Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the noise emission by equipment used outdoors` () (98/C 407/03)

On 9 March 1998 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 100a of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Protection of the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Affairs, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 7 July 1998. The rapporteur was Mr Boisserée, the co-rapporteurs Mr De Norre and Mr Lemmetty.

At its 357th plenary session on 9 and 10 September 1998 (meeting of 9 September) the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 87 votes to one with one abstention.

1. Comments on the Commission proposal

1.1. In the EC's fifth action programme on the environment, noise is identified as an increasingly serious problem from the point of view of personal health and well-being. This is true of noise at the workplace, but more especially of noise outdoors, which then becomes an environmental problem.

In keeping with this basic conception, the Commission presented a Green Paper in 1996 on future noise policy ().

The Green Paper tackles among other things noise caused by equipment used in the open air (building plant, gardening machinery, etc.; paras. 3.2 and 4.3.iv of the Green Paper). The Green Paper and subsequent submissions do not however deal with the specific problems relating to the workplace. Because of the nature of the hazards at the workplace, measures offering protection against noise in that particular environment generally tend to be more stringent than elsewhere and have been drawn up as part and parcel of the EU's social policy programme.

1.2. In its opinion on the Green Paper adopted on 23/24 April 1997 (), the ESC expressed, inter alia, the following views:

- Restricting 'limit values for equipment` to previously regulated areas is unsatisfactory since such areas were not selected primarily with objective priorities in mind.

- What is therefore needed is a comprehensive programme offering protection against noise from machinery (particularly building plant, but also agricultural and horticultural equipment). Only a comprehensive programme can promote technological advances in noise abatement.

- Stronger incentives (including fiscal measures) should be available to encourage the early introduction of low-noise machinery. The planned marking of machines with noise values might later lead to their inclusion in the eco-label system.

1.3. The Commission proposal now under consideration accepts the arguments of the Green Paper. In so doing the Commission regards the proposed draft directive as the 'first stage` in implementing the programme outlined in the Green Paper.

The draft directive now under discussion is primarily concerned with urban conditions although its scope is not limited thereto. The ESC on the other hand adopts a broad-based approach.

The scope of the draft directive is not therefore identical with that of the ESC's Opinion on the Green Paper.

2. General comments on the draft directive

2.1. As in its opinion on the Green Paper, the ESC welcomes the Commission's intention to combat noise through concrete legislative proposals. The ESC shares the view of the Commission that this topic is high on the agenda of citizens in large parts of Europe. The ESC would nevertheless point out that people are affected by noise whether they live in inner-city areas or outside city centres.

Even though noise from sources other than equipment plays a major part in determining noise levels in areas where people live (particularly traffic and aircraft noise), the need for concrete protection against noise emanating from the sources mentioned in the directive is clearly overwhelming. The ESC therefore considers the proposed directive to be necessary and lends its approval, subject to the following comments:

2.2. The Commission emphasizes that the aim of the proposed measure is to protect human health and the well-being of ordinary people and accordingly believes that a comprehensive framework directive on noise emission levels by equipment used outdoors is necessary. This was a point likewise made by the ESC in its opinion on the Green Paper. Point 38 of the European Parliament's Resolution of 10 June 1997 () takes a similar line.

The present proposal for a directive on the other hand is to all intents and purposes no more than a continuation and consolidation of existing directives (which have not all been adopted systematically), as well as a mechanism for adjusting emission limits to technical developments. These reduced emission limits would however only come into effect six years after the entry into force of the proposed directive (Stage II - third paragraph of Article 19(1) of the proposed directive).

The ESC doubts whether these provisions and the 'array of instruments` available under the draft directive, i.e.:

- standard noise measurements which are required to be included in the prescribed marking of the equipment,

- confirmation of the conformity of the marked, standard equipment to be placed on the market,

are sufficient to offer effective protection against noise.

2.3. What would seem to be needed is an evaluation of measurements based on state-of-the-art noise protection technologies, whilst leaving open the possibility of being able to insist in individual cases on the use of equipment with advanced noise protection features, where this is justified by the need to protect the individual from health hazards or from a high degree of acoustic discomfort.

2.4. The ESC agrees that the noise protection programme should be implemented in stages but proposes that consideration be given in any subsequent legislative procedure to whether it is not already possible to extend it in a number of areas.

2.4.1. The scope of the directive needs to be reviewed. The lists in Annex 1 (Parts B and C) do not cover all equipment harmful to people living in the vicinity; this is true for example of pile-drivers (steam and engine-operated pile drivers) which are used on building sites in inner-city areas (e.g. for sheeting walls) but are not covered by the draft directive.

2.4.2. A six-year moratorium is proposed before the limit values, which have in the meantime been adjusted in line with technical developments, come into force (Stage II - Article 19 of the draft directive). Consideration should be given to whether this six-year period could not perhaps be shortened so that citizens can enjoy improved protection as soon as possible. In this connection we must bear in mind that reduced limit values will only apply to equipment brought on to the market after the six-year period - or operated for the first time then - and will not apply to older equipment. The Commission proposal gives no concrete reasons for the six-year moratorium.

2.4.3. If the six-year moratorium is changed, then the six-year period allowed for the review of lists and provisions on limit values (Article 17 of the draft directive) should also be looked at again.

2.5. Recent technological developments in the field of noise protection in the Member States (not least through national 'eco-labelling systems`) have scarcely received any attention in the draft directive. One can find equipment on the market almost everywhere today which already operates at a level well below the noise emission limits laid down in the draft directive.

The ESC therefore considers that the right course is to use the draft directive's provisions on measurements, marking and conformity to make it easier for operators in the market to opt for low-noise equipment, irrespective of whether noise emission limits have been set. We must not forget that purchasers of equipment covered by the directive are very often not professional users who are automatically in a position to make use of the information encapsulated in physical characteristics and technical data when making their purchasing decisions. This is also true of small and medium-sized industrial firms which are unable to call on scientific acoustic experts when ordering or purchasing equipment.

The following suggestions, which are consistent with the ESC opinion on the Green Paper, should therefore be taken into consideration:

- the marking of equipment should be accompanied by a comparative 'classification system` comprehensible to both consumers and buyers;

- equipment manufacturers should be required to include noise levels in their prospectuses or fact sheets, in addition to technical data (engine rating, carrying capacity, size, width, etc.). A low noise level is always a sign of quality and attention should be drawn to this as a factor in guiding the market decisions of the buyer/consumer;

- Member States should be able to introduce fiscal incentives to encourage the earliest possible purchase of low-noise equipment;

- consideration should be given to the possibility of developing an eco-label (anti-noise label) for equipment covered by the directive; this could become an integral part of the EU eco-label system ().

2.6. The provisions of the draft directive focus on the emissions of the equipment in question. The draft directive however contains no limit values on the impact of noise on humans, notably in relation to noise from other sources. The ESC considers that this approach by the Commission is acceptable since 'environmental quality targets` for noise in the vicinity of equipment cannot really be harmonized at the moment given that local conditions and regional requirements vary greatly and there are still no proper assessment criteria. Such 'noise quality targets` can initially only be set by the Member States themselves, even in cases where they go beyond the framework of Article 14 of the draft directive ('regulation of use`) and worker protection. The subsidiarity principle () thus likewise applies to protection against noise.

The ESC notes with interest that a framework directive on 'environmental noise` is being prepared and that it is likely to contain environmental quality objectives in respect of protection against noise.

2.7. The Commission takes Article 100a of the EC Treaty as its legal basis. However, the ESC believes that, in the light of what is said in the explanatory memorandum, the aim of the proposed directive is both protection of the health and well-being of citizens and also the operation of the single market, so that EC Treaty Article 130s should also come into the reckoning at the very least.

3. Comments on individual provisions of the draft directive

3.1. Article 4(3)

The provisions to be adopted by the Member States should also enable the results of the conformity procedure (possibly backed up by an evaluation procedure such as that proposed in point 2.2 above) to be enforced through sanctions to protect ordinary citizens.

3.2. Article 8

The ESC proposes that, in addition to measurements, the CE marking should incorporate form of classification that makes it easier for consumers/buyers to opt for low-noise equipment (see point 2.5 above).

3.3. Article 9 and Annex I

3.3.1. The proposal sets no noise limits for much of the equipment covered by the directive although this would be justified by the Commission's own criterion for the adoption of limit values (). Thus, for example, equipment used frequently in the vicinity of residential areas or leisure centres, such as chain saws, scarifiers, hedge trimmers and shredders, are still not subject to noise limits. The only provisions such equipment (listed in Annex IC) would have to comply with under the proposed directive would be rules on measuring and marking. Consideration should be given to whether limit values could not be extended to cover this type of equipment and uniform limit values introduced for all gardening equipment.

3.3.2. The distinction between equipment listed in Annex 1B and equipment listed in Annex 1C needs to be reviewed. This is true for example of lawn edge trimmers (listed in Annex 1B) and grass edge trimmers (listed in Annex 1C), with only the former being subject to noise limits.

3.3.3. Exempting equipment used in agriculture (e.g. lawnmowers) is hard to understand since such equipment is frequently used near houses in rural areas. This view also holds in respect of the extremely valuable information regarding the manner in which such equipment must be operated if it is to be environmentally-friendly and avoid unnecessary noise.

3.4. Article 13

The ESC approves the proposals on information and data collection.

The data collected on the basis of Article 13 of the draft directive should also be made available to the authorities concerned (including bodies involved in the dissemination of consumer and environmental information) so that the acquisition of low-noise equipment can be promoted. The Commission rightly mentions that an information campaign is needed to promote the use of low-noise machinery (Explanatory Memorandum, last paragraph of point 4). To achieve this, the message must be couched in universally comprehensible terms.

4. Other comments

The draft directive does not address the following problem, which was discussed in the ESC's opinion on the Green Paper. The equipment covered by the directive causes not only noise but also vibrations and the effects of vibrations on human health and physical structures make it necessary to introduce protective measures (in the case, for example, of compacting or pile-driving machinery). Since protective measures have to start with the equipment itself, as is the case with protection against noise, legislative provisions in some Member States cover noise and vibration protection simultaneously. It would therefore be worth looking into the question of whether the present draft directive could already incorporate, or be extended to incorporate, vibrations.

Brussels, 9 September 1998.

The President of the Economic and Social Committee

Tom JENKINS

() OJ C 124, 22.4.1998, p. 1.

() COM(96) 540 final.

() OJ C 206, 7.7.1997, p. 1.

() OJ C 200, 30.6.1997, p. 28.

() Regulation No 880/92 - OJ L 99, 11.4.1992.

() Article 4(3) of the draft directive and the Commission's remarks in point 3.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum are too restrictive in the way they are worded.

() See explanatory memorandum, p. 13.