PHASING-OUT
LEADED GASOLINE
Ms.
Magda Lovei
Good
morning, Ladies, and Gentlemen,
It is an honor to
be here. I would like to congratulate The George Foundation for its
initiative to undertake the remarkably ambitious task of fighting against
lead poisoning, and to bring together such an impressive group of distinguished
professionals and decision-makers who can do something about it.
Prevention is always
better than a cure. There are many ways of preventing the exposure of
people to lead. I am going to focus on one effective way, the phase
out of lead from gasoline.
I am pleased to
say that on my way from the airport to the hotel, my cab driver informed
me that unleaded gasoline is now widely available in cities and around
highways in India. It is a good sign that the right steps have been
taken. However, there are still large quantities of lead added to gasoline
annually in India, which indicates there is still a large task ahead.
I am going to rely
on the vast international experience that many countries have with lead
phaseout, and lessons from the World Bank’s activities and operations
around the world, to answer three simple questions:
- Why leaded gasoline
phaseout?
- Are there major
technical constraints? and
- What are the
key conditions of success?
Let me start with
the first question: why leaded gasoline phaseout? The simple answers
are: because lead in gasoline is a rapidly growing large source of exposure,
because phasing it out is effective in reducing human exposures, and
because cost-effective solutions are possible. Let me illustrate these
points.
Urban population
in the developing world has more than doubled since 1975, and it is
expected to double again in the next 25 years. Urban areas now accommodate
about 70% of the population in developing countries with rapidly increasing
vehicle ownership and traffic. In India, for example, vehicle registrations
have increased more than 15 times during the last 40 years. Similar
or larger growth took place in Pakistan, Indonesia, Thailand, and elsewhere.
The result is that lead from vehicle exhaust emissions often account
for 80-90% of airborne lead in large cities where leaded gasoline is
still used.
Because lead emissions
from vehicles are very effectively dispersed and easily absorbed by
the human body, there is a very close relationship between the amount
of lead in gasoline and human health impacts. This relationship has
been best demonstrated in the U.S. during the phasedown of lead in gasoline,
when average blood lead levels of the population closely followed the
declining trend of lead amount added to gasoline. This means, lead phaseout
has almost immediate human health benefits.
Importantly, leaded
gasoline can be phased out cost-effectively. There are large economic
benefits in the form of reduced mortality, avoided health and special
educational costs, improved productivity, and others. When these benefits
are compared to implementation costs of lead phaseout, the difference
can be enormous. In the US, the benefits outweigh the costs more than
11 times. In developing countries, the ratio may be smaller, but still
large enough.
Of course, phasing
out lead from gasoline cannot solve the lead poisoning problem. But
it will go a long way in reducing it.
But are there major
technical constraints? Can only some countries do it? The answer is
no. However, there are two technical issues to be mentioned:
The first has to
do with vehicles. There is a common misconception that only cars with
catalytic converters can use unleaded gasoline. This is not true. Cars
equipped with catalytic converters must run on unleaded gasoline,
but all vehicles can use unleaded gasoline, with or without catalytic
converters. This has been demonstrated over and over again in rich and
poor countries. Some countries have a few older vehicle models that
were produced with soft engine valve seats. These models may experience
valve seat recession without the lubrication provided by lead. However,
the recession of these soft engine valves is much less serious than
often feared, and it only occurs under severe driving conditions. Most
importantly, it can be solved easily by adding a lubricant into the
gasoline.
The other technical
issue has to do with the production of unleaded gasoline. A range of
technical solutions is available to reduce and eliminate the use of
lead. Some of these solutions require additional investments, some don’t.
These solutions are well understood, commercially available, and they
can be implemented relatively easily.
The cost of substituting
the octane enhancing capacity of lead in gasoline depends on several
factors including the complexity and configuration of refineries, the
spare octane capacity, and the octane requirements of the vehicle fleet.
More complex refineries typically can adjust more easily because they
have more options available than smaller simple refineries.
This chart shows
typical costs of reducing the lead content of gasoline from 0.4 g/l
gradually to zero in complex and simple refineries. The typical costs
of complete phase out are quite modest, in the range of 1-2 cents per
liter of gasoline and declining over time as refineries adjust. When
compared to the benefits from large health and social outcomes, they
are well justified.
If the phase out
of leaded gasoline is an attractive measure with high benefits and modest
costs, why is it not happening faster everywhere? Although there are
no serious technical obstacles, there are obstacles which are mainly
policy-related. For example,
- Uncertain future
fuel quality regulations make refineries invest in processes that
may not allow them to shift to unleaded gasoline easily or cost-effectively.
An example is the Attock Refinery in Pakistan which started a modernization
program based on the assumption that the market will remain largely
a leaded gasoline market. Were regulations clear and predictable,
modernization measures would have been different, and the overall
costs less than what are needed for the incremental measures.
- Controlled prices
make it difficult for refineries to recoup the cost of their investments;
therefore, they have no incentives in investing and where only limited
commercial financing is available. Funds necessary for capital investment
are often expected from the government budget that may be unsympathetic
to such requests.
- Controlled markets
and trade make it difficult to find cost-effective alternatives such
as importing additives, high-octane gasoline components, or unleaded
gasoline.
- The lack of public
information may reinforce misconceptions about vehicles and their
fuel use, and hinder the switch to unleaded gasoline.
At the same time,
several countries have demonstrated that lead can be phased out fast
as it was done in Thailand in the matter of a few years, as long as
the right policies are in place.
In Thailand, prices
and markets became gradually liberalized, which supported the privatization
of refineries and improved their capacity to finance and implement necessary
investments and adjustment measures. Environmental and fuel quality
regulations were changed to support a clean fuel program. Differentiated
taxation was introduced to make unleaded gasoline cheaper than leaded,
and community awareness programs were undertaken to educate and inform
the public about the changes.
Thailand’s
achievement is remarkable, but not unique. Many countries have recognized
the benefits of lead phaseout, and currently, more than 24 countries
worldwide are free of leaded gasoline.
The good news is
that the number of lead free countries is steadily growing, and the
amount of lead in gasoline halved between the 1970s and 1990s despite
growing traffic. Currently almost 80% of gasoline worldwide are unleaded,
and ambient lead concentrations as well as typical blood lead levels
of urban populations have improved significantly.
The group of countries
which successfully phaseout out lead include not only rich countries,
but less developed ones such as Argentina, Brazil, El Salvador, Costa
Rica, Honduras, and the Slovak Republic. The bad news is that still
many countries expose people to lead from vehicle exhaust.
Countries cannot
phase out lead overnight. A plan and gradual approach is typically needed.
India has made the right move to focus on large cities such as Delhi
first, where leaded gasoline is now banned, and to make unleaded gasoline
available to cities where people are most exposed to vehicle emissions.
As demonstrated
by the experience of Thailand and many other countries around the world,
the key factors of successful lead phaseout are:
- Political commitment
to address the problem and introduce necessary regulations. In Thailand,
the fact that the King became concerned about the health impacts of
pollution, gave support for introducing the necessary regulations
and policies.
- Policies and
conditions that support the adjustment of gasoline supply, which include
market, price, and trade liberalization measures.
- Policies that
encourage a shift in demand toward unleaded gasoline. Differentiated
taxation has been applied very successfully in Thailand and many countries
around the world to create the incentives. It showed that there was
a close relationship between the price difference of leaded and unleaded
gasoline and the market penetration of unleaded gasoline. Some countries,
for example the U.S. and Mexico, and countries in Latin America, were
reluctant to use fiscal policy in support of lead phaseout, and allowed
leaded gasoline prices to be lower than unleaded. In these countries,
the switch to unleaded gasoline was slower than it could have been,
and problems arose with misfueling -- the use of leaded gasoline in
cars with catalytic converters.
- Lead phaseout
affects a range of stakeholders from refineries to gasoline distributors,
consumers, vehicle manufacturers, importers and others. Policymakers
in sectors such as finance, health, environment, industry, energy,
transport etc must agree on objectives and time schedule, and coordinate
their policies to support agreed objectives.
In summary, I would
like to emphasize again that the phaseout of lead in gasoline is an
effective prevention measure, which can be implemented at a relatively
modest cost. There is no serious technical constraint in phasing out
lead in any country. The constraints are largely policy related and
have to be tackled by coordinated efforts of a range of sectors and
stakeholders. The collaboration of health and environmental sectors
can be especially effective and mutually reinforcing in raising awareness
and in facilitating a consensus with other stakeholders to agree on
the necessary action. I believe that this Conference can help this objective.
The following paper
released by The World Bank deals with this issue in greater length.
World
Bank Support for the Global
Phaseout
of Lead from Gasoline
Issues,
Progress, and Challenges
Magda
Lovei
The
World Bank, Environment Department
May
1999
Even
at low levels of exposure, lead impairs the mental and physical development
of children. Removing lead from gasoline is a highly effective measure
for preventing this serious environmental health problem. This paper
points out the cost-effectiveness of lead phaseout, identifies key factors
and policies that facilitate the process, reports on countries' progress,
and describes the World Bank’s involvement in this endeavor.
Why Do We Care
About Lead?
Lead
impairs the mental development of children. Young children are especially
susceptible: their digestive systems absorb heavy metals rapidly, and
they ingest lead-contaminated dust and soil simply by putting their
fingers in their mouths or by chewing on contaminated toys. Poor children
are most at risk because malnurishment intensifies lead absorption.
For adults, lead absorption can cause hypertension, high blood pressure,
and cardiovascular problems. The medical evidence shows no identifiable
threshold below which these adverse health impacts cannot be detected.
Figure
1. Average Blood Lead Levels of Sampled Populations in Selected
Cities, 1980s to 1990s
Note:
The figure is only an indication of the blood lead levels occurring
at various locations. The sample size, age group, sampling method,
year of sampling, and representativeness of samples varied across
countries. The results therefore cannot be interpreted as a cross-country
comparison of lead exposure.
Source:
Lovei 1998.
Environmental
health and risk assessment studies in various parts of the world have
singled out lead as one of the most serious environmental health threats,
especially in urban areas. Sample blood lead levels, -- the best measure
of current exposure, -- have been alarmingly high in many developing
countries, often 10 to 20 times the blood lead levels currently prevailing
in industrial countries such as the United States (Figure 1).
The
magnitude of health impacts caused by exposure to lead is staggering:
- Children in such
cities as Bangkok, Cairo, Jakarta, and Manila have in the past lost
3 to 6 IQ points and suffer from learning disabilities and behavioral
problems.
- In Jakarta, 130,000
cases of hypertension in adults are attributable to lead exposure
each year.
- Breathing air
with elevated lead concentrations causes several thousands of cases
of heart attacks, hypertension, and stroke in the adult population
of big cities each year.
Figure
2. The Impact of Traffic on the Exposure of Children to Lead in
Budapest, 1985
Source:
Lovei 1996.
Phasing-out
Lead From Gasoline is an Effective Measure
The
sources of exposure to lead include gasoline, pipes or lead-based solder
in water supply systems, cottage industries, and lead-based paint. The
importance of particular sources varies across countries and locations,
and targeted programs and interventions are required. In India, for
example, the use of lead-containing cosmetics is a major source of exposure;
in Mexico it is the widespread use of lead for glazing pottery used
to hold food and water. In Egypt lead solder used in the grinding stone
of flourmills was recently found to cause alarming levels of lead poisoning.
Public education and awareness raising can reduce many of these problems.
Leaded
gasoline remains a serious problem in a number of countries. It accounts
for 80–90 percent of airborne lead pollution in large cities where
it is still used. Lead contamination and exposure in cities is typically
3 to 4 times higher than in the suburbs and 10 times higher than in
rural areas. For example, in the mid-1980s, children living in the center
of Budapest had blood lead levels of 25 micrograms per deciliter (µg/dl),
three times higher than the 7.6 µg/dl average for suburban children
(Figure 2). As a result of this exposure, children living in the inner
cities may suffer as much as a 4-point IQ loss compared with those in
the suburbs.
Figure 3. Lead
in Gasoline and Human Exposures in the U.S., 1975-1990
Source: USEPA
The
problems will worsen if use of leaded gasoline continues. Vehicle use
is soaring in developing cities. In 1990, there were some 518 million
cars and trucks worldwide; by 2010, that number will grow to 816 million,
with most of the growth occurring in developing countries. Furthermore,
urbanization, with its concomitant concentration of populations and
changes in life-styles, means that more and more people are being exposed
to lead pollution. Today, 1.7 billion people live in cities, by 2025
the global urban population will have doubled, to 4 billion.
Phasing
out lead from gasoline has a swift and marked effect on exposure. As
Figure 3 shows, average blood lead levels of the U.S. population declined
as the amount of lead added to gasoline decreased. In 1976, when leaded
gasoline was still used extensively, the average blood lead level of
Americans was 16 µg/dl, in 1980 it dropped to around 10 µg/dl, and today
it is less than 3 µg/dl. Similar improvements in environmental quality
and health conditions have been observed in all countries that have
phased out leaded gasoline.
Technical
Solutions Are Widely Available
Alternatives
to lead as an octane enhancer in gasoline are commercially available
and technically well understood. However, the environmental effects
of the various lead phaseout alternatives differ, and some solutions
may create environmental concerns of their own. For example, increasing
reformer severity increases the volatile aromatics in gasoline (Table
1). Although these health concerns are far less serious than those associated
with lead additives, they should be considered in making decisions about
refining alternatives. Isomerization and alkylation processes, as well
as the use of oxygenates that help fuels burn cleaner and more completely,
could be part of environmentally responsible lead phaseout strategies.
The Costs of
Lead Removal Are Modest Compared with the Benefits
The
costs of removing lead from gasoline depend on many factors, including
the price of alternative octane enhancers, the technical complexity
of refineries, the price of import gasoline, and the cost of capital.
Complex refineries can replace lead more easily and more cheaply than
simple hydroskimming refineries (Figure 4). The costs of lead phaseout
are generally in the range of US$ 0.01–$0.02 per liter of gasoline.
In many cases, the objective of lead removal can be incorporated into
ongoing refinery restructuring programs, thus optimizing long-term investments
and reducing the cost of lead phaseout.
Table
1. Refinery Alternatives and Environmental Effects of Replacing Lead
in Gasoline
|
Alternatives
to lead
|
Environmental
effects
|
|
Refining
processes
|
|
|
Increase
reformer severity
|
Increases
aromatics
|
| Add |
|
| Reforming |
Increases
aromatics |
|
Isomerization
|
High
volatilityl
|
|
Catalytic
cracking
|
Increases
olefins and sulfur
|
|
Alkylation
|
Beneficial
|
|
Polymerization
|
Increases
olefins
|
|
MTBE
production
|
High
miscibility with water, aldehyde emissions
|
|
Blending
|
|
Note: MTBE:
methyl-tertiary butyl ether.
Shifting from the
production of leaded to unleaded gasoline is technically simple. Modern
refineries do not need to make extensive investments. Old refineries,
however, often have obsolete technology that cannot produce unleaded
gasoline. Many of them operate at a loss and should be either modernized—if
the investment can be shown to be economically viable in the long run—or
closed down. The success of a lead phaseout program depends on whether
these difficult measures are taken.
Lead phaseout costs
are modest, especially when compared with the significant social benefits.
These benefits include the avoided costs of:
- Lives lost because
of increased infant mortality and premature deaths of adults as a
result of strokes and heart attacks
- Reduced productivity
and lower lifetime earnings of people with disturbed intellectual
development
- Medical care
- Extra educational
costs for children with behavioral and learning problems as a result
of exposure to lead.
Figure 5. Benefits
and Costs of Removing Lead from Gasoline in the United States
Source:
USEPA 1985.
The
monetary value of these benefits varies from country to country and
depends on several factors, including the cost of providing health care,
the cost of labor and capital, labor productivity, life expectancy,
and the value people place on their health and lives. In the United
States, the estimated benefits of phasing out lead are more than ten
times the costs (Figure 5). The magnitude of the expected health benefits
in developing countries suggests that phasing out lead from gasoline
is a highly cost-effective measure there as well.
All
Cars Can Use Unleaded Gasoline
There
is a common misconception that only vehicles with catalytic converters
can use unleaded gasoline. This is wrong. Vehicles equipped with catalytic
converters must use unleaded gasoline; however, any vehicle can
use it. In several countries that have phased out leaded gasoline completely,
the market share of vehicles with catalytic converters has remained
relatively low.
Technological
advances have rendered invalid the reasons for adding lead to gasoline.
As noted above, other means of enhancing the octane rating of gasoline
are available. Added lead also lubricates the exhaust valves, and in
the past, this allowed vehicle manufacturers to use low-grade soft metals
for the engine valve seats. However, during the 1970s and 1980s, most
vehicle manufacturers switched to using hardened valve seat technology.
Vehicles with hardened valve seats no longer need lead for lubrication
and can use unleaded gasoline.
A
few older vehicles produced with soft valve seats may experience valve
seat recession if they are run on unleaded gasoline. However, the recession
mainly occurs under severe driving conditions (e.g., high speed), and
it can be prevented by adding lubricants to unleaded gasoline. The availability
of such additives has enabled several countries to phase out lead even
though a relatively large share of vehicles in their fleets have soft
valve seats (Slovakia is one example).
Moreover,
switching from leaded to unleaded gasoline reduces vehicle maintenance
costs. The reason is that "lead scavengers" (chlorinated hydrocarbons)
have to be added to leaded gasoline to prevent excessive deposition
of lead in the engine. These substances react with lead and form volatile
compounds, which, in addition to their adverse health effects, contribute
to the formation of halogen acids. The acids cause increased corrosion,
requiring more frequent muffler, spark plug, and oil changes.
Key
Conditions for Success
The
main constraints on lead phaseout are thus not technical; they are policy-related.
Four key conditions have to be in place for successful phaseout of lead:
- Government
commitment to regulating the use of lead and the content of other
harmful substances in gasoline. Limiting the amount of lead additives
in gasoline brings about a dramatic decline in the amount of lead
emitted into the atmosphere. Total phaseout of lead can be accomplished
very quickly given political commitment, appropriate regulations,
and a clear schedule to facilitate proper timing of investments, if
any.
- Incentive
policies designed to influence gasoline demand and supply and
promote a smooth transition from leaded to unleaded gasoline. On the
demand side, higher taxes on leaded than on unleaded gasoline
can influence consumer habits. A 5 to 10 percent retail price difference
in favor of unleaded gasoline is usually recommended to effectively
influence the structure of gasoline demand. On the supply side, macroeconomic
policies that allow market signals to work—for example, liberalization
of prices and foreign trade—support the adjustment of gasoline
supply. These policies allow operators in the downstream petroleum
sector to import the necessary gasoline additives or blendstocks without
restriction, and encourage only optimal investment schemes to be undertaken.
.
- A broad consensus
among the key stakeholders, which include various government agencies
and ministries (health, finance, transportation, industry or energy,
trade, and so on), the refining sector, car manufacturers, gasoline
distributors and retailers, vehicle owners, auto clubs, and non-governmental
organizations (NGOs). For example, in European countries vehicle manufacturers'
cooperation in lowering the octane requirement of cars has played
a significant role in facilitating the adjustment of refineries to
unleaded gasoline production.
- Finally, public
understanding, acceptance, and support. Public support can be
facilitated by information and education programs that address such
issues as the effects of lead, proper fueling practices, and the feasibility
of using unleaded gasoline in old cars.
Worldwide
Trends
Since
the 1970s there has been a steady decline in the use of lead additives
in gasoline worldwide. This happened partly because of the introduction
of catalytic converters that required unleaded gasoline and partly because
of an increasing awareness of the severity of health damage caused by
lead, as confirmed by medical evidence.
By
early 1999, 29 countries had phased out lead from gasoline completely
(Box 1). The list includes both high-income and lower-income economies,
indicating that economic development is not the only factor affecting
the process. The number of lead-free countries is constantly growing
(Box 2).
Box 1. Lead-Free
Countries and Jurisdictions, 1999
Antigua and Barbuda
Argentina
Austria
Bahamas
Bermuda
Bolivia
Brazil
Canada
Columbia
Costa Rica
Denmark
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Finland
Germany
Guatemala
Haiti
Honduras
Hungary
Japan
Mexico
Nicaragua
Norway
Saba
Slovak Republic
St. Eustasius
Sweden
Thailand
United
States
The
extreme toxicity of lead and the technical feasibility and cost-effectiveness
of removing it from gasoline call for rapid phaseout, independent of
the use of catalytic converters. Rapid lead phaseout also facilitates
more comprehensive pollution abatement measures.
Figure 6. Ambient
Atmospheric Concentrations and Lead Phaseout in Mexico City
Source:
ESMAP 1998
There
are several success stories of lead phaseout. In Thailand, a health
assessment study gave impetus to a clean fuels and lead phaseout program,
supported by political commitment (Box 3). Key elements in the success
of the program were environmental and fuel regulations, price and market
liberalization measures, fiscal measures such as differentiated taxation
between leaded and unleaded gasoline, a community awareness program,
and refinery adjustment.
El
Salvador was able to phase out lead in only one year. This may be a
good example of what can be done in a small country with a small refinery
and significant volume of imported gasoline. Several factors contributed
to the rapid phaseout. The petroleum sector was privately owned (and
there was thus no pressure on the government to provide subsidies);
product prices had been liberalized (in 1994); high-octane gasoline
components could be imported; and the phaseout did not involve significant
investment.
El
Salvador's lead phaseout was a first step toward seeking solutions to
broader air quality issues by addressing fuel specifications, air quality
monitoring, environmental regulations, and inspection and maintenance
(I&M) programs. Elsewhere, too, lead phaseout initiatives
often evolve into larger urban air quality management programs. In Peru,
for example, a steering committee and a multi-sectoral commission were
set up to develop pilot programs for improving air quality in selected
cities and to identify specific actions to support lead phaseout. Separate
committees were established to work on fuel specifications, air quality
and environmental monitoring, development of norms and standards, and
public awareness and education.
When
lead has been phased down, the effects on ambient air quality and health
have been immediate. In Mexico City, for example, ambient lead concentrations
dropped to a mere 14 percent of their original level following a similar
reduction in the amount of lead added to gasoline (Figure 6). The expected
positive effects on blood lead levels of exposed populations have been
detected.
Box
2. Recent Developments in Lead Phaseout
Bangladesh
has been steadily reducing lead in gasoline by importing only unleaded
gasoline and blending it with domestic leaded gasoline.
In
China, the National Petroleum Corporation is planning to
phase out lead by 2000. As of July 1997, 56 percent of all gasoline
produced in China was unleaded.
Egypt,
which introduced unleaded gasoline in 1996, plans to phase lead
out by 1999, with assistance from the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID).
Haiti
phased lead out at the end of 1998. Haiti meets all of its gasoline
demand with imports. After observing that unleaded gasoline has
often been priced below leaded gasoline in recent years in the Caribbean
market, Haiti took a decision to eliminate leaded gasoline, which
was rapidly implemented.
Hungary
banned the distribution of leaded gasoline starting April 1, 1999.
To protect the estimated 400,000 vehicles with soft valve seats,
vehicles), a new brand of research octane number (RON) 98 gasoline
containing a lubricating additive was introduced.
In
India, four metropolitan cities became lead free in 1999.
Unleaded gasoline is now available in all large cities and along
highways. Indian refineries have committed themselves to phasing
out lead by April 1, 2000
Kuwait,
which introduced unleaded gasoline in October 1998, plans to convert
almost completely to unleaded by October 1999, making it the first
country in the Middle East to do so. The government will double
the price of leaded gasoline to encourage people to convert to unleaded.
In
Malaysia, as of July 1997 only 30 percent of gasoline was
unleaded, but phaseout by 2000 is planned.
How
Can the World Bank Help?
There
are three key areas in which the World Bank can assist in promoting
the phaseout of lead from gasoline:
- Raising awareness
and building political commitment
- Supporting governments
in adopting appropriate policies and developing strategies
- Facilitating
the implementation of policies and lead phaseout strategies.
Experience
shows that political commitment and supportive policies can result in
a rapid phaseout of leaded gasoline. The World Bank has accordingly
focused on policy area.
Under
the right policy framework, financing for refinery investments is typically
available from commercial sources, and the private sector is able to
implement refinery adjustments. Investors, however, may be deterred
by the perceived risks of changing government policies and political
uncertainties. Guarantees through the International Bank for Reconstruction
and Development (IBRD) or the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency
(MIGA), both part of the World Bank Group, can mitigate private sector
risk in these cases. Because of the World Bank’s credibility, its
involvement attracts investors and builds private sector confidence.
Another source of assistance is the International Finance Corporation
(IFC), another member of the World Bank Group, which makes direct loans
or equity investments for private sector ventures. In all these cases,
the World Bank acts as a catalyst rather than a major financier.
Regional
Programs
Latin
America and the Caribbean. Under the leadership of the Bank, a regional
program has been undertaken to support the preparation of national plans
for the phaseout of leaded gasoline in Latin America and the Caribbean.
The Bank has been working on this project with several other agencies
and organizations, including ARPEL (Reciprocal Assistance for Latin
American Oil Companies), OLADE (Latin American Energy Organization),
the Pan-American Health Organization, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, the U.S. Department of Energy, the Canadian International Development
Agency, and the Organization of American States.
The
project has included health and technical studies, regional and country-based
technical assistance, and dissemination of information and exchange
of experience. As a result of the program, several countries have made
commitments to phase out leaded gasoline by 2000, and several have accelerated
their phaseout plans. The number of lead-free countries in the region
is expected to rise to 14, and the use of lead in gasoline is declining,
from 27,000 tons in 1990 to an estimated 6,000 by the end of the century
(Figure 7).
Figure 7. Lead
Added to Gasoline in Latin America and the Caribbean, 1990, 1996, and
2000
Source;
ESMAP 1997.
Figure 8. Market
Share of Leaded Gasoline in Selected Transition Economies, 1997-99
Source:
World Bank.
Central and Eastern
Europe. The Bank has completed numerous health studies dealing with
exposure to lead in Central and Eastern Europe and has conducted assessments
of the feasibility of phaseout in several countries of the region. Bank
assistance has contributed to a growing political commitment to action.
For example, lead phaseout received strong political attention at the
Third Environment for Europe Conference, held in Sofia in October 1995.
In
1996, the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) established
a task force to prepare a pan-European strategy for phasing out lead
in gasoline. The Bank, together with a large number of countries, actively
participated in this two-year program. The strategy proposed by the
task force set out the following objectives:
- By January 1,
2005, leaded gasoline will no longer be marketed in European countries.
- As intermediate
targets, countries undertake to reach an 80% market share of unleaded
gasoline by January 1, 2002, at the latest, and set a maximum limit
for lead content in gasoline of 0.15 g/l by January 1, 2000, at the
latest. The lead content of unleaded gasoline is not to exceed 0.013
g/l.
The
strategy was submitted to the Fourth Environment for Europe Ministerial
Conference in Århus, Denmark, in June 1997. Thirty-three countries committed
themselves to the objectives.
Central
Asia and the Caucasus. During 1997–98 the Bank assisted Azerbaijan,
Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan with national commitment-building programs
for phasing out leaded gasoline. Under the program, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan
made commitments to phase out leaded gasoline by 2005 and Uzbekistan,
by 2008. National action plans were prepared and are currently being
implemented.
In
1998 the Bank initiated a multiyear regional study on cleaner transportation
fuels to improve urban air quality in Central Asia and the Caucasus.
The study has focused on Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, the
Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan and it has
been undertaken with the participation of the environment, energy, and
transport sectors. The primary objective is to provide a framework for
improving urban air quality by setting medium- and longer-term fuel
quality objectives cost-effectively, improving air quality monitoring,
and reducing vehicle emissions.
South
Asia. In 1998, the George Foundation, with the support of the World
Bank, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other
bodies, organized a large international conference in India on prevention
of lead poisoning. The objective was to raise awareness and develop
a lead poisoning prevention strategy for India and other countries in
the region. The phaseout of leaded gasoline is a key element of the
proposed complex strategy, which includes measures in the health and
environment area.
Bilateral
Assistance
In
addition to regional programs, the Bank has been involved in bilateral
support of national lead phaseout plans in several countries, including
Bulgaria, Jamaica, Pakistan, Peru, Romania, Trinidad and Tobago, and
Vietnam.
Box
3. Lead Phaseout in Thailand's Clean Fuels Program
As
part of a comprehensive program to address urban environmental concerns,
the Bank provided analytical and policy support to the government in
designing its clean fuel program and assisted in the introduction of
clean fuel standards. Policy measures such as the deregulation of oil
prices and removal of restrictions on private sector investments in
the refinery sector facilitated the rapid adjustment of refineries to
changing conditions.
The
Bank supported the successful restructuring of the Bangchak refinery
and provided financing for the Clean Fuels and Environmental Improvement
Project to help meet the government’s fuel quality requirements.
About
a year after introduction of the program, the market share of unleaded
gasoline had increased to about 18 percent. Within five years, leaded
gasoline had been phased out completely.
Challenges
Ahead…
The
World Bank, together with other multilateral and bilateral partners
and NGOs, has succeeded in raising public awareness of the lead problem
and strengthening commitment in several regions to phase out leaded
gasoline.
However,
in several countries (for example, Bangladesh, Cuba, Indonesia, Kenya,
Lebanon, Nigeria, Pakistan, Romania, Syria, and Venezuela), unleaded
gasoline has not yet been introduced or is used only in insignificant
amounts; while high concentrations (0.6 to 0.8 grams per liter) of lead
are added to gasoline in some cases. With the growth of traffic and
urbanization, these countries will face increasing human health problems
unless measures are taken to change the situation.
A
challenge for the Bank is to strengthen the political commitment in
countries and regions where less progress has been made and to facilitate
the implementation of lead phaseout plans in countries where strong
commitment exists but assistance is needed. Among key areas for future
efforts are the introduction of lead phaseout objectives into the policy
dialogue and into operations in the transport, energy, urban development,
and environment sectors and closer collaboration with the IFC.
Further
Information
Abt
Associates, Inc. 1995. "Reducing Lead in Gasoline: Refining Technology
and Economics." Paper presented at the U.S.-hosted International
Workshop on Phasing Lead Out of Gasoline, Washington, D.C., March
14–15.
ESMAP.
(Energy Sector Management Assistance Program) 1997. "Elimination
of Lead in Gasoline in Latin America and the Caribbean. Status Report,
December 1997." Energy Sector Management Assistance Programme.
World Bank, Washington, D.C.
Lovei,
Magda. 1998. Phasing out Lead from Gasoline: Worldwide Experience
and Policy Implications. World Bank Technical Paper 397. Washington,
D.C.
Lovei,
Magda, editor. 1997. Phasing Out Lead from Gasoline in Central
and Eastern Europe. Health Issues, Feasibility, and Policies.
Implementing the Environmental Action Program for Central and Eastern
Europe series. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
Sayeg,
Philip. 1998. Successful Conversion to Unleaded Gasoline in Thailand.
World Bank Technical Paper 410. Washington, D.C.
USEPA
(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1985. "Costs and Benefits
of Reducing Lead in Gasoline: Final Regulatory Impact Analysis".
EPA-230-05-85-006. Office of Policy Analysis. Washington, D.C.
TOP
