Annexes to COM(2011)321 - Implementation of the Environmental Noise Directive in accordance with Article 11 of Directive 2002/49/EC REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL On the implementation of the Environmental Noise Directive in accordance with Article 11 of Directive 2002/49/EC - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2011)321 - Implementation of the Environmental Noise Directive in accordance with Article 11 of Directive 2002/49/EC REPORT FROM THE ... |
|---|---|
| document | COM(2011)321  |
| date | June 1, 2011 |
As a consequence, the Commission and the EEA developed the END Reporting Mechanism (ENDRM)[19] which facilitated and streamlined data collection, quality control and compliance assessment. In 2007, the Noise Committee agreed to use ENDRM on a voluntary basis. The additional linkage to the EEA's 'Reportnet'[20], further enhanced the effectiveness of the ENDRM.
Major agglomerations, roads, rail and airports
By 2005, Member States were required to inform the Commission of the major roads, major railways, major airports, and agglomerations according to the upper thresholds[21], within their territories. A first update was due by 30 June 2008 relating to lower thresholds[22]. From 2010 onwards every five years, Member States were required to update the list for both thresholds.
The experience gained in the reporting process led progressively to a more timely, comparable and manageable reporting. Whereas the last Member State report for 2005 was almost two years late, in 2010 the delay was reduced to five months. In 2010, 18 Member States reported on time, eight were late. Only Italy has not reported yet.
Strategic noise maps
Member States were required to prepare no later than 30 June 2007 strategic noise maps (article 7 (1)). These requirements apply again on 30 June 2012 and for each subsequent five-year period. Such noise maps should be made for all major roads, railways, airports and agglomerations pursuant to article 7 (1) identified in the preceding calendar year (cf. 4.3.1)[23].
Strategic noise maps are to be used by the competent authorities to identify priorities for action planning and by the Commission to assess the number of people exposed to noise.
Twelve Member States[24] provided all the mandatory data for all sources, eleven[25] provided data for all sources with some minor shortcomings and three[26] provided data for some of the sources. Only Malta did not send a report to the Commission (to date) and the Commission launched an infringement procedure in this case.
The assessment relating to the first round of noise mapping suggests that around 40 million people across the EU are exposed to noise above 50 dB from roads within agglomerations during the night (see table 2). More than 25 million people are exposed to noise at the same level from major roads outside agglomerations. These numbers are expected to be revised upwards as more noise maps are received and/or assessed.
Table 2: Summary of total number of people exposed to environmental noise based on data submitted by the Member States related to the first round of noise mapping
Scope | Number of people exposed to noise above Lden[27] > 55 dB [million] | Number of people exposed to noise above Lnight > 50 dB [million] |
Within agglomerations (163 agglomerations in EU > 250 000 inhabitants) |
All roads | 55,8 | 40,1 |
All railways | 6,3 | 4,5 |
All airports | 3,3 | 1,8 |
Industrial sites | 0,8 | 0,5 |
Major infrastructures, outside agglomerations |
Major roads | 34 | 25,4 |
Major railways | 5,4 | 4,5 |
Major airports | 1 | 0,3 |
The Commission also looked at the administrative burden and costs required to produce noise maps. The most demanding tasks were obtaining data on the noise sources, topography, surrounding buildings and population. The costs for noise mapping vary between 0.33-1.16 EUR/inhabitant, with an average of 0.84 EUR/inhabitant.[28]
Harmonised assessment methods for mapping
According to article 6 of the END, the Commission was mandated to establish common noise assessment methods for the determination of the noise indicators. However, no deadline or timetable was provided by the Directive. Until the harmonised methods are available, the Directive established interim methods to be used, but Member States also had the possibility to use their own methods
The Commission undertook an assessment of the degree of comparability of the results generated by the different methods. The assessment concluded that the national assessment methods differ from the interim methods for 13 Member States. As a result, the Commission started the development of harmonized assessment methods (CNOSSOS-EU) (cf. 0) in 2008.
Action plans
According to Article 8, Member States shall ensure that the competent authorities have drawn up action plans designed to manage noise pollution and effects, including noise reduction if necessary. The measures within the plans were at the discretion of the competent authorities as long as they fulfil the minimum requirements of Annex V.
So far, 20 Member States have submitted summaries related to the action plans. Five Member States[29] provided the data required by the END in time[30]. Eight[31] submitted with 6 months delay and seven[32] sent it more than one year after the deadline. The following seven Member States have so far not provided action plans to date: DK, FR, EL, HU, IT, MT and SI.
The information provided by the Member States was very diverse and the data were scattered. Consequently, a comprehensive analysis of the action plans proved challenging and is still ongoing.
Quiet Areas
Quiet areas make a beneficial contribution to public health, particularly for people living in noisy city areas. As part of the action plans, Member States were required to introduce specific measures and draw up action plans to protect quiet areas in agglomerations against an increase in noise. However, the END left it largely to the discretion of the Member States to delimit these areas.
The consequence of this discretion led to very divergent approaches across the EU. While the majority of Member States designated quiet areas in agglomerations, many have not yet done so in open country.
Public information, consultation and data management
According to article 8 and 9, Member States shall ensure that the public was consulted about the action plans and that the plans were made publically available and disseminated in accordance with Directive on public access to environmental information[33]. Pursuant to Article 10, paragraph 3 of the Directive, the Commission shall set up a database of information on strategic noise maps in order to facilitate the compilation of the report referred to in Article 11 and other technical work.
To this end the Commission made all reports submitted by the Member States until December 2010 publically available.[34] Also the use of EEA's 'Reportnet' facilitated information management and reduced the time needed for assessment of the reports. Albeit voluntary at present, around 80 % of the Member State reports were posted on 'Reportnet'. Furthermore, the EEA launched the Noise Observation and Information Service for Europe (N.O.I.S.E)[35] in October 2009 for the purpose of informing the public about the noise pollution in Europe.
Possible action in the short and medium Term
The END enabled a step forward in addressing noise pollution at EU level. This report identifies a number of achievements and remaining challenges in the implementation of this Directive.
The achievements have not only been recognised by the Commission analysis. Eurocities[36] concluded in an evaluation that the Directive " has brought real benefits ".
To start with, the Directive introduced a management system of environmental noise in all Member States. Some Member States had already developed such systems and gained experience, while others addressed these issues in a systematic manner for the first time. While traditionally, the competences on noise management fell under several authorities and levels of administration in the Member States, some Member States used the implementation of the END to set up appropriate co-operation and co-ordination structures.
Other achievements were, in particular:
- Progress in mapping and assessing noise pollution in the EU leading, for the first time, to an overview on the extent of noise pollution problems;
- Steps towards further improving comparability of strategic noise mapping including common indicators and the establishment of a comprehensive set of noise data at EU level, which did not exist before;
- EU-wide drafting of noise action plans addressing the noise "hot spots" identified by the Member States;
- Identifying gaps with regard to EU legislation on sources of noise (e.g. vehicles, railways, aircrafts), (cf. 5.2).
At the same time, several implementation problems and other shortcomings have been identified during the last years which need to be addressed in the future. These challenges have been grouped into two main areas of possible follow up action, namely improvements of implementation and further development of legislation regulating noise sources.
Improving implementation
The analysis of the first stage of implementation of the END has revealed potential areas for improvement that could be taken by the Commission and the Member States directly and immediately. To this end, the Commission intends to present a work programme to the Noise Committee referred to by Article 13 of the Directive including some of the elements identified below. Where necessary, the Commission will also consider taking legal action to complement the proactive implementation activities listed below.
Finalising the harmonised framework for mapping methods
Despite the improvements of comparability of strategic noise mapping, the situation is far from ideal. The ongoing assessments have shown that it remains difficult to present comparable figures on the number of people being exposed to excessive noise levels. Difficulties relate, inter alia , to differing ways in data collection, quality and availability and assessment methods used. This leads to a variability of results across EU Member States. The harmonisation framework of the method(s), which sufficiently reflects sectoral specificities, will ultimately lead to the required level of comparability.
In 2008, Commission efforts have started on developing harmonized methods for assessing noise exposure (according to article 6.2). A project entitled "CNOSSOS-EU" (Common Noise Assessment Methods in Europe) led by the Joint Research Centre will provide the technical basis for preparing a Commission Implementing Decision. Provided the technical work can be completed in 2011, the Commission is considering a possible revision of Annex II of the END in early 2012 (following Committee opinion in 2011). The harmonised methodological framework could focus on the strategic mapping and would have to carefully balance the needs for harmonisation by proportionality and sectoral specificities, e.g. as regards data requirements. As part of this decision, the Commission intends to propose a joint Commission/EEA/Member States work programme for the implementation of CNOSSOS-EU during 2012-2015 with the view to making it operational for the third reporting cycle in 2017.
Developing EU implementation guidance
Many aspects of the Directive were not prescribed in detail or leave certain room for different interpretation and implementation. Many Member States suggested that these issues could be addressed through dedicated action assisting in the implementation and compliance at EU level, such as the development of guidance documents, the information exchange of best practices or the organisation for specific workshops and training courses. The following issues for such action were identified: mapping methods and best mapping practices, predictive values for noise maps, dose-response relationships, calculating multiple exposure, producing action plans and trigger or target values.
Concerning action plans, many Member States felt that the minimum requirements set out in Annex V are not sufficient to help prepare these plans. This includes, in particular the aspect of designating quite areas (cf. 4.3.5).
The implementation activities which are envisaged to form part of the work programme should also help improving the co-operation and co-ordination mechanisms within the Member States.
Improving synergies between air quality and noise management
The potential for closer co-ordination and integration of air quality and noise management has been suggested frequently. The implementation of the Ambient Air Quality Directive (2008/50/EC) and its predecessors requires similar elements, e.g. the data collection in agglomerations, improvement of assessment methods, preparation of action plans, information of the public and reporting to the Commission. Some Member States have reported positive experiences from integrating air quality and noise implementation, e.g. by integrated action planning in particular for road hot spots with noise and air pollution problems. These aspects could be explored further with the view to foster synergies and create experiences.
Facilitating reporting issues
The Directive has several cyclical reporting obligations which, in some cases, create an additional administrative burden without generating the necessary added value for EU action. The streamlining of reporting and the electronic reporting processes could be further optimised and used on mandatory base. Other shortcomings which have been highlighted by several Member States were, in particular the input data requirements including coordination, collecting and accessibility of data, lack of data and guidance on quality requirements, problems with the assessment heights. Implementation activities under the INSPIRE Directive[37] (e.g. on common noise data infrastructure) may lead to the consideration of further alignments.
Legislation regulating noise sources
Environmental noise is addressed at the EU level through a wide range of instruments including provisions on market access requirements for certain vehicles and equipment, railway interoperability specifications[38] and rules on operating restrictions at airports. In addition to the various actions and improvements of EU legislation in this area over the past decade[39], the Commission is considering developing these measures further in order to reduce the noise exposure and pollution in the EU. In the Commission Work Programme 2011, a number of important initiatives with regard to noise were included, in particular:
- The White Paper on Transport [40] which provides a roadmap until 2050 to, amongst many other objectives, contribute to the reduction of noise pollution from transport (e.g. action to develop "vehicle standards for noise emission levels");
- The revision of Directive 2002/30/EC on airport noise which will, as part of the airport package, improve noise mapping on the basis of an internationally recognised method and data, and drive towards the adoption of cost-effective noise mitigating measure, taking into account internationally agreed standards to streamline the relationship between the airport noise directive and the END. It will also update the definition of noisy aircraft ("marginally compliant aircraft") in line with the current composition of the aircraft fleet.
- The next revision of noise from motor vehicles with at least four wheels will, on the basis of an improved test procedure, assess the possibilities of introducing tighter limits ensuring that quieter vehicles are actually being put on the market. This may include a proposal for a regulation relating to the permissible sound level and the exhaust system of motor vehicles. The main objective of the initiative is aiming at reducing the negative impact of noise exposure of European citizens caused by motor vehicle traffic.
- The revision of the Outdoor Noise Directive [41] will evaluate the scope of equipments covered and revise the noise requirements to reflect the current state-of-the-art technology. At the same time related administrative requirements will be simplified.
In addition, the Commission intends to continue analysing other potential measures to reduce noise pollution at EU level, such as e.g. low noise road surfaces and will come forward with proposals, as appropriate.
Issues for further consideration
As part of the review, the preparatory work looked also into elements that might need to be addressed in achieving effective and efficient EU-wide legislation on environmental noise. In particular:
- Trigger or target values : Member States introduced a wide variety of approaches and level of ambition preventing further convergence towards a level playing field in the internal market and establishing significantly different protection levels for citizens across the EU (cf. 4.2). This being said, the setting of mandatory noise limit/target values at EU level would touch upon subsidiarity issues by limiting the flexibility of national and local authorities to adapt the level of protection and the action plans/measures to their specific situations. Other options could be the establishment of EU noise trigger values, minimum requirements or EU recommendations. These approaches could serve as minimum thresholds to trigger action on noise but would not prevent Member States to set stricter requirements, where necessary.
- Noise indicators : In the current Directive, Member States are required to use specified noise indicators of Lden and Lnight and report the noise exposure of the population of 55 dB and 50 dB or more, respectively (cf. 4.2.). However, the current reporting neglects the fact that there is a considerable share of EU population exposed to noise pollution at lower levels which are still likely to cause harmful effects on health (cf. 2). According to the latest WHO recommendations, reporting bands of the indicator values of Lnight should be lowered to 40 dB, Lnight in order to achieve a much more realistic assessment of noise pollution impacts across the EU.
- Enforcement : The Directive is lacking a clear enforcement regime where action plans are directly linked to exceedances in noise levels and possible penalties even in the cases when Member States have legally binding limit values at national level, the assessment presented by the noise maps revealed that noise limit values appeared often to be infringed without consequences. Clarification on the objectives, the content and the enforcement of action plans could be considered, bearing in mind that the subsidiarity and proportionality principles were respected.
- Technical definitions, requirements and concepts : A number of possible technical improvement were identified including clarifications of the definitions and obligations related to agglomerations, quiet areas, major roads, industrial noise and action plans. Furthermore, the question of measurement points remained a concern including flexibility regarding the measurement height which caused concern in some Member States because of their specific building structures. Finally, the presentation of values and assessment results would benefit from further clarification or harmonisation.
- Administrative burden and aligning legal aspects : There would be scope for streamlining and facilitating the reporting timetable. Some reporting elements[42] were reported several times. Also it was not sufficiently clear in the END that the different stages in the assessment framework (noise mapping and action planning) were building on each other. Moreover, the short timeline between the strategic noise mapping and the finalisation of actions plans was reported to be one of the main obstacles for carrying out an appropriate public consultation. Finally, the relevant provisions of the END would need to be aligned, where relevant, with the new system of delegated acts and implementing measures (Article 290 and 291 TFEU).
CONCLUSIONS
Environmental noise remains a significant problem across the EU with significant health impacts. Based on the information that has become available about the health impacts of noise, it appears that further actions should be considered to reduce the number of people affected by harmful noise levels.
The implementation of the END has just recently entered into an active phase regarding noise mapping and action planning. This first implementation report identifies significant achievements but also several difficulties and areas for improvement. However, the full potential of the END has not been harvested yet. The action plans are only now being implemented and have often not created the envisaged effects (yet).
The Commission will consider further actions as described in this report in relation to implementation improvements and possible measures on noise source reduction. In addition, harmonisation of the assessment methodological framework is under preparation. As part of the review, the preparatory work (cf. 5.3) looked also into elements such as indicators and strengthened enforcement mechanisms that might need to be addressed in the future to achieve effective and efficient legislation on environmental noise.
This report will be the basis for further discussions with Member States and other interested stakeholders to explore the possibilities of improving the effectiveness of the noise legislation.
Independently of this consultation process, it needs to be borne in mind that a more comprehensive and realistic assessment of the effectiveness of the END can only be made after the second round of noise mapping when the knowledge on noise pollution will have improved further.
[1] The report was delayed for several reasons, in particular because of the implementation delays, the lack of sufficient data and the complexity of the assessment process
[2] http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/noise
[3] http://www.milieu.be/noise/index.html
[4] WHO-JRC, 2011; Report on “Burden of disease from environmental noise, http://www.euro.who.int/en/what-we-do/health-topics/environmental-health/noise
[5] WHO, 1999; http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/1999/a68672.pdf
[6] WHO, 2009 http://www.euro.who.int/en/what-we-do/health-topics/environmental-health/noise/publications
[7] ENNAH, www.ennah.eu
[8] The Environmental Burden of Disease in Europe project ranked noise as second environmental stressor It introduced the general methodology targeting for use of the Disability-adjusted life years, DALY, as the most commonly used measure; http://en.opasnet.org/w/Ebode
[9] Babisch 2006, 2008; Miedema & Vos 2007; WHO Europe 2009, 2010
[10] LAmax – maximum sound pressure level
[11] EC Delft, 2007, http://www.transportenvironment.org/docs/Publications/2008/2008-02_traffic_noise_ce_delft_report.pdf
[12] AT, BE, CZ, DE, EL, FI, FR, IE, IT, LU, PT, SE, SL, UK
[13] LV, PL
[14] AT, BG, BE, CZ, DK, EE, ES, FR, DE, EL, IT, LV, LT, LU NL, PL, PT, SL, SI
[15] LT, LV, RO
[16] FI, IE, SE, UK
[17] EE, LU, PT, SL and Brussels Administration of BE
[18] EEA Technical report No 11/2010 and study report (cf. footnote 2) for more details.
[19] http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/eione_noise/library
[20] http://www.eionet.europa.eu/reportnet
[21] Upper thresholds: Major roads > 6 m. vehicle/y; major railways > 60 000 train/y; major airports > 50 000 movements/y; major agglomerations>250 000 inhabitants.
[22] Lower thresholds: major roads > 3 m. vehicle/y; major railways > 30 000 train/y; and major agglomerations > 100 000 inhabitants.
[23] Note, Article 7 provides that the list of major agglomerations, roads, rails and airports reported in 2005 needs to be reviewed when preparing the first strategic noise map, i.e. taking into account the latest situation in 2006. Similarly, the subsequent stages of noise mapping need to update the lists already reported to the Commission to avoid missing out any major hot spots which have passed the threshold in the meantime.
[24] BG, CZ, EE, HU, IE, LT, LV, LU, PL, PT, SI, UK
[25] AT, BE CY, DK, FI, DE, NL, RO, ES, SE, SK
[26] FR, EL, IT
[27] Lden – day-evening-night noise indicator
[28] European Commission – Cost study on noise mapping and action planning; P-44581-W, 2000
[29] DE, IE, LT, SE, UK
[30] 18/01/2009.
[31] CY, CZ, EE, ES, FI, LU, PL, SL
[32] AT, BE, BG, LV, NL, PT, RO
[33] 2003/4/EC (OJ L41,14.2.2003, p 26-32)
[34] http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/d_2002_49/library
[35] http://noise.eionet.europa.eu/
[36] Eurocities WG Noise (2009): http://workinggroupnoise.web-log.nl/
[37] OJ L108, 25.04.2007, p.1-14
[38] Commission Decision 2006/66/EC on Technical Specifications for Interoperability "Noise" for conventional rolling stock
[39] In particular, revision of EU Rail Noise Policy based on 2008 "Communication on Rail noise abatement measures addressing the existing fleet" and subsequent Commission proposals such as Directive 2001/43/EC on tyre noise and proposals related to noise from L category vehicles regulated by Directive 97/24/EC
[40] COM(2011) 144 final
[41] Directive 2000/14/EC on noise from outdoor equipment
[42] E.g. agglomerations, major roads, major railways and airports.