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

(2001/C 148/02)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council relating to the Assessment and Management of Environmental Noise [COM(2000) 468 final - 2000/0194 (COD)];

having regard to the decision of the Council of 10 October 2000, under Article 175(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to consult the Committee on the subject;

having regard to the decision by the Bureau on 13 June, directing Commission 4 - Spatial Planning, Urban Issues, Energy and Environment - to draw up the relevant opinion;

having regard to the draft opinion (CdR 271/2000 rev. 1) adopted by Commission 4 on 7 December 2000, for which the rapporteur was Mr Roelants du Vivier (B/ELDR),

adopted the following opinion at its 37th plenary session on 14 and 15 February 2001 (meeting of 14 February).

Views and recommendations of the Committee of the Regions

1. The Committee of the Regions' viewpoint

1.1. The Committee of the Regions welcomes the Commission's proposal for a directive on the assessment and management of environmental noise. It represents a decisive step towards a common European policy on combating noise. While this legislative tool does not provide solutions for every problem, it constitutes an initial approach to noise pollution as a whole.

1.2. Implementation of a common policy by the Member States is essential if the number of European citizens affected by noise levels that are unacceptable or damaging to their health is to be contained or reduced. Noise is the chief environmental and public health problem for the general public.

1.3. The Committee of the Regions welcomes the launching of a phased strategy to combat noise, as this reflects real circumstances in towns and regions. At worst, the strategy should stabilise the present situation in some regions and at best, should radically improve matters in others.

1.4. The Committee of the Regions emphasises the importance of setting a series of common indicators, which must be compatible with the standardised indicators in general use, but believes it is necessary to define, in particular for airports, common action thresholds for noise levels where the impact on health is obvious. As there is a lack of information on dose-effect relations with regard to the common indicator to define "annoyance" proposed in the directive, the Committee proposes that scientific studies be carried out to examine this issue in greater detail. This research can be used in the future to determine common target values or quality criteria and limit values and to trigger the implementation of action plans. While these studies are being carried out, short-term target levels for noise should be introduced, with action plans having to be drawn up if these levels are exceeded.

2. COR recommendations

2.1. The Committee of the Regions is unhappy at the scant importance given by the European Commission in its global assessment to the role which regional and local authorities will have to play in implementing the directive. The directive refers to areas of responsibility held by local authorities, such as urban and regional mobility policy, spatial planning and health protection. The Committee would urge the European Commission to devise a working method for implementing the directive which would involve regional and local level actors on a basis of dialogue and consultation.

2.2. The COR suggests that the European Commission initiate a network for swapping information, experience and know-how in order to assist regions and towns in applying the directive.

2.3. Recognising that large numbers of European citizens are affected by noise, the Committee of the Regions highlights the urgent need for a common strategy to combat noise, reflecting regional diversity. To this end it suggests adjusting the timing and deadlines for transposing the directive and modifying the directive accordingly, without changing its objectives. The forwarding of information on limit values to the Commission should be postponed until one year after the noise maps are drawn up. Establishing limit values can have major socio-economic implications, particularly for towns and regions which historically have not had active anti-noise policies.

2.4. The COR recalls that the Commission's Green Paper on Future Noise Policy introduced guideline values, necessary in order to define limit values. These guideline values, which have disappeared from the final version of the directive, were calculated on the basis of scientific research into the concept of "annoyance" and published by the World Health Organisation. The Committee would like to see the guideline values restored to the directive.

2.5. The Committee of the Regions recognises the importance attached by the directive to defining common indicators. The way in which these indicators may be calculated or measured largely determines the results obtained. A common methodology ensuring the quality and validity of results should therefore be prepared in consultation with local and regional authorities.

2.6. The COR calls upon the European Commission to provide a clear definition of the term "agglomeration". The directive only applies to areas of strongly concentrated population. Many people outside such areas, however, suffer from noise pollution. "Agglomeration" should therefore be defined on the basis of the scale of the transport network (size, traffic flow, etc.), the zone's land-use classification, and the number of individuals concerned.

2.7. The Committee of the Regions supports the scope of the directive as proposed by the Commission. The use of common indicators must be applied to the noise maps, as stipulated in Articles 5 and 7 of the directive, and not to the strategic noise maps, which only give an assessment of the situation in a given area.

2.8. Recalling that noise is the primary nuisance affecting European citizens, but is one of the areas in which the Union has legislated least, the Committee of the Regions calls for the rapid introduction of the action plans for noise pollution reduction envisaged by the directive. It would stress the directive's laxity regarding the content of these plans and the expected results.

2.9. Aircraft noise problems merit special attention. The COR acknowledges that the directive's definition covers large number of airports, not only the largest. However, the specific nature of noise pollution generated by aircraft needs to be emphasised, and a specific indicator for this mode of transport should therefore be added. In addition, the assessment method advocated by the directive will need to be verified in detail.

2.10. The Committee is pleased that the directive views information for citizens as essential, but emphasises that this information should extend beyond simply publishing noise maps.

Brussels, 14 February 2001.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Jos Chabert