public participation.182 This review also identified important challenges to
such plans: weak enforcement; limited cooperation between national and urban
authorities; inadequate monitoring; and failure to involve the public.
A range of strategies for controlling vehicular air pollution have been used – often in
tandem with one another - in developed countries and in some middle-income
countries.183 They are listed in the table below. To date few of these strategies have
been adopted in low- and lower-middle income countries (see Table 4). These proven
strategies are ready to be adopted ‘off-the-shelf’ today by countries at every level of
income.
4: Strategies implemented under UAQMPs for vehicular sources183
UMAQM STRATEGIES US UK EU Aus B.C. Jap
H
K Sin MX TH ZA CN IN
Alternative vehicle fuel x x x x x x x x x x
x x
Fuel quality improvement x x x x x x x x x
x x
Catalytic converter x x x x x x x x x
Inspection and
maintenance program x x x x x x x x x
Low emission vehicles x x x x x x x
x
Street parking banned x x x x x x x x x
Support for cycling x x x x x x x x
x
x
Congestion charging x x x x
x
92
Bus corridors x x x x x x
x
Pedestrian corridors x x x x x x
x
Low emission zones
x x
Old vehicles banned in
AQ zones x x x x x x x x x
HGV banned in AQ
zones x x x x x x x x x
No idling at traffic signals x x x
x
Traffic signal optimization
x x
Intelligent transport
systems x x x
Ban on smoky vehicles x x x x x x x x x x
On board vehicle
diagnostics x x x x x x x x x x
Registration subsidy for
clean vehicles x x x
x x
Mass rapid transit x x x x x x x x x x
x x
Support for carpools x x x x x
x
Road infrastructure
maintenance x x x
x x
x x
Stringent emissions
standards x x x x x x x x x
x x
Reduction in diesel
vehicles x x x x x x x x x
In Africa vehicular sources are estimated to contribute over 90 percent of urban air
pollution.182 Initiatives such as the Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles have been
instrumental in helping to reduce vehicular air pollution in developing countries.184
In Mexico City, the government acted to cut emissions from vehicles by mandating the
installation of catalytic converters in automobiles, removing lead from gasoline, reducing
the sulfur content of diesel, and strengthening a vehicle inspection program that was
designed to reduce emissions from old, obsolete, and/or poorly maintained vehicles,
93
among other interventions.171 As a consequence, by 2010, Mexico had cut ambient
concentrations of most pollutants by half.
In Peru, the government implemented a set of pollution control measures identified with
support from the World Bank, taking into account cost effectiveness and practicality. As
a result, improvements in air quality in Lima between 2002 and 2012 resulted in a 15%
decline in population exposure to ambient air pollution, despite ongoing population
growth.
A critical option to be considered in many locations is to switch to low-sulfur fuels in
order to lower direct emissions of particulate matter from on-road traffic. While
developed countries have reduced fuel sulfur levels to 50 or even 10 parts per million
(ppm), in developing and transitional countries the average sulfur levels (particularly in
diesel fuels) remain high (~10,000 ppm). A World Bank assessment of benefits and
costs of selected interventions to control PM air pollution in Karachi showed that moving
to lower sulfur diesel and retrofitting large vehicles with diesel oxidation catalysts would
have benefit-cost ratios of about 1.7.185 It was also recommended to convert from two-
stroke to four-stroke rickshaws and motorcycles.
Controlling urban air pollution by upgrading public transport. Transportation
accounts for nearly 20% of world energy use and urban transportation is responsible for
about 40% of this transportation-related consumption and is expected to double by
2050.186 Cities of different sizes and densities in countries at different levels of
development around the world have used a broad range of policy options to reduce
vehicular pollution and to increase active transportation (walking and bicycling) and the
use of public transport.181 The table below,181 from the International Energy Agency,
summarizes some common policy targets for different types of cities and the possible
responses.
94
Table 5: Policy options for reducing urban traffic-related air pollution181
Developing Cities Sprawling Cities Congested Cities Multi-modal Cities
Increase
Density
Minimum density requirements, transit-oriented
development, mixed-use zoning,
clustering
Affordable housing programs, zoning
reforms, builder incentives, smart growth
reforms
Improve
transport
network
Park-and-ride facilities Bus and taxi only lanes
Bus rapid transit network with feeder routes
Formal transit system
development
Light/commuter rail Trolley/Metro/Light Rail options
Prioritised bus lanes and signalisation Complete streets designs
Dedicated pedestrian
infrastructure and
cycling lanes
High-occupancy
vehicle (HOV) lanes
Cycling lanes
Seamless transport interconnectivity: easy, accessible, demarcated connections between
travel modes, e.g. bus to metro
Road freight to rail facilities
Reduce
driving
Teleworking facilities Transit incentives
Parking maximums/restrictions, fees and levies
Road pricing/tolls Congestion pricing and vehicle quotas
Vehicle registration tax/pay-go fees/fuel prices and taxes
Improved public transport services and increased frequency/reliability
Carpool/rideshare programs Integrated ticketing for transit
Freight delivery restrictions
Improve
safety
Non-motorised transport facilities: separated cycling lanes, sidewalk improvements, zebra
crossings, median barriers/islands (mid-road protection for crossing pedestrians)
Safe routes to transit/school programs
Traffic calming measures: lane narrowing, road
“diets” (reduction in lanes), speed reductions,
one-way to two-way streets, street closures,
reduced speed zones, improved signalisation
Traffic calming measures: speed bumps,
curb extensions, “shared space” roads,
cyclist/pedestrian priority roads, chokers
(narrowing at crossroads), pedestrian
zones (reduced speed), car-free zones
95
Controlling Household Air Pollution. About 3 billion people around the world, mostly
in low- and middle-income countries, still depend on open fires and stoves burning
biomass and coal to cook and to heat their homes.187 Exposure to household air
pollution is high in these populations, especially among women and children who spend
the most time indoors close to polluting cook stoves. Their daily high exposure to
combustion by-products is linked to a range of diseases including pneumonia, stroke,
ischemic heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and lung cancer.188–190
Open fires and stoves are also responsible for many serious burns in children in
developing countries who accidently fall into them.
Since the 1970s, scores of non-governmental organizations as well as several large
national programs supported by international agencies and foundations have worked to
reduce household air pollution by promoting various clean cook stove technologies.191
Initially, the goals of these programs were to save time and effort in fuel collection and
to reduce deforestation, but after establishment of the Millennium Development Goals,
they expanded their focus to include protection of public health. Establishment of the
Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves in 2009 accelerated activities in this arena by
funding research and development while also directing global attention and resources to
the issue of household air pollution.187 The World Health Organization has recently
developed peer-reviewed, evidence-based design and evaluation criteria for cookstoves
that are intended to reduce exposures to household air pollutants and protect human
health.192
The health impacts of household fuel use extend well beyond the household. Evidence
is growing that household sources play major roles in contributing to ambient pollution in
many countries. In India, for example, which faces the worst average ambient pollution
in the world in terms of fine particles, recent estimates indicate that 25-50% of ambient
air pollution comes from the use of solid fuels in two-thirds of Indian households.161
A barrier to the introduction and use of new and improved stoves and fuels has been
peoples’ preference to continue to use their traditional stoves. Studies have shown that
securing adoption and lasting use of clean and efficient stoves and fuels can be very
96
challenging, for reasons that involve a wide range of factors.134 Programs and projects
need to understand these barriers and design culturally appropriate strategies to
overcome them.193 Information and marketing campaigns can enhance initial adoption
of new stoves and fuels, but sustained use requires that the new technologies match
local preferences.194
With growing recognition that improved stoves could achieve only limited success in
reducing household air pollution and improving health,195 interest has grown in finding
ways to make clean fuels - gas, electricity and renewable sources of energy - available
to the large number of poor populations still using coal and biomass fuels. Household
air pollution is virtually eliminated when households and communities are able to adopt
and sustain the use of alternative fuels for cooking and heating.
In some areas and in some countries, the shift to cleaner fuels comes about as income
and resources increase as a consequence of economic development, but it is argued
that rural populations are not moving away rapidly enough from traditional solid fuel
cookstoves despite increasing incomes.196 Barriers to the adoption of alternative fuels
are costs, logistics and cultural preferences. In spite of considerable development in the
last 30 years, the same number of people worldwide rely on solid cooking fuels today as
in the 1980s, with some parts of the world – China - seeing a decline in users, others an
increase - Sub-Saharan Africa - and some unchanging - South Asia.197
In the last two years, there have been major advances to make clean fuels available in
a range of countries.
Controlling indoor air pollution by reducing tobacco use and exposure to second-hand smoke. The United Kingdom has one the highest tobacco tax rates in the world.
Since the implementation of high tobacco taxation, the proportion of adults over 16 who
admit to smoking has decreased steadily since the 1970s.198 In 2003, more anti-
smoking initiatives were put into place such as a ban on advertising, a large-scale
health campaign, and making smoking cessation aids available on NHS prescription. In
the overall population, the prevalence of smoking decreased about 10 percent from
1980 to 2002.
97
Controlling water pollution and improving sanitation and hygiene. Provision of
modern water and sanitation infrastructure can dramatically decrease risks of disease
and premature death from waterborne diseases. The challenge is to promote and
accelerate water, sanitation and hygiene interventions within the development process
so as to address specifically the health risk factors.
Protecting water resources at a national level requires a comprehensive approach.
Canada introduced a national Action Plan for Clean Water in 2007, under which a range
of programs and specific actions have been implemented. These include pollution
reduction and control, monitoring and water quality, investment in infrastructure,
regulations, and research. Within this broad national framework, more detailed action
plans have been developed for individual watersheds, including several large
transboundary systems such as the North American Great Lakes.
In 2000, the UN General Assembly set the basis for the Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs) which included a target that challenged the global community to halve, by 2015,
the number of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic
sanitation. A Joint Monitoring Program established by the World Health Organization
and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) tracks progress to this target. The
latest report from this program199 concludes that while progress continues to be made,
the net result falls short of the MDG target by almost 700 million people, leaving about
2.4 billion people around the world short of adequate sanitation. A detailed analysis in
2007 estimated that the reduction in avoidable deaths in the developing world if the
MDGs were met could be on the order of 3 million per year (in 2006).200
A brief unpublished analysis carried out under the auspices of this Commission
indicated that upgrading of water and sanitation to the levels of the developed world
would result in a saving of over 200 million years of life lost annually, by focusing
prevention efforts on only the 22 most populous developing nations. This estimate is
consistent with previous global estimates made in 2006,200 which concluded that the
numbers of premature deaths that could be avoided in the developing world if adequate
water and sewer services were provided would be on the order of 3 million per year.
98
This Commission’s analysis indicates that the range of effort/success in providing
improved sanitation and water in sub-Saharan nations is generally comparable to that
observed elsewhere in the developing world. Most striking, however, is the conclusion
on disparity between countries in the rate of progress which suggests that improved
access to sanitation and reduction in child mortality is not related to access to funds,
estimated as either Gross National Income or reported direct investment in water and
sanitation. If wealth alone is not a direct driver of sanitation and of health outcomes,
then cultural and institutional factors would appear to be important. It is possible to
identify nations whose progress in child mortality is far ahead of sanitation
improvements, including Burkina Faso, Niger and Rwanda.
The Global Analysis and Assessment of Sanitation and Drinking-Water was developed
to analyze the institutional and financial readiness of developing nations for investment
in water, sanitation and hygiene.201 This framework evaluates the adequacy or
effectiveness of (i) requisite inputs—human resources and financing and (ii) the
“enabling environment”—laws, plans, policies, institutional arrangements and
monitoring— specific to each nation. Along those lines, this project initiated a survey by
country among the developing nations to produce a mixed quantitative/qualitative
snapshot of national readiness for program level investment in nationwide improved
water and sanitation. It is possible that assessment of national readiness for investment
can be used to help to maximize the return on external investment in water, sanitation
and hygiene in the developing world.
Where physical infrastructure is lacking or inadequate, household level hygiene and
water treatment interventions such as point of use disinfection systems (using chlorine
tablets or similar) and basic hand washing can be effective.
Upgrading water and sanitation services:
Urban areas. The principal aim of water and sanitation programs in the urban context is
to provide full coverage of household water and sanitation connection. A growing
number of different institutional and financial models are being utilized to take
advantage of local conditions and entrepreneurial efforts to achieve this goal.
99
The model for urban water and sanitation is increasingly one of corporatization or
privatization, with a stand-alone body responsible for service delivery, within a
government regulatory framework. Service agreements typically include requirements
for expansion of water and sewerage to underserved communities. However,
expansion of infrastructure into poor (and often technically difficult) neighborhoods does
not provide high returns on the investment and commercial agencies are often slow to
meet targets.156 More recent models are allowing smaller local providers to operate on
the fringes of large schemes as they may be able to achieve better results through
implementing locally more appropriate solutions.
Rural areas. For rural areas, where provision of convenient and safe drinking water has
been the primary objective, a range of successful approaches are being implemented,
although financial sustainability has been harder to establish. Increasing attention is
now being paid to rural sanitation and hygiene because of the large public health
benefits. Efforts are increasingly focused on campaigns to eliminate open defecation at
the community level (since high levels of compliance are necessary to achieve the
health benefits).
In many rural areas, particularly in Africa and South Asia, the focus of many sanitation
efforts is less on the hardware (latrines and so on) and more on promotion of communal
efforts to see the value in better sanitation – often in the context of ending open
defecation - and in implementing solutions that are beneficial for the whole
community.202 There are many programs, often supported by international donors and
NGOs, that work with local leaders in various forms of Community Led Total Sanitation
(CLTS).203–207 These efforts are often small scale and time-consuming but are
successful in changing attitudes and increasing the uptake of better habits and facilities.
The keys to uptake usually require careful attention to local culture and conditions and
therefore scaling up takes time.208
In China, rural water and sanitation coverage has increased dramatically over the past
thirty years. Coverage of improved water supply went from 76% in 1986 to 92% in
100
2000, while sanitary latrine provision went from unknown (but low) in the 1980’s to 49%
in 2000, with efforts continuing to reach a target of 65%.209
Peri-urban areas. The peri-urban areas and large towns have particular challenges,
being neither full urbanization nor low-density rural. A specific strategy for these areas
is required, perhaps a transition approach as suggested by Water Aid.210 A problem in
these areas is that the informal context cannot provide the legal basis required for the
agency to enter into a contract to provide regular water and sewerage services. Private
water vendors are common in such contexts and there are now some emerging small-
scale providers of sanitation services.
One example in Nairobi, set up by a social enterprise, Sanergy, covers the construction
of basic facilities and the collection and treatment of wastes. It is reported to provide
user satisfaction and community benefits, demonstrating the potential for such market
based services. However, scaling up these efforts continues to be a challenge.211 The
IFC with the multi-donor Water and Sanitation Program has identified the potential
market and is providing advice and support to businesses and governments, under a
“Selling Sanitation” initiative.
Non-piped sanitation systems. There is considerable interest in non-piped sanitation
systems, especially for slum or peri-urban areas where the difficulties and cost of
providing a traditional sewer network are prohibitive. Over the past decade, the
municipality of eThekwini in South Africa has provided about 75,000 waterless toilets to
unserviced properties in their area in efforts to increase the levels of sanitation
coverage. Surveys of usage and opinions among the households with these toilets
showed that general satisfaction with the systems was not high (about 30%) despite
considerable efforts by the Municipality to provide appropriate solutions and to inform
and educate users. The reasons for this outcome are varied but include an attitude
that the waterless systems are a second-class solution, continuing use of nearby pit
latrines (from habit or other reasons), and perceptions of odors, poor construction and
other practical problems. Review of other systems in South Africa and elsewhere
showed that there were practical problems that could be addressed but that awareness
101
and education on hygiene and environmental aspects could increase user
satisfaction.212
The multiple benefits of clean drinking water and adequate sanitation
Sanergy, which operates in Kenya under the leadership of David Auerbach, makes
hygienic sanitation accessible and affordable in the slums of Nairobi, where 8 million
people resort to open defecation and unsanitary pit latrines, and where 4 million tons of
waste is dumped daily into waterways. Sanergy’s “build, collect, convert” approach
solves the sanitation problem in a sustainable manner. Specially designed toilets are
provided to local residents, who run them as viable businesses, collecting about $40 per
week for every two toilets. Waste is collected in cartridges and delivered to a central
location where it is converted into low-cost organic fertilizer, animal feed, and renewable
energy that is sold to local-area electrical grids.
Controlling soil, chemical and metals pollution from industrial activities. Industrial
activities, including minerals extraction and processing, are responsible for several
different types of pollution and the release of many pollutants. Historically, industrial
pollution has been regulated on the basis of the medium (air, water, waste). This
approach has often resulted in pollutants being moved from one medium to another
rather than being fully controlled. To deal with this fragmentation, an Integrated
Pollution Prevention and Control strategy was introduced formally in Europe, initially in
1996, where the overall process is regulated and requirements are imposed for total
pollutant reduction. The European Union Directive mandating this strategy introduced
four main principles: an integrated approach, use of Best Available Techniques,
flexibility to suit the context, and public participation.
Effectiveness of the integrated pollution control strategy was examined in a review
undertaken in England and Wales.213 This review identified a number elements that
were crucial in putting a high-performing system in place, including designating a single
agency to be responsible for program implementation; phasing in the approach over
102
about six years by sector; clear guidance (developed in consultation with each sector)
on information requirements and application tools; and a risk-based appraisal system
which also establishes priorities for compliance assessments. A significant success of
the integrated pollution control framework in the UK was seen in the clear resource
efficiency savings made by industry. A review of this approach resulted in the
integrated strategy being supplanted by an Industrial Emissions Directive (2010/75/EU)
which added requirements on inspections and on pollutant release information. The
integrated approach is preferable from the point of view of resource efficiency.
There now is sufficient experience gained in Europe and elsewhere to provide a very
sound basis for recommending that countries around the world develop and implement
practical and effective systems for integrated control of soil pollution.
Contaminated Sites and toxic contamination: Contamination of land and water by
toxic metals and chemicals is a problem that has come on to the global pollution agenda
relatively recently. The extent of the problem is not yet fully defined and is likely to
continue to grow in size until systematic monitoring and effective controls can be put in
place and applied globally. Contaminants in soil can consist of a very wide range of
materials but those of greatest concern are persistent toxic substances, including heavy
metals (particularly lead, mercury and chromium), persistent organics such as some
pesticides (POPs), and radionuclides.
Remediation of hazardous waste sites: The Polluter Pays Principle is the first option
for securing financial support for the remediation of hazardous industrial and mining
sites. This approach may be feasible when the polluter is still the owner of the site or
facility. In other cases where the polluter cannot be identified or lacks resources to fulfill
their clean-up responsibilities, particularly old industrial sites, the possibility of
“brownfields” development needs to be explored. In the case of complex brownfield
sites, initial government funding is often needed to initiate and manage the development
process.214 In the case of abandoned sites where no responsible party or willing
investor can be identified, then the government may be required to step in to pay for a
minimum level of containment or isolation until long-term solutions can be found.215
103
Identification and prioritization of contaminated sites: Contaminated sites are
widely scattered and management of their risks requires a process to identify and
address priority sites. The Toxic Sites Identification Program process developed by
Pure Earth/Blacksmith institute is a good starting point but taking action should not be
delayed until an inventory is complete. The inventory system needs to include a formal
process for proposing priorities for intervention - typically some form of Hazard Ranking
System. A number of other factors will influence the selection of initial interventions,
including readiness for action, public and political concerns and availability of finance.
Identification and remediation of contaminated sites needs strong institutional
capabilities. A lead department or agency needs to be designated to drive forward the
process, and mechanisms to ensure cross-agency coordination and to address funding
must be established. Toxic exposures at contaminated sites can be categorized into a
series of commonly encountered problems, where solutions to each are replicable.
Generally, cleaner technologies and better enforcement of environmental regulations
are needed in coordination with low-cost clean-up of legacy contamination.
Four of the most serious types of toxic site contamination worldwide are:
• Lead pollution from backyard smelting and industry;
• Mercury pollution from artisanal and small-scale gold mining;
• Toxic releases from e-waste recycling; and
• Hazardous waste dumps.
Lead pollution from backyard smelting and industry. Major sources of
environmental lead exposure in low- and middle-income countries include mining (both
legacy and active), car battery processing (primarily informal), and the use lead-based
ceramic glazes.216–219
Informal used lead-acid battery processing has resulted in very high blood lead levels
(>40 ug/dL) among both workers and community residents, including young children, in
developing countries.220,221 Battery recycling often takes place in residential areas and is
characterized by poor dust and emission control, little or no personal protection
104
equipment and migration of material offsite as a result of fugitive emissions, waste
transport and contaminated clothing.
Pilot interventions to control lead pollution in battery recycling have been undertaken in
the Dominican Republic, Indonesia, and Vietnam with good success and have
demonstrated that affordable and practical cleanups are possible. In practice, technical
solutions are coupled with institutional controls and other measures such as public
education, high quality home cleaning, and workplace improvements.
Mercury pollution from artisanal and small-scale gold mining. Artisanal and small-
scale gold mining has proliferated across the world’s low- and middle-income countries
and has become a major source of mercury pollution and toxicity. Elemental mercury is
used in artisanal gold mining to amalgamate gold and extract it from ore.
An estimated 14 to 19 million workers are occupationally involved in small scale gold
mining and an additional 100 million people, many of them women and children, are
reliant upon gold mining for their income and live in mining communities.222–224 Most of
these mining communities are deeply impoverished and are situated in rural areas that
lack basic health care services and clean potable water.100,222,224 Mining activities
ravage landscapes and contaminate ecosystems.224 Miners face multiple occupational
hazards in addition to mercury, such as exposure to cyanide, which is also used to
extract gold from ore. 225
Mercury from artisanal and small-scale gold mining vaporizes into the atmosphere and
disseminates globally. Gold mining is now estimated to be the world’s largest source of
mercury pollution and receives special mention under the Minamata Convention on
Mercury.88 Article 7 of the Minamata Convention requires that parties “reduce and
where feasible eliminate the use of mercury in ASGM.” Those countries with “more than
insignificant” artisanal and small-scale gold mining activity must develop and implement
a National Action Plan. This plan requires not only the implementation of technical
measures to reduce mercury use, but also the creation of an enabling policy framework
105
to support the transition of communities away from mercury and the creation of a public
health strategy.
Improvements in mercury release from artisanal and small scale gold mining can be
achieved only by coordinated initiatives that include not only technical measures to
reduce mercury use, but also the formalization/legalization of the sector, support for a
transition away from mercury, and a public health strategy to deal with the deeply
impoverished, highly vulnerable mining communities.
A practical step towards encouraging more sustainable artisanal and small-scale gold
mining is to train miners in mercury-free technologies. However, these approaches must
show increased gold yields and/or reduced effort if they are to be accepted by the
miners. Considerable progress in reducing mercury loss and related exposures has
been achieved by use of retorts to contain and recover mercury during the final stages
of processing.
A number of mining communities using mercury-free approaches and processing
methods involving relatively harmless compounds such as borax have been successful
in certain mining conditions. A mercury-free methodology from the Philippines is being
demonstrated and adapted in sites in Indonesia, Bolivia, Tanzania and Ethiopia, where
miners from the Philippines are working with local miners.
Toxic releases from e-waste recycling. In 2014, global production of e-waste was
estimated to amount to 41.8 million tons, and substantial future increases are
projected.226 While most e-waste is generated in Europe and North America, more than
80% of e-waste recycling and processing takes place in China, India, and certain
African countries.227 The recycling and disposal of e-waste is largely an informal sector
activity, and is thus poorly documented, monitored, and regulated. Evidence is strong
that informal recycling activities can be hazardous to workers, cause widespread
environmental contamination,228 and result in toxic exposures to nearby communities.229
Burning cables to remove plastic and recover copper is a widespread and particularly
106
hazardous component of poor recycling and can result in exposures to dioxins and
other toxic products of plastics combustion.
The only practical approach to reducing pollution and health hazards at large e-waste
recycling centers is to upgrade and formalize the work and to try to relocate the most
highly polluting activities at a distance from densely populated urban centers. Improved
recovery technologies have been developed, although these may require the availability
of electric power and large-scale operation. Incentives and training for recyclers can
support improvements, but these need to be integrated into the complex networks of
waste transportation, storage, and processing that constitute the recycling industry.230
Hazardous waste dumps. Thousands of “toxic” dumps, containing large quantities of
hazardous chemical wastes are found in countries worldwide. An additional number of
general waste dumps contain undocumented hazardous and toxic materials. Estimates
of the total amounts of waste generated in developing countries total almost 2 million
tons per day, and this volume is expected to double by 2025.231 Only about 20% of this
waste is taken to designated disposal sites.
Effective solutions to waste and dumps are well known and routinely used in
industrialized countries. Modern integrated and sustainable waste management
addresses both the technological aspects and the governance aspects - including
institutions, stakeholder involvement, and finance. Hazardous waste management has
specific regulations, techniques, and institutional aspects intended to keep dangerous
materials out of the main domestic/municipal waste systems.
An overview of solid waste management worldwide232 examined the challenges and
progress made in selected cities in moving from open dumps – the common starting
point – to controlled disposal systems. Cities cited in the report as making very good
progress include Quezon City in the Philippines, Ghorhai in Nepal and Belo Horizonte in
Brazil. These are cities where strong political commitment has been a key factor. Some
Indian cities have been coming to grips with some of their very large dumps as a result
of public complaints and the subsequent adoption of national legislation, in the form of
the Municipal Solid Waste Rules 2000.233 Strong and effective local leadership, with the
involvement of the community and some external financial and technical support, can
107
achieve steady improvement in waste management and disposal and therefore can
improve the health and living conditions of the waste workers and the communities
surrounding waste dumps.
Other activities that are associated with contamination of land and water include
industrial estates, municipal/industrial dumpsites, chemicals manufacturing,
electroplating industries, and smelters. Technical approaches exist for addressing
these problems, but commitment and finance are essential.
108
1 Ma J, Hung H, Tian C, Kallenborn R. Revolatilization of persistent organic
pollutants in the Arctic induced by climate change. Nat Clim Chang 2011; 1: 255–
60.
2 Taylor DA. Dust in the wind. Environ Health Perspect 2002; 110: A80-7.
3 Tai APK, Mickley LJ, Jacob DJ. Correlations between fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) and meteorological variables in the United States: Implications for the
sensitivity of PM2.5 to climate change. Atmos Environ 2010; 44: 3976–84.
4 Ziska LH. Increasing Minimum Daily Temperatures Are Associated with Enhanced
Pesticide Use in Cultivated Soybean along a Latitudinal Gradient in the Mid-
Western United States. PLoS One 2014; 9: e98516.
5 Boxall ABA, Hardy A, Beulke S, et al. Impacts of Climate Change on Indirect
Human Exposure to Pathogens and Chemicals from Agriculture. Environ Health
Perspect 2009; 117: 508–14.
6 Roberts DA, Birchenough SNR, Lewis C, Sanders MB, Bolam T, Sheahan D.
Ocean acidification increases the toxicity of contaminated sediments. Glob Chang
Biol 2013; 19: 340–51.
7 Hooper MJ, Ankley GT, Cristol DA, Maryoung LA, Noyes PD, Pinkerton KE.
Interactions between chemical and climate stressors: A role for mechanistic
toxicology in assessing climate change risks. Environ Toxicol Chem 2013; 32: 32–
48.
8 Schiedek D, Sundelin B, Readman JW, Macdonald RW. Interactions between
climate change and contaminants. Mar Pollut Bull 2007; 54: 1845–56.
9 Noyes PD, McElwee MK, Miller HD, et al. The toxicology of climate change:
Environmental contaminants in a warming world. Environ Int 2009; 35: 971–86.
10 Kjellström T, Lodh M, T M, et al. Air and Water Pollution: Burden and Strategies
for Control. In: Jamison D, Breman J, Measham, AR et. al, eds. Disease Control
Priorities in Developing Countries, 2nd. Washington, DC; New York: The
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank; Oxford
University Press, 2006.
109
11 Finley BD, Swartzendruber PC, Jaffe DA. Particulate mercury emissions in
regional wildfire plumes observed at the Mount Bachelor Observatory. Atmos
Environ 2009; 43: 6074–83.
12 Odigie KO, Flegal AR. Pyrogenic Remobilization of Historic Industrial Lead
Depositions. Environ Sci Technol 2011; 45: 6290–5.
13 Balbus JM, Boxall ABA, Fenske RA, McKone TE, Zeise L. Implications of global
climate change for the assessment and management of human health risks of
chemicals in the natural environment. Environ Toxicol Chem 2013; 32: 62–78.
14 Landrigan PJ, Goldman LR. Children’s Vulnerability To Toxic Chemicals: A
Challenge And Opportunity To Strengthen Health And Environmental Policy.
Health Aff 2011; 30: 842–50.
15 Braun JM, Yolton K, Dietrich KN, et al. Prenatal Bisphenol A Exposure and Early
Childhood Behavior. Environ Health Perspect 2009; 117: 1945–52.
16 Grandjean P, Landrigan PJ. Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity.
Lancet Neurol 2014; 13: 330–8.
17 Grandjean P, Landrigan PJ. Developmental neurotoxicity of industrial chemicals.
Lancet (London, England) 2006; 368: 2167–78.
18 Trasande L, Landrigan PJ. The National Children’s Study: A Critical National
Investment. Environ. Health Perspect. 2004; 112: A789-90.
19 Jacobson JL, Jacobson SW. Intellectual Impairment in Children Exposed to
Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Utero. N Engl J Med 1996; 335: 783–9.
20 Rauh VA, Perera FP, Horton MK, et al. Brain anomalies in children exposed
prenatally to a common organophosphate pesticide. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2012;
109: 7871–6.
21 Bouchard MF, Chevrier J, Harley KG, et al. Prenatal Exposure to
Organophosphate Pesticides and IQ in 7-Year-Old Children. Environ Health
Perspect 2011; 119: 1189–95.
22 Engel SM, Miodovnik A, Canfield RL, et al. Prenatal Phthalate Exposure Is
110
Associated with Childhood Behavior and Executive Functioning. Environ Health
Perspect 2010; 118: 565–71.
23 Herbstman JB, Sjödin A, Kurzon M, et al. Prenatal Exposure to PBDEs and
Neurodevelopment. Environ Health Perspect 2010; 118: 712–9.
24 Jedrychowski WA, Perera FP, Camann D, et al. Prenatal exposure to polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons and cognitive dysfunction in children. Environ Sci Pollut
Res 2015; 22: 3631–9.
25 Perera FP, Chang H, Tang D, et al. Early-Life Exposure to Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons and ADHD Behavior Problems. PLoS One 2014; 9: e111670.
26 Suk WA, Ahanchian H, Asante KA, et al. Environmental Pollution: An Under-
recognized Threat to Children’s Health, Especially in Low- and Middle-Income
Countries. Environ Health Perspect 2016; 124: A41-5.
27 UN Environment. Global Chemicals Outlook—Towards Sound Management of
Chemicals. 2013.
http://web.unep.org/chemicalsandwaste/sites/unep.org.chemicalsandwaste/files/p
ublications/GCO_web.pdf (accessed March 30, 2017).
28 World Health Organization. Inheriting a sustainable world? Atlas on children’s
health and the environment. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017.
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/254677/1/9789241511773-eng.pdf?ua=1
(accessed March 7, 2017).
29 Carson R. Silent Spring. Cambridge, MA: Riverside Press, 1962.
30 Colborn T. Epidemiology of great lakes bald eagles. J Toxicol Environ Health
1991; 33: 395–453.
31 Cohn BA, La Merrill M, Krigbaum NY, et al. DDT Exposure in Utero and Breast
Cancer. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2015; 100: 2865–72.
32 Herbst AL, Hubby MM, Azizi F, Makii MM. Reproductive and gynecologic surgical
experience in diethylstilbestrol-exposed daughters. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1981;
141: 1019–28.
111
33 Swan SH. Environmental phthalate exposure in relation to reproductive outcomes
and other health endpoints in humans. Environ Res 2008; 108: 177–84.
34 Gore AC, Chappell VA, Fenton SE, et al. EDC-2: The Endocrine Society’s Second
Scientific Statement on Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals. Endocr Rev 2015; 36:
E1–150.
35 Grube A, Donaldson D, Kiely T, Wu L. Pesticides Industry Sales and Usage. 2006
and 2007 Market Estimates. Washington: US Environmental Protection Agency.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-
10/documents/market_estimates2007.pdf (accessed April 17, 2017).
36 Guyton KZ, Loomis D, Grosse Y, et al. Carcinogenicity of tetrachlorvinphos,
parathion, malathion, diazinon, and glyphosate. Lancet Oncol 2015; 16: 490–1.
37 Guillette EA, Meza MM, Aquilar MG, Soto AD, Garcia IE. An anthropological
approach to the evaluation of preschool children exposed to pesticides in Mexico.
Environ Health Perspect 1998; 106: 347–53.
38 Slotkin TA. Cholinergic systems in brain development and disruption by
neurotoxicants: nicotine, environmental tobacco smoke, organophosphates.
Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 2004; 198: 132–51.
39 Jeschke P, Nauen R, Schindler M, Elbert A. Overview of the Status and Global
Strategy for Neonicotinoids. J Agric Food Chem 2011; 59: 2897–908.
40 Hopwood J, Code A, Vaughan M, et al. How neonicotinoids can kill bees: The
science behind the role these insecticides play in harming bees, 2nd edn.
Portland, 2016.
41 Breer H, Sattelle DB. Molecular properties and functions of insect acetylcholine
receptors. J Insect Physiol 1987; 33: 771–90.
42 Gauthier M. State of the art on insect nicotinic acetylcholine receptor function in
learning and memory. Adv Exp Med Biol 2010; 683: 97–115.
43 Tomizawa M, Casida JE. Selective toxicity of neonicotinoids attributable to
specificity of insect and mammalian nicotinic receptors. Annu Rev Entomol 2003;
112
48: 339–64.
44 Wood TJ, Goulson D. The Environmental Risks of neonicotinoid pesticides: a
review of the evidence post-2013. bioRxiv 2017. DOI:10.1101/098897.
45 Goulson D. REVIEW: An overview of the environmental risks posed by
neonicotinoid insecticides. J Appl Ecol 2013; 50: 977–87.
46 van der Sluijs JP, Amaral-Rogers V, Belzunces LP, et al. Conclusions of the
Worldwide Integrated Assessment on the risks of neonicotinoids and fipronil to
biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Environ Sci Pollut Res 2015; 22: 148–54.
47 Godfray HCJ, Blacquière T, Field LM, et al. A restatement of recent advances in
the natural science evidence base concerning neonicotinoid insecticides and
insect pollinators. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 2015; 282: 20151821.
48 Lundin O, Rundlöf M, Smith HG, Fries I, Bommarco R. Neonicotinoid Insecticides
and Their Impacts on Bees: A Systematic Review of Research Approaches and
Identification of Knowledge Gaps. PLoS One 2015; 10: e0136928.
49 Rundlöf M, Andersson GKS, Bommarco R, et al. Seed coating with a
neonicotinoid insecticide negatively affects wild bees. Nature 2015; 521: 77–80.
50 Simmons WR, Angelini DR. Chronic exposure to a neonicotinoid increases
expression of antimicrobial peptide genes in the bumblebee Bombus impatiens.
Sci Rep 2017; 7: 44773.
51 Di Prisco G, Cavaliere V, Annoscia D, et al. Neonicotinoid clothianidin adversely
affects insect immunity and promotes replication of a viral pathogen in honey
bees. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2013; 110: 18466–71.
52 Palmer MJ, Moffat C, Saranzewa N, Harvey J, Wright GA, Connolly CN.
Cholinergic pesticides cause mushroom body neuronal inactivation in honeybees.
Nat Commun 2013; 4: 1634.
53 Stanley DA, Smith KE, Raine NE. Bumblebee learning and memory is impaired by
chronic exposure to a neonicotinoid pesticide. Sci Rep 2015; 5: 16508.
54 Tan K, Chen W, Dong S, Liu X, Wang Y, Nieh JC. A neonicotinoid impairs
113
olfactory learning in Asian honey bees (Apis cerana) exposed as larvae or as
adults. Sci Rep 2015; 5: 10989.
55 Jin N, Klein S, Leimig F, Bischoff G, Menzel R. The neonicotinoid clothianidin
interferes with navigation of the solitary bee Osmia cornuta in a laboratory test. J
Exp Biol 2015; 218: 2821–5.
56 Fischer J, Müller T, Spatz A-K, Greggers U, Grünewald B, Menzel R.
Neonicotinoids Interfere with Specific Components of Navigation in Honeybees.
PLoS One 2014; 9: e91364.
57 Feltham H, Park K, Goulson D. Field realistic doses of pesticide imidacloprid
reduce bumblebee pollen foraging efficiency. Ecotoxicology 2014; 23: 317–23.
58 Gill RJ, Raine NE. Chronic impairment of bumblebee natural foraging behaviour
induced by sublethal pesticide exposure. Funct Ecol 2014; 28: 1459–71.
59 Whitehorn PR, O’Connor S, Wackers FL, Goulson D. Neonicotinoid Pesticide
Reduces Bumble Bee Colony Growth and Queen Production. Science (80- )
2012; 336: 351–2.
60 Ellis C, Park KJ, Whitehorn P, David A, Goulson D. The Neonicotinoid Insecticide
Thiacloprid Impacts upon Bumblebee Colony Development under Field
Conditions. Environ Sci Technol 2017; 51: 1727–32.
61 Woodcock BA, Isaac NJB, Bullock JM, et al. Impacts of neonicotinoid use on
long-term population changes in wild bees in England. Nat Commun 2016; 7:
12459.
62 Sandrock C, Tanadini M, Tanadini LG, Fauser-Misslin A, Potts SG, Neumann P.
Impact of Chronic Neonicotinoid Exposure on Honeybee Colony Performance and
Queen Supersedure. PLoS One 2014; 9: e103592.
63 Wu-Smart J, Spivak M. Sub-lethal effects of dietary neonicotinoid insecticide
exposure on honey bee queen fecundity and colony development. Sci Rep 2016;
6: 32108.
64 Stanley DA, Garratt MPD, Wickens JB, Wickens VJ, Potts SG, Raine NE.
114
Neonicotinoid pesticide exposure impairs crop pollination services provided by
bumblebees. Nature 2015; 528: 548–50.
65 Ollerton J, Winfree R, Tarrant S. How many flowering plants are pollinated by
animals? Oikos 2011; 120: 321–6.
66 Myers JP, Antoniou MN, Blumberg B, et al. Concerns over use of glyphosate-
based herbicides and risks associated with exposures: a consensus statement.
Environ Heal 2016; 15: 19.
67 Benbrook CM. Trends in glyphosate herbicide use in the United States and
globally. Environ Sci Eur 2016; 28: 3.
68 Dietz R, Sonne C, Basu N, et al. What are the toxicological effects of mercury in
Arctic biota? Sci Total Environ 2013; 443: 775–90.
69 Kuhnlein H V., Chan HM. ENVIRONMENT AND CONTAMINANTS IN
TRADITIONAL FOOD SYSTEMS OF NORTHERN INDIGENOUS PEOPLES.
Annu Rev Nutr 2000; 20: 595–626.
70 Young KT, Moffatt MEK, O’Neil JD. Cardiovascular Diseases in a Canadian Arctic
Population. Am J Public Health 1993; 83.
71 Donaldson SG, Van Oostdam J, Tikhonov C, et al. Environmental contaminants
and human health in the Canadian Arctic. Sci Total Environ 2010; 408: 5165–234.
72 Arctic Monitoring Assessment Program (AMAP) AMAP Assessment 2009: Human
Health in the Arctic. Oslo, Norwary, 2009.
http://www.amap.no/documents/doc/amap-assessment-2009-human-health-in-
the-arctic/98 (accessed Oct 17, 2016).
73 Pronczuk J, Gore F, Nriagu JO, Burlington MA. Bruné MN, Children’s
environmental health in developing countries. 2011.
74 National Academies Press. Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children.
Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 1993 DOI:10.17226/2126.
75 World Health Organization. Don’t pollute my future! The impact of the
environment on children’s health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017.
115
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/254678/1/WHO-FWC-IHE-17.01-
eng.pdf?ua=1 (accessed March 7, 2017).
76 Barker DJP. The developmental origins of adult disease. J Am Coll Nutr 2004; 23:
588S–595S.
77 Heindel JJ, Balbus J, Birnbaum L, et al. Developmental Origins of Health and
Disease: Integrating Environmental Influences. Endocrinology 2015; 156: 3416–
21.
78 IHME Global Health Data Exchange. http://ghdx.healthdata.org/gbd-results-
tool?params=querytool-permalink/d8d9426a0d64da03ba3b0f0453b71e42
(accessed Feb 17, 2017).
79 Bongaarts J, Pelletier F, Gerland P. How many more AIDS deaths? Lancet 2010;
375: 103–4.
80 Small PM. Tuberculosis: a new vision for the 21st century. Kekkaku 2009; 84:
721–6.
81 European Commission on the Environment. REACH. Brussels: European
Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/reach/reach_intro.htm
(accessed Jan 31, 2017).
82 European Chemical Agency. Information on Chemicals.
https://echa.europa.eu/information-on-chemicals (accessed Jan 31, 2017).
83 US Environmental Protection Agency. The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety
for the 21st Century Act. https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-
chemicals-under-tsca/frank-r-lautenberg-chemical-safety-21st-century-act
(accessed Feb 10, 2017).
84 Schmidt CW. TSCA 2.0: A New Era in Chemical Risk Management. Environ
Health Perspect 2016; 124: A182–6.
85 National Academy of Sciences. Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century. Washington,
D.C.: National Academies Press, 2007 DOI:10.17226/11970.
86 Auerbach S, Filer D, Reif D, et al. Prioritizing Environmental Chemicals for
116
Obesity and Diabetes Outcomes Research: A Screening Approach Using
ToxCastTM High-Throughput Data. Environ Health Perspect 2016; 124.
DOI:10.1289/ehp.1510456.
87 Smith MT, Guyton KZ, Gibbons CF, et al. Key Characteristics of Carcinogens as a
Basis for Organizing Data on Mechanisms of Carcinogenesis. Environ Health
Perspect 2015; 124. DOI:10.1289/ehp.1509912.
88 United Nations Environment. Report on the Costs of Inaction on the Sound
Management of Chemicals. 2013.
http://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/8412 (accessed March 30, 2017).
89 UN Environment. The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.
2001.
http://chm.pops.int/TheConvention/Overview/TextoftheConvention/tabid/2232/Def
ault.aspx (accessed July 11, 2016).
90 UN Environment. FAO Rotterdam Convention, 1998. http://www.pic.int/ (accessed
July 12, 2016).
91 UNEP. Basel Convention, 1998. http://www.basel.int/ (accessed July 12, 2016).
92 UN Environment. Minamata Convention on Mercury, 2013.
http://www.mercuryconvention.org/ (accessed July 12, 2016).
93 UN Environment. Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management
(SAICM). 2006. http://www.saicm.org/ (accessed July 11, 2016).
94 Global Alliance on Health and Pollution. http://www.gahp.net/new/ (accessed Jan
4, 2017).
95 Caravanos J, Gualtero S, Dowling R, et al. A Simplified Risk-Ranking System for
Prioritizing Toxic Pollution Sites in Low- and Middle-Income Countries. Ann Glob
Heal 2014; 80: 278–85.
96 Blacksmith Institute/Pure Earth Toxic Sites Identification Program (TSIP).
http://www.pureearth.org/projects/toxic-sites-identification-program-tsip/
(accessed June 6, 2016).
117
97 Ericson B, Caravanos J, Chatham-Stephens K, Landrigan P, Fuller R.
Approaches to systematic assessment of environmental exposures posed at
hazardous waste sites in the developing world: the Toxic Sites Identification
Program. Environ Monit Assess 2013; 185: 1755–66.
98 Steckling N, Tobollik M, Plass D, et al. Global Burden of Disease of Mercury Used
in Artisanal Small-Scale Gold Mining. Ann Glob Heal 2017; 83: 234–47.
99 Steckling N, Devleesschauwer B, Winkelnkemper J, et al. Disability Weights for
Chronic Mercury Intoxication Resulting from Gold Mining Activities: Results from
an Online Pairwise Comparisons Survey. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2017;
14: 57.
100 Seccatore J, Veiga M, Origliasso C, Marin T, De Tomi G. An estimation of the
artisanal small-scale production of gold in the world. Sci Total Environ 2014; 496:
662–7.
101 Drasch G, Böse-O’Reilly S, Beinhoff C, Roider G, Maydl S. The Mt. Diwata study
on the Philippines 1999--assessing mercury intoxication of the population by small
scale gold mining. Sci Total Environ 2001; 267: 151–68.
102 Doering S, Bose-O’Reilly S, Berger U. Essential Indicators Identifying Chronic
Inorganic Mercury Intoxication: Pooled Analysis across Multiple Cross-Sectional
Studies. PLoS One 2016; 11: e0160323.
103 GBD 2015 Risk Factors Collaborators. Global, regional, and national comparative
risk assessment of 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and
metabolic risks or clusters of risks, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the
Global Burden of Disease . Lancet 2016; 388: 1659–724.
104 Arrow KJ, Cropper ML, Gollier C, et al. Should Governments Use a Declining
Discount Rate in Project Analysis? Rev Environ Econ Policy 2014; 8: 145–63.
105 World Bank. Discounting Costs and Benefits in Economic Analysis of World Bank
Projects. Technical Note. 2015.
106 The World Bank. GDP per capita (current US$).
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD (accessed Oct 24, 2016).
118
107 The World Bank. Population ages (% of total).
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.1564.TO.ZS (accessed Oct 24, 2016).
108 Narain U, Sall C. Methodology for Valuing the Health Impacts of Air Pollution:
Discussion of Challenges and Proposed Solutions. Washington, DC, 2016
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/24440 License: CC BY 3.0
IGO.
109 The Green Book: Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government. London: HM
Treasury, 2003.
110 Cropper M, Hammitt JK, Robinson LA. Valuing Mortality Risk Reductions:
Progress and Challenges. Annu Rev Resour Econ 2011; 3: 313–36.
111 Viscusi WK, Aldy JE. The Value of a Statistical Life: Review of Market Estimates
Throughout the World. J Risk Uncertain 2003; 27: 5–76.
112 Lindhjem H, Navrud S, Braathen NA, Biausque V. Valuing Mortality Risk
Reductions from Environmental, Transport, and Health Policies: A Global Meta-
Analysis of Stated Preference Studies. Risk Anal 2011; 31: 1381–407.
113 Hammitt JK, Robinson LA. The Income Elasticity of the Value per Statistical Life:
Transferring Estimates between High and Low Income Populations. J Benefit-
Cost Anal 2011; 2. DOI:10.2202/2152-2812.1009.
114 Mortality Risk Valuation in Environment, Health and Transport Policies. OECD
Publishing, 2012 DOI:10.1787/9789264130807-en.
115 Parry I, Heine D, Lis E, Li S. Getting Energy Prices Right: From Principle to
Practice. International Monetary Fund, 2014.
116 World Bank. 2016. The cost of air pollution : strengthening the economic case for
action. Washington, D.C. : World Bank Group.
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/781521473177013155/The-cost-of-
air-pollution-strengthening-the-economic-case-for-action (accessed Jan 17,
2017).
117 Krupnick A. Mortality-risk Valuation and Age: Stated Preference Evidence. Rev
119
Environ Econ Policy 2007; 1: 261–82.
118 Alberini A, Loomes G, Scasny M, Bateman I. Valuation of Environment-Related
Health Risks for Children. OECD Publishing, 2010 DOI:10.1787/9789264038042-
en.
119 Krupnick A, Hoffmann S, Qin P. Willingness to Pay for Mortality Risk Reduction in
China. Draft Working Paper. 2010.
120 Bhattacharya S, Alberini A, Cropper ML. The value of mortality risk reductions in
Delhi, India. J Risk Uncertain 2007; 34: 21–47.
121 Madheswaran S. Measuring the value of statistical life: estimating compensating
wage differentials among workers in India. Soc Indic Res 2007; 84: 83–96.
122 Robinson LA, Hammitt JK. Valuing Reductions in Fatal Illness Risks: Implications
of Recent Research. Health Econ 2016; 25: 1039–52.
123 Kniesner TJ, Viscusi WK, Ziliak JP. Policy relevant heterogeneity in the value of
statistical life: New evidence from panel data quantile regressions. J Risk
Uncertain 2010; 40: 15–31.
124 GBD 2015 Mortality and Causes of Death Collaborators. Global, regional, and
national life expectancy, all-cause mortality, and cause-specific mortality for 249
causes of death, 1980–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of
Disease Study 2015. Lancet 2016; 388: 1459–544.
125 Global Burden of Disease Study 2013 Collaborators. Global, regional, and
national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 301 acute and
chronic diseases and injuries in 188 countries, 1990-2013: a systematic analysis
for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet 2015; 386: 743–800.
126 Dunn A, Rittmueller L, Whitmire B. Introducing the New BEA Health Care Satellite
Account. Surv Curr Bus 2015; 95: 1–21.
127 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Extension of
work on expenditure by disease, age and gender. 2013. 2013.
https://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/Extension-of-work-on-expenditure-by-
120
disease-age-and-gender_Final-Report.pdf (accessed April 17, 2017).
128 2017 Clean50: Outstanding Contributions to Clean Capitalism. http://clean50.com
(accessed Jan 30, 2017).
129 Ministry of Environment and Food of Denmark: Environmental Protection Agency
- Circulating Resources. http://kemikalieindsatsen.dk/english/ressourcer-i-
kredslob/ (accessed Jan 30, 2017).
130 Sustainable Energy for All. http://www.se4all.org/ (accessed July 12, 2016).
131 Rachel Kyte, CEO of SEA Keynote Address Business and Climate Summit 28
June 2016. http://www.se4all.org/content/we-peoples-rachel-kyte-sets-level-
ambition-bcs (accessed July 14, 2016).
132 Laxminarayan R, Chow J, Shahid-Salles SA. Intervention Cost-Effectiveness:
Overview of Main Messages. 2006
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21250358.
133 Department for International Development (DfID) - Water, Sanitation and Hygiene
Evidence Paper. 2013.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/193
656/WASH-evidence-paper-april2013.pdf (accessed Aug 1, 2016).
134 Bruce N, Pope D, Rehfuess E, Balakrishnan K, Adair-Rohani H, Dora C. WHO
indoor air quality guidelines on household fuel combustion: Strategy implications
of new evidence on interventions and exposure–risk functions. Atmos Environ
2015; 106: 451–7.
135 China announces soil pollution controls. china.org. 2016.
http://www.china.org.cn/china/2016-06/01/content_38576923.htm (accessed Sept
12, 2016).
136 Jonran Z. Action plan targets soil pollution. China Dly. USA. 2016; published
online Jan 6. http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2016-
06/01/content_25563338.htm.
137 Ministry of Environmental Protection The People’s Republic of China - Report on
121
the State of the Environment in China 2014.
http://english.mep.gov.cn/Resources/Reports/soe/soe2011/201606/P0201606015
92064474593.pdf (accessed Aug 1, 2016).
138 World Bank; Development Research Center of the State Council, the People’s
Republic of China. Urban China: Toward Efficient, Inclusive, and Sustainable
Urbanization, Washington, DC: World Bank.
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/18865 (accessed Aug 1,
2016).
139 Environment and Climate Change Canada - Acts and Regulations - CEPA
Environmental Registry. http://www.ec.gc.ca/lcpe-cepa/ (accessed Jan 30, 2017).
140 Environmental Compliance and Enforcement in India: Rapid Assessment. New
Delhi, 2006.
141 City of New York, ONENYC. http://www1.nyc.gov/html/onenyc/index.html
(accessed July 11, 2016).
142 Gunningham N. Enforcing Environmental Regulation. J Environ Law 2011; 23:
169–201.
143 Duflo E, Greenstone M, Pande R, Ryan N. Truth-telling by Third-party Auditors
and the Response of Polluting Firms: Experimental Evidence from India. Q J Econ
2013; 128: 1499–545.
144 International Institute for Sustainable Development, Water Quality Monitoring
System Design. Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, 2015.
145 Marć M, Tobiszewski M, Zabiegała B, Guardia M de la, Namieśnik J. Current air
quality analytics and monitoring: A review. Anal Chim Acta 2015; 853: 116–26.
146 Hidy GM, Brook JR, Demerjian KL, Molina LT, Pennell WT, Scheffe RD, editors.
Technical Challenges of Multipollutant Air Quality Management. Dordrecht:
Springer Netherlands, 2011 DOI:10.1007/978-94-007-0304-9.
147 Beaglehole R, Bonita R, editors. Global Public Health: A New Era, 2nd edn.
London: Oxford University Press, 2009.
122
148 Leitao J, Chandramohan D, Byass P, et al. Revising the WHO verbal autopsy
instrument to facilitate routine cause-of-death monitoring. Glob Health Action
2013; 6. DOI:10.3402/gha.v6i0.21518.
149 Kysar D, Salzman J. Foreward: Making Sense of Information for Environmental
Protection. Tex Law Rev 2008; 86.
150 Open Government Partnership. http://www.opengovpartnership.org/ (accessed
July 11, 2016).
151 Awe Y, Nygard J, Larssen S, Washington DC. Clean air and healthy lungs:
enhancing the World Bank’s approach to air quality management. Washington,
DC, 2016.
152 United Nations Development Programme, Capacity Development: A UNDP
Primer. 2009.
http://www.undp.org/content/dam/aplaws/publication/en/publications/capacity-
development/capacity-development-a-undp-
primer/CDG_PrimerReport_final_web.pdf (accessed July 14, 2016).
153 Ahmed K. Getting to green: a sourcebook of pollution management policy tools for
growth and competitiveness. World Bank, 2012.
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/ENVIRONMENT/Resources/Getting_to_Green
_web.pdf (accessed April 17, 2017).
154 Global, regional, and national disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) for 315
diseases and injuries and healthy life expectancy (HALE), 1990–2015: a
systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet 2016;
388: 1603–58.
155 European Commission, Eurostat: Government Expenditure on Environmental
Protection. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php/Government_expenditure_on_environmental_protection
(accessed July 27, 2016).
156 Pontes CAA, Schramm FR. [The bioethics of protection and the state’s role: moral
problems in unequal access to drinking water]. Cad Saude Publica 2004; 20:
123
1319–27.
157 Filipović S, Golušin M. Environmental taxation policy in the EU – new
methodology approach. J Clean Prod 2015; 88: 308–17.
158 Carl J, Fedor D. Tracking global carbon revenues: A survey of carbon taxes
versus cap-and-trade in the real world. Energy Policy 2016; 96: 50–77.
159 Weiss D. American Electric Power threatens firings to stop pollution controls.
Grist. 2011; published online June 14. http://grist.org/coal/2011-06-13-american-
electric-power-threatens-firings-to-stop-pollution-cont/.
160 Zhao L, Xue J, Gao HO, Li C, Huang R. A model for interprovincial air pollution
control based on futures prices. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 2014; 64: 552–60.
161 Sagar A, Balakrishnan K, Guttikunda S, Roychowdhury A, Smith KR. India Leads
the Way: A Health-Centered Strategy for Air Pollution. Environ Health Perspect
2016; 124. DOI:10.1289/EHP90.
162 Subsidies to Liquefied Petroleum Gas in India: An overview of recent reforms.
The International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2014
http://www.iisd.org/gsi/sites/default/files/ffs_india_lpg_overview_2014.pdf.
163 Bartram J, Brocklehurst C, Fisher MB, et al. Global monitoring of water supply
and sanitation: history, methods and future challenges. Int J Environ Res Public
Health 2014; 11: 8137–65.
164 Moe CL, Rheingans RD. Global challenges in water, sanitation and health. J
Water Health 2006; 4 Suppl 1: 41–57.
165 Pattanayak SK, Pfaff A. Behavior, Environment, and Health in Developing
Countries: Evaluation and Valuation. Annu Rev Resour Econ 2009; 1: 183–217.
166 Stanton BF, Clemens JD. An educational intervention for altering water-sanitation
behaviors to reduce childhood diarrhea in urban Bangladesh. II. A randomized
trial to assess the impact of the intervention on hygienic behaviors and rates of
diarrhea. Am J Epidemiol 1987; 125: 292–301.
167 Cutler D. Behavioral Health Interventions: What Works and Why? In: Bulatao R,
124
Anderson N, eds. Understanding Racial and Ethnic Differences in Health in Late
Life: A Research Agenda. D.C.: National Academies Press, 2004.
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11036&page=111.
168 Hovmand PS. Community Based System Dynamics. Springer Link, 2014.
169 Kumar P, Chalise N, Yadama GN. Dynamics of sustained use and abandonment
of clean cooking systems: study protocol for community-based system dynamics
modeling. Int J Equity Health 2016; 15: 70.
170 MOLINA LT. Improving Air Quality in Megacities: Mexico City Case Study. Ann N
Y Acad Sci 2004; 1023: 142–58.
171 Parrish DD, Singh HB, Molina L, Madronich S. Air quality progress in North
American megacities: A review. Atmos Environ 2011; 45: 7015–25.
172 Ciudad de Mexico - ‘Hoy No Circula’ Program.
http://www.mexicocity.gob.mx/contenido.php?cat=11200&sub=0&idioma=en.
(accessed Sept 6, 2016).
173 Brimblecombe P. The Clean Air Act after 50 years. Weather 2006; 61: 311–4.
174 Watts N, Adger WN, Agnolucci P, et al. Health and climate change: policy
responses to protect public health. Lancet 2015; 386: 1861–914.
175 World Bank, ICCI. On Thin Ice: How Cutting Pollution Can Slow Warming and
Save Lives. 2013.
176 Drbal L, Westra K, Boston P. Power Plant Engineering. Springer Science and
Business Media, 2012.
177 Wang S, Hao J. Air quality management in China: Issues, challenges, and
options. J Environ Sci 2012; 24: 2–13.
178 ECOFYS - International comparison of fossil power efficienc and CO2 intensity -
Update 2014. 2014. http://www.ecofys.com/files/files/ecofys-2014-international-
comparison-fossil-power-efficiency.pdf (accessed Aug 1, 2016).
179 Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), India’s first-ever environmental rating
of coal-based power plants finds the sector’s performance to be way below global
125
benchmarks. http://www.cseindia.org/content/india’s-first-ever-environmental-
rating-coal-based-power-plants-finds-sector’s-performance (accessed Aug 1,
2016).
180 Simachaya W. The 2nd High Level Seminar on Environmentally Sustainable
Cities. In: Urban Air Quality Management: Lessons Learned from Bangkok City,
Thailand. Kitakyushu, Japan, 2011.
181 International Energy Agency (iea) - Policy Pathways: A tale of Renewed Cities.
2013. http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/policy-
pathways---energy-efficiency-in-urban-transport-systems.html (accessed Aug 1,
2016).
182 UNEP, Actions on Air Quality: Policies & Programmes for Improving Air Quality
Around the World. 2016. http://asiapacificsd.iisd.org/news/unep-publications-
discuss-actions-on-air-quality-globally-and-in-china/ (accessed Aug 1, 2016).
183 Gulia S, Shiva Nagendra SM, Khare M, Khanna I. Urban air quality management-
A review. Atmos Pollut Res 2015; 6: 286–304.
184 UN Environment. Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles.
http://www.unep.org/transport/pcfv/ (accessed May 15, 2016).
185 Sánchez-Triana E, Enriquez S, Larsen B, Webster P, Afzal J. Sustainability and
Poverty Alleviation: Confronting Environmental Threats in Sindh, Pakistan. The
World Bank, 2015 DOI:10.1596/978-1-4648-0452-6.
186 International Energy Agency (iea) - World Energy Outlook 2011. .
187 Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves. http://cleancookstoves.org/ (accessed July
18, 2016).
188 Nandasena S, Wickremasinghe AR, Sathiakumar N. Indoor air pollution and
respiratory health of children in the developing world. World J Clin Pediatr 2013;
2: 6–15.
189 Anderson ME, Bogdan GM. Environments, indoor air quality, and children. Pediatr
Clin North Am 2007; 54: 295–307, viii.
126
190 Smith KR. Indoor air pollution in developing countries: recommendations for
research. Indoor Air 2002; 12: 198–207.
191 Smith KR. Changing Paradigms in Clean Cooking. Ecohealth 2015; 12: 196–9.
192 WHO Guidelines for Indoor Air Quality: Household Fuel Combustion. 2014.
http://www.who.int/indoorair/guidelines/hhfc/en/ (accessed May 15, 2017).
193 Rehfuess EA, Puzzolo E, Stanistreet D, Pope D, Bruce NG. Enablers and Barriers
to Large-Scale Uptake of Improved Solid Fuel Stoves: A Systematic Review.
Environ Health Perspect 2013; published online Dec 3.
DOI:10.1289/ehp.1306639.
194 Miller G, Mobarak AM. Learning About New Technologies Through Social
Networks: Experimental Evidence on Nontraditional Stoves in Bangladesh. Mark
Sci 2015; 34: 480–99.
195 Mortimer K, Ndamala CB, Naunje AW, et al. A cleaner burning biomass-fuelled
cookstove intervention to prevent pneumonia in children under 5 years old in rural
Malawi (the Cooking and Pneumonia Study): a cluster randomised controlled trial.
Lancet 2016; published online Dec. DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32507-7.
196 Smith KR, Sagar A. Making the clean available: Escaping India’s Chulha Trap.
Energy Policy 2014; 75: 410–4.
197 Krzyzanowski M, Apte JS, Bonjour SP, Brauer M, Cohen AJ, Prüss-Ustun AM. Air
Pollution in the Mega-cities. Curr Environ Heal Reports 2014; 1: 185–91.
198 Report on Tobacco Taxation in the United Kingdom. Tools for Advancing Tobacco
Control in XXIst century: Success stories and leassons learned. 2003.
199 UNICEF, WHO, editors. Progress on Sanitation and Drinking Water: 2015 Update
and MDG Assessment. UNICEF, 2015.
200 Hutton G, Haller L, Bartram J. Global cost-benefit analysis of water supply and
sanitation interventions. J Water Health 2007; 5: 481.
201 Investing in Water and Sanitation: Increasing Access, Reducing Inequalities.
WHO, UN-Water Glob. Anal. Assess. Sanit. Drink. 2014.
127
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/143953/2/WHO_FWC_WSH_14.01_eng.p
df (accessed Aug 1, 2016).
202 O’Connell KA. What influences open defecation and latrine ownership in rural
households?: findings from a global review. Washington, DC, 2014
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/159311468154787194/What-
influences-open-defecation-and-latrine-ownership-in-rural-households-findings-
from-a-global-review.
203 Community Led Total Sanitation (CLTS): An Evaluation of WaterAid’s CLTS
Programme in Nigeria. 2007.
http://www.communityledtotalsanitation.org/resource/community-led-total-
sanitation-clts-evaluation-wateraid-s-clts-programme-nigeria (accessed Aug 1,
2016).
204 From burden to communal responsibility: a sanitation success story from
Southern Region in Ethiopia. Washington, DC, 2007.
205 Kim JI, Kim G. Factors affecting the survival probability of becoming a centenarian
for those aged 70, based on the human mortality database: income, health
expenditure, telephone, and sanitation. BMC Geriatr 2014; 14: 113.
206 Institute for Devlopment Studies - Community Led Total Sanitation in Nigeria:
Case Studies.
http://www.communityledtotalsanitation.org/sites/communityledtotalsanitation.org/f
iles/media/CLTS_Case_Studies_Nigeria.pdf (accessed Aug 1, 2016).
207 Chavan BL, Rasal GB, Kalshetti MS. Total Sanitation Campaign: A Success Story
of Village Aasgaon in Maharashtra, India. J Educ Pract 2011; 2.
208 World Bank. Pathway to success: compendium of best practices in rural sanitation
in India. Washington, DC, 2013.
209 Shuchen M, Yong T, Jiayi L. Rural Water Supply and Sanitation in China - Scaling
Up Services for the Poor. 2004.
210 WaterAid (2011) Urban Framework, WaterAid, London.
www.wateraid.org/~/media/Publications/urban-framework.pdf (accessed Aug 1,
128
2001).
211 OKeefe M, Lu thi C, Tumwebaze IK, Tobias R. Opportunities and limits to market-
driven sanitation services: evidence from urban informal settlements in East
Africa. Environ Urban 2015; 27: 421–40.
212 Roma E, Philp K, Buckley C, Xulu S, Scott D. User perceptions of urine diversion
dehydration toilets: Experiences from a cross-sectional study in eThekwini
Municipality. Water SA 2013; 39: 302–12.
213 Gray J, James T, Dickson J. Integrated regulation - experiences of IPPC in
England and Wales. Water Environ J 2007; 21: 69–73.
214 Turvani M, Tonin S. Brownfields Remediation and Reuse: An Opportunity for
Urban Sustainable Development. In: Clini C, Musu I, Gullino ML, eds. Sustainable
Development and Environmental Management: Experiences and Case Studies.
Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 2008: 397–411.
215 De Sousa C. Brownfields Redevelopment and the Quest for Sustainability,
Volume 3 (Current Research in Urban and Rgional Studies). Emerald Group
Publishing, 2008.
216 Lo Y-C, Dooyema CA, Neri A, et al. Childhood Lead Poisoning Associated with
Gold Ore Processing: a Village-Level Investigation—Zamfara State, Nigeria,
October–November 2010. Environ Health Perspect 2012; 120: 1450–5.
217 Yabe J, Nakayama SMM, Ikenaka Y, et al. Lead poisoning in children from
townships in the vicinity of a lead–zinc mine in Kabwe, Zambia. Chemosphere
2015; 119: 941–7.
218 MEYER P, BROWN M, FALK H. Global approach to reducing lead exposure and
poisoning. Mutat Res Mutat Res 2008; 659: 166–75.
219 Farías P, Álamo-Hernández U, Mancilla-Sánchez L, Texcalac-Sangrador J,
Carrizales-Yáez L, Riojas-Rodríguez H. Lead in School Children from Morelos,
Mexico: Levels, Sources and Feasible Interventions. Int J Environ Res Public
Health 2014; 11: 12668–82.
129
220 Haefliger P, Mathieu-Nolf M, Lociciro S, et al. Mass Lead Intoxication from
Informal Used Lead-Acid Battery Recycling in Dakar, Senegal. Environ Health
Perspect 2009; 117: 1535–40.
221 Matte TD, Figueroa JP, Ostrowski S, Burr G, Jackson-Hunt L, Baker EL. Lead
exposure from conventional and cottage lead smelting in Jamaica. Arch Environ
Contam Toxicol 1991; 21: 65–71.
222 Environmental and occupational health hazards associated with artisanal and
small-scale gold mining. Geneva: WHO, 2016
http://www.who.int/iris/handle/10665/247195.
223 Schmidt CW. Quicksilver & gold: mercury pollution from artisanal and small-scale
gold mining. Environ Health Perspect 2012; 120: A424-9.
224 Basu N, Clarke E, Green A, et al. Integrated Assessment of Artisanal and Small-
Scale Gold Mining in Ghana—Part 1: Human Health Review. Int J Environ Res
Public Health 2015; 12: 5143–76.
225 Calys-Tagoe B, Ovadje L, Clarke E, Basu N, Robins T. Injury Profiles Associated
with Artisanal and Small-Scale Gold Mining in Tarkwa, Ghana. Int J Environ Res
Public Health 2015; 12: 7922–37.
226 Breivik K, Armitage JM, Wania F, Jones KC. Tracking the Global Generation and
Exports of e-Waste. Do Existing Estimates Add up? Environ Sci Technol 2014;
48: 8735–43.
227 Lundgren, K. The global impact of e-waste: Addressing the challenge.
International Labor Office. 2012. http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---
ed_dialogue/---sector/documents/publication/wcms_196105.pdf (accessed Sept
28, 2016).
228 Grant K, Goldizen FC, Sly PD. Health consequences of exposure to e-waste: A
systematic review. Lancet Glob Heal 2014; : e350–61.
229 Heacock M, Kelly CB, Asante KA, et al. E-Waste and Harm to Vulnerable
Populations: A Growing Global Problem. Environ Health Perspect 2015; 124.
DOI:10.1289/ehp.1509699.
130
230 Minter A. Junkyard Planet: Travels in the Billion-Dollar Trash Trade. Bloomsbury
Press, 2013.
231 Hoornweg D, Bhada-Tata P. What a Waste: A Global Review of Solid Waste
Management. Washington, DC, 2012
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/17388.
232 UN-HABITAT. Solid Waste Management in the World’s Cities: Water and
Sanitation in the World’s Cities 2010.
http://mirror.unhabitat.org/pmss/getElectronicVersion.aspx?nr=2918&alt=1
(accessed Sept 28, 2016).
233 Rodic L, Gupta SJ. Closure and rehabilitation of waste dumpsites in Indian
megacities Delhi and Mumbai. Pap. Present. ISWA World Solid Waste Congr.
2012 Florence, Italy. 2012.