Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'European Commission Green Paper: Future noise policy` (97/C 206/01)

On 12 November 1996 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned green paper.

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 1 April 1997. The rapporteur was Mr Boisserée.

At its 345th plenary session (meeting of 23 April 1997), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 93 votes to one, with two abstentions.

1. Introduction

1.1. The Commission begins its green paper with the following statement:

'Environmental noise, caused by traffic, industrial and recreational activities, is one of the main local environmental problems in Europe and the source of an increasing number of complaints from the public. Generally however action to reduce environmental noise has had a lower priority than that taken to address other environmental problems such as air and water pollution.`

The green paper seeks to give higher political priority to combating noise.

1.2. The green paper flows from the 5th Environmental Action Programme of March 1992 () which announced noise abatement measures and contains some specific target values (see the annex to the green paper). The Commission proposal of January 1996 () revising this programme announces an action plan including measures for implementation of the said target values; through the action plan the Commission intends to concentrate, in enacting legislation at Community level, on measures covering 'products` which give rise to noise emissions.

The Commission intends to prepare this action plan via the green paper.

The green paper is intended to provide a basis for political and expert discussion on the extent and timescale of the proposed action plan and on the instruments for implementing it.

2. General comments on the green paper

2.1. Protection against noise must be an integral part of environmental policy. The Commission points out that large segments of the European population are exposed to noise levels regarded by experts as intolerable in health terms. Polls carried out by the Commission and some Member States confirm that large population groups, primarily in large cities and conurbations, are indeed affected. Public complaints about noise have increased in recent years. The main reason is that the number of noise sources (e.g. in road traffic) has increased; this increase has outstripped technical improvements in noise abatement. The Commission estimates that more than 80 million people are exposed to intolerable noise levels.

The Committee regards this estimate as accurate in terms of order of magnitude.

2.2. Unfortunately, Community environment policy has not addressed protection against noise systematically and has focused only on some, albeit important, noise sources, often without regard to the impact of these sources on the general noise levels. The ESC therefore regards it as important that a new European-level blueprint for noise abatement be developed, in which the weaknesses and loopholes in existing rules and evaluations can be overcome and the 'state of the art` knowledge and technology can be taken into account. The necessary measures should be prepared without delay. The ESC trusts that the submission of the green paper is not indicative of any delay in this programme.

2.3. The content of the green paper is welcomed in principle.

There can be no doubt about the mandate for measures at Community level, even when the subsidiarity principle is taken into account.

- Health protection measures are directly covered by the objectives set out in Article 130r of the EC Treaty; the article implies a mandate to enact measures to secure 'at a high level of protection`.

- Measures to reduce noise and to protect people against noise (including the planning of transport, infrastructure and residential areas) have economic effects; differing levels of protection or disparate measures could give rise to distortions of competition within the single market; this too provides a mandate for action at Community level.

- The need to draft legislation or agreements at Community level also extends to evaluation and measurement procedures as this is the only way of determining if the protection levels called for in Article 130r have been achieved.

- However, the programme set out in the green paper does not confine itself to Community legal instruments but involves coordination of measures taken by Member States and local authorities; this is in line with the 5th Environmental Action Programme, which is addressed to the various environmental policy players. In this respect the programme is also to be implemented via recommendations to the Member States (Article 189 of the EC Treaty).

- Implementation of noise protection provisions cannot be guaranteed without sanctions in respect of failure to fulfil statutory obligations.

- In connection with the implementation of the planned action programme the ESC proposes a recommendation to the Member States that they provide for adequate criminal and/or administrative sanctions. With regard to harmonization within Europe, we would refer to the draft Convention on environmental protection through criminal law, drawn up by the Council of Europe ().

2.4. A number of ESC opinions, drafted by the Environment Section, deal with protection against noise:

- Opinion of 13 May 1987 on the 4th Environmental Action Programme ();

- Opinion of 1 July 1992 on the 5th Environmental Action Programme () and Opinions on review of the action programme, dated 25 October 1995 () and 29 May 1996 ();

- Opinion of 3 July 1991 on the Green Paper on the urban environment ().

These opinions largely call for specific Community measures on protection against noise.

3. Specific comments

3.1. Harmonization of procedures for reporting noise exposure and the mutual exchange of information

3.1.1. The measures proposed by the Commission for reporting noise exposure and promoting the exchange of information are welcomed in principle; this also applies to public information campaigns. Noise is often caused by simple carelessness of those involved (including those involved in road transport) and by faulty maintenance and handling of machines; specifically targeted information campaigns can help here. Improved cooperation between the Commission, the Member States and non-governmental organizations concerned with noise abatement is urgently recommended.

3.1.2. Reporting of noise exposure includes noise assessments. Harmonization is particularly important here.

The Commission intends to draft a framework directive on noise measurement procedures and on evaluation of noise exposure. The ESC endorses this intention. Measurement procedures have already been largely harmonized in Europe. The Commission also points out that there is a general consensus as to what noise levels are reasonable for the public. Existing agreements can be incorporated into this directive. Even if noise abatement measures vary as to sources and situation, the measurement and assessment procedure should at any rate be uniform.

3.1.3. For defining reasonable levels, the Commission rightly relies on the criteria of the World Health Organization (WHO). In the ESC's view there are no better guide values at present.

Problems can arise in differentiating between the health (physiological) implications of noise on the one hand and simple nuisance on the other. Moreover, nuisance and medical effects can overlap. Evaluation of the nuisance is therefore difficult, as it is not free from subjective elements (attitude of those affected to the noise source and to the frequency of the noise). The WHO criteria attempt to take account of these problems in their normative structure.

3.1.4. In the green paper the Commission refers frequently to the importance of noise maps as a basis for situation assessment, but also for land-use planning and information to the public.

In principle such noise maps, if based on practical surveys or calculations, are suitable for planning and information measures. However, the following framework conditions, derived from experience in the Member States, should be taken into account:

- noise maps appear to be worthwhile if they form the basis for practical noise reduction plans;

- noise maps are designed to provide spatial presentation of noise exposure, and not as statements of the situation at specific points. Hence no specific statements, e.g. on the evaluation of building plots, can be derived from them.

3.2. Establishment of target values and adoption of provisions on measures to achieve these target values

3.2.1. The Commission announces the establishment of target values and measures for implementation 'for a later stage`. The 5th Action Programme (1992!) already contains such target values, in some cases with deadlines, which in general have not been met. According to the principle of prevention, such target values are urgently necessary for the priority areas for protection against noise. They should not now be put off to some distant future.

3.2.2. According to the green paper noise emissions are to be reduced not only through administrative measures but also through economic instruments.

3.2.3. Economic instruments would normally mean taxes and levies to be geared to the scale of the noise emission. This should provide an incentive for the acquisition and operation of low-noise machinery etc. This is acceptable to the ESC; however, the Committee opposes the use of fiscal measures as a kind of 'punishment` of those responsible for noise or as a source of public revenue. Economic instruments are not a substitute for the adoption of provisions on emission limit values; in general the ESC regards limit values as more suitable than fiscal measures for protecting the population.

3.2.4. Economic instruments would also include provisions on increased liability for damage (including damage to health!) caused by noise. As far back as 1994, the ESC had called for directives or recommendations on greater environmental liability at European level (). The ESC has in principle endorsed fiscal measures as a suitable way of promoting sustainable development ().

3.3. Reduction of road traffic noise

3.3.1. We confirm that dealing with road traffic noise must take priority. The proposed measures are regarded as adequate. As vehicle engines become quieter noise caused by movement increases. Measures to reduce such noises (e.g. measures on vehicle tyres) should not however be allowed to jeopardize road safety.

3.3.2. On the incorporation of noise exposure costs in fiscal instruments, reference should be made to the Green Paper 'Towards fair and efficient pricing in transport` (1995) () and the relevant ESC opinion ().

3.3.3. Incorporation of noise testing in regular vehicle safety checks ('MOTs`) is important. Moreover, testing must take place under realistic operating conditions. Vehicle wheel noise is a major specific problem because of the number of vehicles in circulation, particularly in conurbations; particular stress must be placed here on testing under realistic operating conditions taking into account possible technical changes during operation; precautions must be taken to prevent drivers tampering with vehicle silencer systems.

3.3.4. Protection against road traffic noise creates a range of problems which should be dealt with by encouraging research and technological development:

- research on assessment, measurement and reduction of wheel noise, taking account of the need for road safety;

- encouragement of low-noise road surfaces, using Community funds; however, only pilot projects should be eligible for EU funding in the context of technological development.

3.3.5. The Commission merely touches on the importance of rational traffic management for protection against road traffic noise.

Investigations should be initiated to ascertain what instruments can be used to avoid unnecessary troublesome road traffic. These could include restrictions on the use of certain vehicles, e.g. vehicles without low-noise engines, and at certain times of the day.

The Commission also mentions road tolls in this context. Experience with the effects of such measures should be carefully assessed insofar as they are confined to certain road networks.

3.4. Rail traffic noise

3.4.1. We endorse the priority attached to measures to assess and reduce rail traffic noise.

This field is also important in view of the fact that the planning and construction of high-speed railway lines (as part of the trans-European network programmes) is a cause of public concern, inter alia on the grounds of noise nuisance.

The noise reduction measures proposed in the green paper, however, can be improved in line with technical progress and with the views of major railway undertakings; for example, advanced forms of transport (low-noise trains) can reduce noise emission by up to 23 dB (thus a significantly larger improvement than the reductions mentioned in points 3.2 and 4.3 (ii) of the green paper).

3.4.2. Legislation on emission limit values and recommendations for emission target values should be agreed internationally.

3.4.3. The Commission is considering the introduction of variable rates for the use of individual railway lines (as an economic instrument). However, with every additional charge on rail transport, care must be taken to ensure that the associated rise in cost for passengers or freight transporters does not push them towards other, generally less environment-friendly modes of transport.

3.4.4. The ESC confirms the Commission's view that research into more accurate evaluation, measurement and reduction of noise is urgently necessary in connection with the operation of trains.

3.5. Air traffic noise

3.5.1. The green paper's arguments here are welcomed in principle. These measures have high priority, especially for people living in conurbations.

3.5.2. The Commission proposes stricter limit values for overall noise levels of individual types of aircraft. Rules on commercial aircraft must be agreed internationally, i.e. throughout the European Union. The Commission should in future also take part in the work of the relevant international bodies, in order to further improve the limit values; technological development makes this possible at least in the medium term.

3.5.3. Air traffic for private and sporting purposes, often linked with considerable nuisance for the public, should be mentioned as requiring Community measures. The following measures should be taken in respect of this form of air traffic:

- requirements should be set in respect of reduced aircraft noise;

- criteria should be laid down for the location of small landing strips frequently used by this form of air transport, with a view to protecting neighbourhoods;

- in densely populated areas the number of landing strips and/or their operating hours should be curtailed.

Attention is also drawn in this context to the use of model aircraft, which create problems near residential areas, because of the particularly annoying nature of the noise they make.

3.5.4. The green paper does not refer specifically to helicopter noise. Noise directives for aircraft are unsuitable for helicopters. Data on permitted noise levels can be particularly misleading as guide values for actual noise effects, because noise emissions depend largely on the precise nature of the flight manoeuvre carried out. Moreover, helicopters sometimes operate in the direct vicinity of residential buildings for long periods of time.

3.5.5. The Commission mentions economic instruments to support the use and development of low noise aircraft. In particular, the idea of gearing airport taxes to the noise level of aircraft types is suggested.

Positive experience has been gained with these measures in individual Member States, but above all in the USA. The ESC agrees with the Commission that there should be a framework directive in order to harmonize such grading of airport taxes, in order to prevent certain airports securing competitive advantages by avoiding grading measures.

3.5.6. The green paper sets out EU-level framework recommendations for land-use planning around airports. It may not be simple to translate experience with airport area planning into broadly applicable EU-level values. However, it seems important to exchange experience which has been gained not only within the Community, but also in third countries (with heavy air traffic). The ESC is sceptical about the possibility of deriving models for land-use planning from this.

3.5.7. The ESC's views on traffic management (see above 3.3.5) also apply here: relief for people affected by air traffic noise can also be achieved via overall reduction of air traffic, but the tax concessions on fuel granted in certain Member States run counter to this trend; if harmonization is to be attempted, the desirability of such tax concessions should be investigated.

3.5.8. The Commission should address the question of noise pollution caused by military practice flights.

3.6. Noise caused by machines used in the open air (building machinery, garden machines etc.)

3.6.1. The Commission proposes a framework directive for the purpose of simplifying, completing and consolidating legislation on limiting emissions for some types of machines. It regards the adoption of limit values as necessary only for machines for which such limit values already exist, and for 'highly noisy equipment`.

The restricting of limit values to previously regulated fields is problematic, since the measures to date were not taken systematically or in line with practically-based priorities, but more or less haphazardly.

The ESC therefore calls for a comprehensive programme for protection against noise from machinery used in the open air (particularly building plant, but also agricultural and horticultural equipment). To some extent, noise problems created by machinery can only or primarily be solved by adopting rules on the distance of such machines (e.g. windmills) from the nearest residential area, unless the machinery concerned can be fitted with adequate noise protection equipment or unless rules can be laid down in respect of operating times or length of operation.

Only a comprehensive programme can stimulate technological development in noise abatement.

3.6.2. Stronger incentives (e.g. through fiscal measures) should be given for the early introduction of low noise machinery. The planned marking of machines with noise values could subsequently be supplemented by incorporation in the eco-label system, as proposed in the green paper.

3.6.3. The ESC would also point out in this context that very loud noises are caused in some cases, not by the machines themselves, but by the material being worked on. This calls for provisions on use restrictions.

3.7. Industrial noise

3.7.1. The impact of industrial noise should not be underestimated, particularly for conurbations, where industrial or commercial plant is located near densely populated residential areas.

Noise is generated frequently not by the production processes but by traffic travelling to and from the works or unloading outside closed industrial buildings. This noise should be included under industrial noise.

3.7.2. The Commission refers to the Directive on integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC); it provides for the control of emissions at European level via a permit system.

The ESC believes that the framework fixed by the IPPC Directive for the major noise sources should be completed by emission values; this is also necessary to avoid distortions of competition.

3.7.3. The Committee attaches particular importance to environmental agreements between industry and public authorities to limit industrial noise. Framework conditions are to be observed and the inclusion of noise protection in the eco-audit () would be one voluntary measure in this area.

3.8. Ascertaining the costs of noise nuisance through cost-benefit analysis incorporated in new measures

3.8.1. Sources quoted by the Commission put the cost of noise damage at 0,2 % to 2 % of the gross domestic product of all Member States, i.e. at least ECU 12 billion per year in the Community. If a cost-benefit analysis is to be carried out, the frequently quoted costs of measures to combat noise nuisance must be seen in relationship to the abovementioned costs. In this respect, further investigations need to be carried out in line with the 'polluter-pays` principle (in particular with regard to the 'internalization of external costs`).

3.8.2. The evaluation of the impact on human health and well-being is particularly important; here, however, only generalized comments and estimates are possible. Further investigations are necessary in order to secure an objective evaluation. In estimating the costs, the Commission rightly takes account also of the decline in the value of building sites close to loud noise (traffic noise, industrial noise or aircraft noise).

3.9. Work on improving the quality criteria for noise exposure

3.9.1. Improving the quality criteria for noise exposure should be the basis for environmental quality standards and planning measures.

Work on improving quality objectives should be supported, although the Commission asserts elsewhere that quality criteria are largely identical throughout the Member States.

3.9.2. For noise-abatement legislation, the Commission wishes to follow a 'parallel approach`, combining environmental quality standards (based on quality criteria) with rules on emission limits. The ESC endorses this combined approach: emission-limit values are indispensable, as environmental quality standards alone would consolidate differences in the quality of specific locations and might give rise to distortions of competition.

4. Additional comments

4.1. A noise-abatement programme must contain a range of initiatives on scientific research and technological development. The Commission itself mentions these frequently throughout the green paper. The ESC opinion on the green paper suggests additional projects, though the list is by no means exhaustive.

The green paper covers sound frequencies perceptible to the human ear, but not infrasound or ultrasound. The case for adopting protection measures for these frequencies should also be scientifically investigated; the Committee would like to be briefed about the findings of such investigations.

The Committee urgently recommends that research and development work in the Community should focus on noise abatement, and that efforts be made to improve coordination and concentration.

4.2. Some fields are only touched upon in the green paper, although they are highly topical and can be of special importance at least at regional level:

- noise from recreational activities;

- noise on inland waterways arising from commercial and private water traffic.

The impact of these types of noise for the environment (human health and protection of property) should be carefully investigated. Another issue here is whether the principle of subsidiarity allows and requires Community action in this field (possibly recommendations in framework provisions); noise generated by cross-frontier traffic would require European or international legislation. Moreover, such legislation appears to be necessary where excessive noise is created by machines and vehicles and should be reduced by tightening up on authorization and technical standardization procedures at European level. Otherwise distortions of competition could occur.

4.3. On the other hand, noise in the home is a problem which must be left to Member States to deal with except where standardization of machines and building products is involved.

A clear task for the Member States or the regional and local authorities is passive protection against noise (design of walls and windows, acoustic barriers etc.) and restricting the use of sites or buildings in order to protect the neighbourhood.

4.4. Protection against noise at the workplace is covered by a number of Community provisions on worker protection. However, there are technological and acoustic links between noise at the workplace and noise in the neighbourhood. In the ESC's view, care should be taken, both on the worker protection front and in the implementation of environmental protection, to ensure that measures in one field do not shift the problem to the other field.

4.5. There are close links between noise and vibrations. These areas are to some extent linked together in statutory provisions and procedures in the Member States, although measurement and evaluation procedures vary. Measures for protection against vibrations at source () are in some cases identical to measures for protection against noise. This should be taken into account in the preparation and execution of the programme announced in the green paper. The effects of vibrations are linked particularly to damage to buildings, but, needless to say, they also affect human health.

Brussels, 23 April 1997.

The President of the Economic and Social Committee

Tom JENKINS

() COM(92) 23 final - OJ No C 138, 17. 5. 1993.

() OJ No C 140, 11. 5. 1996.

() Council of Europe - CM 96/99.

() OJ No C 180, 8. 7. 1987.

() OJ No C 287, 4. 11. 1992.

() OJ No C 18, 22. 1. 1996.

() OJ No C 212, 22. 7. 1996.

() OJ No C 269, 14. 10. 1991.

() OJ No C 133, 16. 5. 1994.

() See for example its Opinion on the Commission Communication on economic growth and the environment - OJ No C 155, 21. 6. 1995 and its Opinion on environmental policy and the Single European Market - OJ No C 332, 31. 12. 1990.

() COM(95) 691 final.

() OJ No C 56, 24. 2. 1997.

() Regulation 1836/93, OJ No L 168, 10. 7. 1993.

() Causes of significant vibrations are, for example, road traffic, rail traffic, certain industrial plant and ship traffic.