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"
Date: 2000-11-29
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: approximation of laws, environmental protection, noise pollution, noise protection, public health

C 116/48

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

20.4.2001

the environment. To avoid taking measures and providing
information which could cause unwise and unjustified panic,
the Committee suggests a
or taking arbitrary measures,
reference to the Commission Communication on the pre-
cautionary principle (1), reaffirming in particular the idea

expressed in its opinion on the subject (2), namely that any
measure should start with an objective risk assessment and
identify, where possible at each stage, the degree of scientific
uncertainty.

(1) COM(2000) 1 of 2 February 2000.

(2) Chapter 6 of the ESC opinion on Use of the precautionary

principle (OJ C 268, 19.9.2000, p. 9).

Brussels, 29 November 2000.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS

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 Ferna´ndez.

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

1.3.
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:

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.

— harmonising noise indicators and methods for assessing
impact of noise, within the Com-

the environmental
munity;

— on the basis of the above data, drawing up ‘noise maps’
using methodologies which are, in turn, harmonised;

— establishing public information criteria.

To date, noise control legislation has focused on setting
1.2.
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.

1.4.
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.

20.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 116/49

1.5.
The approach adopted focuses on establishing stand-
ardised 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
250 000 inhabitants; major road or rail routes carrying more
than three million cars or 30 000 train journeys respectively
per year; and airports handling more than 50 000 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 250 000 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 100 000 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 250 000 inhabi-
tants). 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.

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

problems caused by environmental noise and the degree of
decline in social well-being and communication. The Com-
mittee wishes to express its concern that future generations
will
in which noise is a
‘noise culture’,
normal, and therefore perfectly acceptable, factor in everyday
life.

inherit a harmful

The Committee would draw attention to the fact that
2.2.
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 environ-
mental protection, and compliance with the subsidiarity
principle as viewed through the varying cultural perceptions
of the noise factor.

The Committee does, nevertheless, wish to make a
2.4.
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;

2. General comments

2.1.
The Committee welcomes this proposal as enthusiasti-
cally as it did the earlier intention to carry forward the
project (1). The aim is to raise awareness of both the health

— the difficulty in establishing comparable average noise
conditions for day (Lden) and night (Lnight) in all Com-
munity countries, particularly in view of seasonal differ-
ences;

(1) ESC opinion on the European Commission Green Paper: Future

noise policy — OJ C 206 of 7.7.1997.

— 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;

C 116/50

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

20.4.2001

— 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.

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.

The Committee understands that

2.5.
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 advis-
ability of this measure — which the Committee considers
both necessary and appropriate — and on the practical
arrangements for implementation. These might involve estab-
lishing 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

In paragraph (k), ‘competent local authority’ should
3.2.4.
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.
or regional authority should be removed.

Similarly, in paragraph (l), the reference to a national

‘... or more than a specified number,

The following should be added at the end of para-
3.2.6.
graph (n):
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.

3.1.
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).

3.2.7. 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).

3.2. Article 3 — Definitions

3.2.1.
added to the sources of noise mentioned.

In paragraph (a), ‘all types of machinery’ should be

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

The following should be added at

the end of
3.3.
Article 7(5): ‘... or whenever substantial changes make earlier
updating advisable. Alternatively, when the competent auth-
ority 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

20.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 116/51

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. Further-
more, 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.

Annex V: reword the fourth indent as follows: ‘limit

3.5.
values in agglomerations according to Article 5’.

Brussels, 29 November 2000.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Regulation on
information provision and promotion for agricultural products on the internal market’

(2001/C 116/11)

On 26 September 2000 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 37 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 Espuny Moyano.

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

1.

Introduction

The Commission proposal sets out to harmonise and
1.1.
simplify the way the various current Community promotion
schemes on the internal market are governed, by means of a
single, ‘across the board’ instrument.

1.2.
Following the approach taken to promoting agricul-
tural products outside the EU, the Commission believes that
the aim of the instrument must be information provision and
promotion of a generic character, focusing on the intrinsic
features of European products in order to upgrade their image
in the eyes of consumers.

The Commission proposes to periodically choose,
1.4.
using the management committee procedure, the themes and
sectors that are to be the subject of information provision and
promotion.

1.4.1.
Under these arrangements, the management com-
mittee will lay down guidelines by sector and establish the
selection criteria.

On the basis of calls for proposals organised by the
1.5.
Member States, the trade and inter-trade organisations will
submit programmes which the Member States will refer to the
Commission to ensure conformity with Community rules and
the relevant specification. The final selection will then be made
by the Member States.

1.3.
In this respect, the Commission considers that Com-
munity promotion measures must be complementary with
those undertaken in the Member States by companies or
national or regional authorities, and should bring added value
to classic marketing and branded advertising activities.

The Commission proposes an indirect management
1.6.
system in which the Member States will be responsible for
surveillance and payments.