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"
Date: 2001-05-18
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: EU law, European standard, air traffic, noise protection, public health

18.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 148/7

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

The Committee of the Regions welcomes the Com-
1.1.
mission’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.

Implementation of a common policy by the Member
1.2.
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.

The Committee of the Regions welcomes the launching
1.3.
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.

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.

1.4.
The Committee of the Regions emphasises the import-
ance 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,

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.

C 148/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.5.2001

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 Organis-
ation. The Committee would like to see the guideline values
restored to the directive.

2.5.
The Committee of the Regions recognises the import-
ance 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 popu-

Brussels, 14 February 2001.

lation. 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.

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

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Jos CHABERT