Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to the Assessment and Management of Environmental Noise"

(2001/C 116/10)

On 10 October 2000 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 175 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 15 November 2000. The rapporteur was Mr Gafo Fernández.

At its 377th plenary session (meeting of 29 November 2000), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 110 votes to one with two abstentions.

1. Introduction

1.1. The proposal sets out to create a harmonised system of measurement, assessment and public information in the various Member States on "environmental noise", meaning noise perceived by individuals in their normal places of residence and which cannot be traced a single source, but arises from all nearby noise emission sources.

1.2. To date, noise control legislation has focused on setting maximum noise emission levels for a series of industrial products (such as cars, motorcycles, aircraft, lawnmowers, civil engineering equipment, etc.), in order to meet single market criteria (harmonisation to remove trade barriers) and boost efforts to reduce the harmful effects on citizens in general or workers in particular.

1.3. The 1996 Green Paper on Future Noise Policy judged the situation to be unsatisfactory. As a result, the present proposal sets out three clearly-defined lines of action:

- harmonising noise indicators and methods for assessing the environmental impact of noise, within the Community;

- on the basis of the above data, drawing up "noise maps" using methodologies which are, in turn, harmonised;

- establishing public information criteria.

1.4. The draft directive will not set unified or harmonised noise standards, since a majority of Member States have already set national levels, but it will enable comparative information to reach the general public.

1.5. The approach adopted focuses on establishing standardised methods for determining measurements and using these to draw up noise maps, distinguishing noise levels according to different times of day - and consequently according to the differing impact on people. It concentrates on three areas considered particularly important from the cost-efficiency point of view: large conurbations with more than 250000 inhabitants; major road or rail routes carrying more than three million cars or 30000 train journeys respectively per year; and airports handling more than 50000 take-offs and landings per year.

1.6. The Member States must inform the Commission of the major roads, railways and airports and conurbations of more than 250000 inhabitants within their territory by 30 June 2003, and the competent authorities must make and approve the corresponding noise maps by 31 December 2004. Similarly, the proposal stipulates that noise maps for conurbations with populations of more than 100000 must be drawn up by 31 December 2009.

1.7. The competent authorities must prepare action plans on the basis of these noise maps of conurbations, major roads, railways and airports by 31 December 2005 (31 December 2010 for conurbations of between 100 and 250000 inhabitants). The action plans are to include an analysis of the situation, identification of major problems and a list of intended corrective measures. The noise maps and action plans must be updated after five years at the latest.

1.8. The public will be informed about both the noise maps and the action plans, one of the possibilities for disseminating such information being Internet, and they will also be forwarded to the Commission.

1.9. Lastly, the European Commission proposes to submit a report not later than 31 December 2007 on the application of the directive, assessing, on the basis of scientific and technical progress during the period, whether Community quality objectives should be established to cover both reduction of the number of persons affected and measures needed to achieve the goals. This may result in proposals to amend the directive.

2. General comments

2.1. The Committee welcomes this proposal as enthusiastically as it did the earlier intention to carry forward the project(1). The aim is to raise awareness of both the health problems caused by environmental noise and the degree of decline in social well-being and communication. The Committee wishes to express its concern that future generations will inherit a harmful "noise culture", in which noise is a normal, and therefore perfectly acceptable, factor in everyday life.

2.2. The Committee would draw attention to the fact that noise is the central element of the broader concept of sound pollution. Moreover, noise characteristics vary widely in their effect depending on average noise values, duration or maximum levels (which in many cases are short-lived). Noise maps refer to average noise values based on the duration of multiple individual sounds. This should not mask the need to implement proper vigilance and control of short-duration, high-intensity noises.

2.3. The Committee is aware that in formulating these proposals, the European Commission has had to tread a narrow line between human health protection and environmental protection, and compliance with the subsidiarity principle as viewed through the varying cultural perceptions of the noise factor.

2.4. The Committee does, nevertheless, wish to make a number of comments, to be expanded upon under the specific comments below. These comments mainly touch upon the following aspects:

- the possible breach of the principle of subsidiarity by imposing such detailed demands for the action plans;

- the difficulty in establishing comparable average noise conditions for day (Lden) and night (Lnight) in all Community countries, particularly in view of seasonal differences;

- the total failure to mention the need to ensure that individual noise emission standards are applied rigorously and in accordance with noise maps in those areas under Community jurisdiction;

- the lack of any reference to spatial planning criteria, of particular importance with regard to areas bordering roads, railways and airports;

- the failure, without any explanation, to deal with vibration, although this is generally covered by noise legislation.

2.5. The Committee understands that the Commission proposal sets out to create a coordination framework for measuring noise and informing the public. In conjunction with individual maximum noise limits as stipulated in Article 5 for roads, railways, major airports and industrial noise, the framework is intended to bring about subsequent European harmonisation of these levels. The Committee therefore urges the Commission to draft a new recital clearly defining the medium-term objective and opening a debate on the advisability of this measure - which the Committee considers both necessary and appropriate - and on the practical arrangements for implementation. These might involve establishing Community harmonisation based on a minimum level, enabling those Member States who so wish to introduce more stringent levels of protection (as provided under Article 176 of the Treaty). Similarly, a further recital should refer to the need for spatial planning to take account of existing noise maps and to ensure that permanent low noise pollution levels are built into the design of new residential areas.

3. Specific comments

3.1. In Article 1, mention of the impact on human health should be accompanied by an explicit reference to the effects on social well-being (damage to the capacity for communication in open areas exposed to noise) and on the environment in general (e.g. impact on fauna and potentially - although sufficient empirical research is lacking - flora).

3.2. Article 3 - Definitions

3.2.1. In paragraph (a), "all types of machinery" should be added to the sources of noise mentioned.

3.2.2. In paragraph (c), "... negative effects on human health" should be followed by "social well-being and the environment in general". This reflects the explanation provided in the rest of the paragraph.

3.2.3. In paragraph (j), the definition of an "agglomeration" (i.e. conurbations) should also depend upon the existence of a single competent authority with the ability to draw up noise maps and, in particular, to implement action plans. This would avoid the potential contradiction of a single conurbation with two or more competent authorities, each responsible for assessing and implementing action plans against noise in one part of the conurbation regarded by the directive as an indivisible whole.

3.2.4. In paragraph (k), "competent local authority" should be replaced by "competent authority". The ESC also believes that there is no reason for the upper Lden limit to be set at Member State level, but rather by the competent authority in each case.

3.2.5. Similarly, in paragraph (l), the reference to a national or regional authority should be removed.

3.2.6. The following should be added at the end of paragraph (n): "... or more than a specified number, to be determined, of heavy goods vehicle passages per year" (in order to seek a balance between heavy and light vehicles). The same should apply to rail traffic, depending on the type of trains involved.

3.2.7. Major seaports, with a volume of passenger and goods traffic to be determined, should be included as sources of noise under the directive (with reference to Articles 4, 7, 8 and 11 as well as the Annexes).

3.3. The following should be added at the end of Article 7(5): "... or whenever substantial changes make earlier updating advisable. Alternatively, when the competent authority can adequately demonstrate, by means of surveys or other verification measure, that noise conditions have not changed, updating of noise maps may be postponed for one additional period of no more than five years".

3.4. Annex I - Noise indicators: no reason whatsoever is given in the introduction for the addition of 5 dB to Levening and 10 dB to Lnight. In consequence, the Committee cannot comment on the grounds for these criteria, but it believes that the 5 dB added to Levening will unduly overload the noise maps for southern European Union countries, where rest periods are far shorter than in the northern countries. One solution might be use "periods of activity" rather than predetermined time-bands for all the Member States, which would mean removing the reference to the indicator for the Levening period. Furthermore, the definition of an "average meteorological year" might complicate compiling (and subsequently updating) noise maps within the deadlines set. On the other hand, the Committee fully agrees with the inclusion of noise indicators for special cases.

3.5. Annex V: reword the fourth indent as follows: "limit values in agglomerations according to Article 5".

Brussels, 29 November 2000.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke Frerichs

(1) ESC opinion on the European Commission Green Paper: Future noise policy - OJ C 206 of 7.7.1997.