REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL On the implementation of the Environmental Noise Directive in accordance with Article 11 of Directive 2002/49/EC  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL On the implementation of the Environmental Noise Directive in accordance with Article 11 of Directive 2002/49/EC
Date: 2011-06-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: action programme, anti-pollution device, noise, noise level, noise pollution, noise protection, public health, vehicle

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 1.6.2011 
COM(2011) 321 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

On the implementation of the Environmental Noise Directive in accordance with Article 
11 of Directive 2002/49/EC 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

On the implementation of the Environmental Noise Directive in accordance with Article 
11 of Directive 2002/49/EC 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

On 25 June 2002, Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and the Council relating 
to  the  assessment  and  management  of  environment  noise  (hereinafter  Environmental  Noise 
Directive, END) was adopted. This was a step forward in developing the EU noise policy.  

The purpose of the Directive is to “define a common approach intended to avoid, prevent or 
reduce on a prioritised basis the harmful effects, including annoyance, due to the exposure to 
environmental noise”.  

To achieve this, the Directive requires the Member States to carry out a number of actions, in 
particular:  

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

To determine the exposure to environmental noise through noise mapping,  

To adopt action plans based upon the noise mapping results and  

To ensure that the information on environmental noise is made available to the public.  

The  Directive  also  provides  a  basis  for  developing  further  EU  measures  to  reduce  noise 
emitted  by  different  sources.  This  implementation  report  is  prepared  in  accordance  with 
Article 11 of the END which required the Commission to assess in particular1: 

•  the need for further EU actions on environmental noise (article 11.2) and  

•  a review of the acoustic environment quality in the EU based on the data reported by the 

Member States (article 11.3).  

In preparation of this report, the Commission has received input from the EEA2 and carried 
out a number of supporting studies3 where additional information can be found. 

2. 

ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE AND ITS IMPACTS 

Environmental noise is a significant environmental problem across the EU. Increasingly more 
information is becoming available about the health impacts of noise. For example, the latest 

1 

2 
3 

The report was delayed for several reasons, in particular because of the implementation delays, the lack 
of sufficient data and the complexity of the assessment process 
http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/noise 
http://www.milieu.be/noise/index.html 

EN 

1 

   EN 

                                                 
publication4 of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Joint Research Centre of the 
Commission shows that traffic-related noise may account for over 1 million healthy years of 
life lost annually in the EU Member States and other Western European countries.  

In  addition,  the  Guidelines  for  EU  Noise5  of  the  WHO  acknowledged  effects  of 
environmental  noise,  including  annoyance,  as  a  serious  health  problem.  The  WHO  Night 
Noise Guidelines for Europe6, propose a guide value for night-time levels as low as 40 decibel 
(dB,  Lnight).  Furthermore,  the  EU  has  funded  between  2009  and  2011  a  large  coordination 
action  encompassing  33  participating  institutes  from  Europe7.  Recent  studies8  indicate  that 
environmental  noise  is  an  important  environmental  risks  threatening  public  health  and  that 
noise  exposure  in  Europe  presents  an  increasing  trend  compared  to  other  stressors. 
Urbanization, growing demand for motorized transport and inefficient urban planning are the 
main driving forces  for  environmental noise exposure. Furthermore,  noise pollution is often 
linked to urban areas where also air quality can be a problem.  

Noise pollution can annoy, disturb sleep, affect the cognitive function in schoolchildren, cause 
physiological  stress  reactions  and  can  cause  cardiovascular  problems  in  chronically  noise-
exposed subjects9. Stress can trigger the production of certain hormones which may lead to a 
variety of intermediate effects, including increased blood pressure. Over a prolonged period 
of  exposure  these  effects  may  in  their  turn  increase  the  risk  of  cardiovascular  disease  and 
10, 
psychiatric  disorders.  WHO  proposed  several  threshold  levels5,  6  ranging  from  32  (LAmax
inside) to 42 (Lnight, outside) dB addressing these negative health effects. 

Economic  costs  of  noise  pollution  include  devaluation  in  house  prices,  productivity  losses 
from health related impacts and distributional impacts. Social costs are related to premature 
death or morbidity (poor concentration, fatigue, hearing problems). The social costs of traffic, 
rail  and  road  noise  across  the  EU  was  recently  estimated  amount  to  €40  billion  a  year,  of 
which 90% is related to passenger cars and goods vehicles. This was about 0.4% of total EU 
GDP11  including  health  care  costs.  According  to  the  2011  Commission's  White  Paper  on 
Transport, the noise-related external costs of transport would increase to roughly 20 billion € 
by 2050 unless further action was taken.  

3. 

LEGAL TRANSPOSITION 

The  END  had  to  be  transposed  by  18  July  2004.  The  Commission  registered  cases  of  non 
communication  for  14  EU12  Member  States.  All  other  Member  States  transposed  the  END 

4 

5 
6 

7 
8 

9 
10 
11 

12 

of 

on 

from 

2009 

noise, 

disease 

“Burden 

environmental 

2011;  Report 

http://www.euro.who.int/en/what-we-do/health-topics/environmental-

WHO-JRC, 
http://www.euro.who.int/en/what-we-do/health-topics/environmental-health/noise  
WHO, 1999; http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/1999/a68672.pdf 
WHO, 
health/noise/publications  
ENNAH, www.ennah.eu 
The Environmental Burden of Disease in Europe project ranked noise as second environmental stressor 
It introduced the general methodology targeting for use of the Disability-adjusted life years, DALY, as 
the most commonly used measure; http://en.opasnet.org/w/Ebode 
Babisch 2006, 2008; Miedema & Vos 2007; WHO Europe 2009, 2010 
LAmax – maximum sound pressure level 
EC 
02_traffic_noise_ce_delft_report.pdf 
AT, BE, CZ, DE, EL, FI, FR, IE, IT, LU, PT, SE, SL, UK  

http://www.transportenvironment.org/docs/Publications/2008/2008-

Delft, 

2007, 

EN 

2 

   EN 

                                                 
 
into  their  national  legislation  by  the  deadline.  By  October  2007,  all  cases  of  non-
communication were closed.  

The overall quality of legal transposition was satisfactory. The Commission identified, that so 
far  two  Member  States13 had shortcomings as regards the transposition of articles 4, 5, 6, 7 
and 8. However, a validation of the assessment of non-conformity is still outstanding. Should 
these initial findings be confirmed, the Commission will follow-up appropriately.  

4. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DIRECTIVE 

Member  States  have  a  number  of  obligations  under  the  END  and  must  also  report  certain 
information to the European Commission. The deadlines for each of the requirements add up 
to an ambitious periodic implementation and reporting cycle (see table 1 below).  

Implementation 
deadline 

30 June 2005 

Issue 

Reference 

Updates 

Information  on  major  roads,  major  railways, 
major airports and agglomerations according to 
the  upper  thresholds,  designated  by  MS  and 
concerned by 1st round of mapping 

Art. 7-1 

Mandatory every 5 
years 

18 July 2005 

Establishment of competent bodies for strategic 
noise maps, action plans and data collection 

Art. 4-2 

Possible at any time 

18 July 2005 

Noise  limit  values  in  force  or  planned  and 
associated information 

Art. 5-4 

Possible at any time 

30 June 2007 

Strategic noise maps for major roads, railways, 
airports  and  agglomerations  according  to  the 
upper thresholds,  

Art. 7-1 

18 July 2008 

Action plans for major roads, railways, airports 
and agglomerations 

Art. 8-1 

Mandatory every 5 
years 

31 December 2008 

Information  on  major  roads,  major  railways, 
major airports and agglomerations according to 
the  lower  thresholds,  designated  by  MS  and 
concerned by 2nd round of mapping 

Art. 7-2 

Possible at any time 

30 June 2012 

Strategic noise maps for major roads, railways, 
airports  and  agglomerations  according  to  the 
lower thresholds, 

Art. 7-2 

Mandatory every 5 
years 

4.1. 

Designation of administrative bodies 

Most  Member  States  reported  to  the  Commission  on  time  and  all  Member  States  have 
allocated competences for implementation of the END to relevant administrative bodies. The 
cross-cutting scope of the END has lead to the participation of several different government 

13 

LV, PL 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
agencies  as  well  as  private  actors  for  infrastructure  management  in  some  Member  States. 
Several  Member  States  reported  problems  associated  with  the  coordination  of  the  involved 
bodies,  both  in  the  early  stages  of  data  collection  and  in  the  later  stages  of  action  and 
implementation planning. 

4.2. 

Noise indicators and limit values 

Article  5  of  the  END  introduced  noise  indicators  for  reporting  but  does  not  set  any  legally 
binding  EU-wide  noise  limit  values  or  targets.  Member  States  were  required  to  report  their 
national limit values in force or under preparation.  

Member States have taken a range of approaches. Most14 have set legally binding noise limit 
values or are currently revising them15. Others16 have guideline values in place.  

The  noise  maps  revealed  that  noise  limit  values  were  often  transgressed  without  sufficient 
measures  having  been  implemented.  There  was  some  evidence  that  the  implementation  of 
measures  to  control  noise  or  to  insulate  exposed  populations,  in  some  countries,  was  not 
linked to whether a value is binding or not.  

Another  issue  was  the  wide  range  of  limit,  trigger  and  guideline  values.  Only  a  limited 
number of Member States17 specifically indicated that they had used health-based assessments 
or  drew  on  WHO  health-based  assessments  in  establishing  noise  limit  values.  Due  to  often 
different  bases,  concepts  and  levels  of  differentiation,  it  was  difficult  to  summarise  and 
compare the different levels in the Member States18. 

4.3. 

Noise assessment 

In general, the efforts of Member States on reporting enabled the Commission and the EEA to 
produce an information base that did not previously exist at EU level. However, the quality of 
the reports and the timing of the deliveries varied considerably and hampered the compliance 
assessment process. 

The END did not specify the details for reporting the different data-flows. Only the minimum 
technical requirements were defined (cf. annex VI of the END). 

As a consequence, the Commission and the EEA developed the END Reporting Mechanism 
(ENDRM)19 which facilitated and streamlined data collection, quality control and compliance 
assessment. In 2007, the Noise Committee agreed to use ENDRM on a voluntary basis. The 
additional  linkage  to  the  EEA's  'Reportnet'20,  further  enhanced  the  effectiveness  of  the 
ENDRM. 

14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 

AT, BG, BE, CZ, DK, EE, ES, FR, DE, EL, IT, LV, LT, LU NL, PL, PT, SL, SI  
LT, LV, RO 
FI, IE, SE, UK 
EE, LU, PT, SL and Brussels Administration of BE 
EEA Technical report No 11/2010 and study report (cf. footnote 2) for more details. 
http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/eione_noise/library 
http://www.eionet.europa.eu/reportnet 

EN 

4 

   EN 

                                                 
4.3.1.  Major agglomerations, roads, rail and airports 

By 2005, Member States were required to inform the Commission of the major roads, major 
railways, major airports, and agglomerations according to the upper thresholds21, within their 
territories. A first update was due by 30 June 2008 relating to lower thresholds22. From 2010 
onwards every five years, Member States were required to update the list for both thresholds.  

The  experience  gained  in  the  reporting  process  led  progressively  to  a  more  timely, 
comparable  and  manageable  reporting.  Whereas  the  last  Member  State  report  for  2005  was 
almost  two  years  late,  in  2010  the  delay  was  reduced  to  five  months.  In  2010,  18  Member 
States reported on time, eight were late. Only Italy has not reported yet. 

4.3.2. 

Strategic noise maps 

Member  States  were  required  to  prepare  no  later  than  30  June  2007  strategic  noise  maps 
(article 7 (1)). These requirements apply again on 30 June 2012 and for each subsequent five-
year  period.  Such  noise  maps  should  be  made  for  all  major  roads,  railways,  airports  and 
agglomerations pursuant to article 7 (1) identified in the preceding calendar year (cf. 4.3.1)23.  

Strategic  noise  maps  are  to  be  used  by  the  competent  authorities  to  identify  priorities  for 
action planning and by the Commission to assess the number of people exposed to noise.  
Twelve  Member  States24  provided  all  the  mandatory  data  for  all  sources,  eleven25  provided 
data for all sources with some minor shortcomings and three26 provided data for some of the 
sources. Only Malta did not send a report to the Commission (to date) and the Commission 
launched an infringement procedure in this case.  

The assessment relating to the first round of noise mapping suggests that around 40 million 
people  across  the  EU  are  exposed  to  noise  above  50  dB  from  roads  within  agglomerations 
during the night (see table 2). More than 25 million people are exposed to noise at the same 
level  from  major  roads  outside  agglomerations.  These  numbers  are  expected  to  be  revised 
upwards as more noise maps are received and/or assessed. 

21 

22 

23 

24 
25 
26 

Upper thresholds: Major roads > 6 m. vehicle/y; major railways > 60 000 train/y; major airports > 50 
000 movements/y; major agglomerations>250 000 inhabitants.  
Lower  thresholds:  major  roads  >  3  m.  vehicle/y;  major  railways  >  30  000  train/y;  and  major 
agglomerations > 100 000 inhabitants.  
Note, Article 7 provides that the list of major agglomerations, roads, rails and airports reported in 2005 
needs  to  be  reviewed  when  preparing  the  first  strategic  noise  map,  i.e.  taking  into  account  the  latest 
situation  in  2006.  Similarly,  the  subsequent  stages  of  noise  mapping  need  to  update  the  lists  already 
reported to the Commission to avoid missing out any major hot spots which have passed the threshold 
in the meantime.  
BG, CZ, EE, HU, IE, LT, LV, LU, PL, PT, SI, UK 
AT, BE CY, DK, FI, DE, NL, RO, ES, SE, SK 
FR, EL, IT 

EN 

5 

   EN 

                                                 
Table 2: Summary of total number of people exposed to environmental noise based on data 
submitted by the Member States related to the first round of noise mapping 

Scope 

Number of people 
exposed to noise above 

Lden

27 > 55 dB 

Number of people 
exposed to noise above 
Lnight > 50 dB 

[million] 

[million]  

Within agglomerations  
(163 agglomerations in EU > 250 000 inhabitants) 

All roads 

All railways 

All airports 

Industrial sites 

55,8  

6,3 

3,3 

0,8 

40,1 

4,5 

1,8 

0,5 

Major infrastructures, outside agglomerations 

Major roads 

Major railways 

Major airports  

34 

5,4 

1 

25,4 

4,5 

0,3 

The Commission also looked at the administrative burden and costs required to produce noise 
maps.  The  most  demanding  tasks  were  obtaining  data  on  the  noise  sources,  topography, 
surrounding  buildings  and  population.  The  costs  for  noise  mapping  vary  between  0.33-1.16 
EUR/inhabitant, with an average of 0.84 EUR/inhabitant.28  

4.3.3.  Harmonised assessment methods for mapping 

According to article 6 of the END, the Commission was mandated to establish common noise 
assessment  methods  for  the  determination  of  the  noise  indicators.  However,  no  deadline  or 
timetable  was  provided  by  the  Directive.  Until  the  harmonised  methods  are  available,  the 
Directive established interim methods to be used, but Member States also had the possibility 
to use their own methods 

The  Commission  undertook  an  assessment  of  the  degree  of  comparability  of  the  results 
generated  by  the  different  methods.  The  assessment  concluded  that  the  national  assessment 
methods differ from the interim methods for 13 Member States. As a result, the Commission 
started the development of harmonized assessment methods (CNOSSOS-EU) (cf. 0) in 2008. 

27 
28 

Lden – day-evening-night noise indicator 
European Commission – Cost study on noise mapping and action planning; P-44581-W, 2000  

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
4.3.4.  Action plans 

According to Article 8, Member States shall ensure that the competent authorities have drawn 
up action plans designed to manage noise pollution and effects, including noise reduction if 
necessary. The measures within the plans were at the discretion of the competent authorities 
as long as they fulfil the minimum requirements of Annex V.  

So far, 20 Member States have submitted summaries related to the action plans. Five Member 
States29  provided  the  data  required  by  the  END  in  time30.  Eight31  submitted  with  6  months 
delay and seven32 sent it more than one year after the deadline. The following seven Member 
States have so far not provided action plans to date: DK, FR, EL, HU, IT, MT and SI.  

The information provided by the Member States was very diverse and the data were scattered. 
Consequently,  a  comprehensive  analysis  of  the  action  plans  proved  challenging  and  is  still 
ongoing.  

4.3.5.  Quiet Areas 

Quiet areas make a beneficial contribution to public health, particularly for people living in 
noisy  city  areas.  As  part  of  the  action  plans,  Member  States  were  required  to  introduce 
specific measures and draw up action plans to protect quiet areas in agglomerations against an 
increase in noise. However, the END left it largely to the discretion of the Member States to 
delimit these areas. 

The consequence of this discretion led to very divergent approaches across the EU. While the 
majority of Member States designated quiet areas in agglomerations, many have not yet done 
so in open country.  

4.4. 

Public information, consultation and data management 

According to article 8 and 9, Member States shall ensure that the public was consulted about 
the  action  plans  and  that  the  plans  were  made  publically  available  and  disseminated  in 
accordance  with  Directive  on  public  access  to  environmental  information33.  Pursuant  to 
Article  10,  paragraph  3  of  the  Directive,  the  Commission  shall  set  up  a  database  of 
information on strategic noise maps in order to facilitate the compilation of the report referred 
to in Article 11 and other technical work. 

To this end the Commission made all reports submitted by the Member States until December 
2010  publically  available.34  Also  the  use  of  EEA's  'Reportnet'  facilitated  information 
management and reduced the time needed for assessment of the reports. Albeit voluntary at 
present, around 80 % of the Member State reports were posted on 'Reportnet'. Furthermore, 
the EEA launched the Noise Observation and Information Service for Europe (N.O.I.S.E)35 in 
October 2009 for the purpose of informing the public about the noise pollution in Europe. 

29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 

DE, IE, LT, SE, UK 
18/01/2009. 
CY, CZ, EE, ES, FI, LU, PL, SL  
AT, BE, BG, LV, NL, PT, RO  
2003/4/EC (OJ L41,14.2.2003, p 26-32) 
http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/d_2002_49/library 
http://noise.eionet.europa.eu/ 

EN 

7 

   EN 

                                                 
5. 

POSSIBLE ACTION IN THE SHORT AND MEDIUM TERM 

The  END  enabled  a  step  forward  in  addressing  noise  pollution  at  EU  level.  This  report 
identifies a number of achievements and remaining challenges in the implementation of this 
Directive.  

The  achievements  have  not  only  been  recognised  by  the  Commission  analysis.  Eurocities36 
concluded in an evaluation that the Directive "has brought real benefits".  

To  start  with,  the  Directive  introduced  a  management  system  of  environmental  noise  in  all 
Member  States.  Some  Member  States  had  already  developed  such  systems  and  gained 
experience,  while  others  addressed  these  issues  in  a  systematic  manner  for  the  first  time. 
While traditionally, the competences on noise management fell under several authorities and 
levels of administration in the Member States, some Member States used the implementation 
of the END to set up appropriate co-operation and co-ordination structures.  

Other achievements were, in particular:  

•  Progress in mapping and assessing noise pollution in the EU leading, for the first time, to 

an overview on the extent of noise pollution problems;  

•  Steps  towards  further  improving  comparability  of  strategic  noise  mapping  including 
common indicators and the establishment of a comprehensive set of noise data at EU level, 
which did not exist before; 

•  EU-wide drafting  of  noise action  plans addressing the noise "hot spots" identified  by the 

Member States; 

•  Identifying gaps with regard to EU legislation on sources of noise (e.g. vehicles, railways, 

aircrafts), (cf. 5.2).  

At  the  same  time,  several  implementation  problems  and  other  shortcomings  have  been 
identified  during  the  last  years  which  need  to  be  addressed  in  the  future.  These  challenges 
have been grouped into two main areas of possible follow up action, namely improvements of 
implementation and further development of legislation regulating noise sources.  

5.1. 

Improving implementation 

The analysis of the first stage of implementation of the END has revealed potential areas for 
improvement  that  could  be  taken  by  the  Commission  and  the  Member  States  directly  and 
immediately. To this end, the Commission intends to present a work programme to the Noise 
Committee referred to by Article 13 of the Directive including some of the elements identified 
below.  Where  necessary,  the  Commission  will  also  consider  taking  legal  action  to 
complement the proactive implementation activities listed below.  

36 

Eurocities WG Noise (2009): http://workinggroupnoise.web-log.nl/ 

EN 

8 

   EN 

                                                 
5.1.1.  Finalising the harmonised framework for mapping methods  

Despite  the  improvements  of  comparability  of  strategic  noise  mapping,  the  situation  is  far 
from  ideal.  The  ongoing  assessments  have  shown  that  it  remains  difficult  to  present 
comparable  figures  on  the  number  of  people  being  exposed  to  excessive  noise  levels. 
Difficulties relate, inter alia, to differing ways in data collection, quality and availability and 
assessment methods used. This leads to a variability of results across EU Member States. The 
harmonisation  framework  of  the  method(s),  which  sufficiently  reflects  sectoral  specificities, 
will ultimately lead to the required level of comparability.  

In  2008,  Commission  efforts  have  started  on  developing  harmonized  methods  for  assessing 
noise exposure (according to article 6.2). A project entitled "CNOSSOS-EU" (Common Noise 
Assessment Methods in Europe) led by the Joint Research Centre will provide the technical 
basis for preparing a Commission Implementing Decision. Provided the technical work can be 
completed in 2011, the Commission is considering a possible revision of Annex II of the END 
in  early  2012  (following  Committee  opinion  in  2011).  The  harmonised  methodological 
framework  could  focus  on  the  strategic  mapping  and  would  have  to  carefully  balance  the 
needs  for  harmonisation  by  proportionality  and  sectoral  specificities,  e.g.  as  regards  data 
requirements.  As  part  of  this  decision,  the  Commission  intends  to  propose  a  joint 
Commission/EEA/Member States work programme for the implementation of CNOSSOS-EU 
during 2012-2015 with the view to making it operational for the third reporting cycle in 2017.  

5.1.2.  Developing EU implementation guidance 

Many aspects of the Directive were not prescribed in detail or leave certain room for different 
interpretation and implementation. Many Member States suggested that these issues could be 
addressed  through  dedicated  action  assisting  in  the  implementation  and  compliance  at  EU 
level,  such  as  the  development  of  guidance  documents,  the  information  exchange  of  best 
practices or the organisation for specific workshops and training courses. The following issues 
for  such  action  were  identified:  mapping  methods  and  best  mapping  practices,  predictive 
values for noise maps, dose-response relationships, calculating multiple exposure, producing 
action plans and trigger or target values. 

Concerning action plans, many Member States felt that the minimum requirements set out in 
Annex V are not sufficient to help prepare these plans. This includes, in particular the aspect 
of designating quite areas (cf. 4.3.5).  

The  implementation  activities  which  are  envisaged  to  form  part  of  the  work  programme 
should  also  help  improving  the  co-operation  and  co-ordination  mechanisms  within  the 
Member States.  

5.1.3. 

Improving synergies between air quality and noise management  

The potential for closer co-ordination and integration of air quality and noise management has 
been  suggested  frequently.  The  implementation  of  the  Ambient  Air  Quality  Directive 
(2008/50/EC)  and  its  predecessors  requires  similar  elements,  e.g.  the  data  collection  in 
agglomerations, 
improvement  of  assessment  methods,  preparation  of  action  plans, 
information  of  the  public  and  reporting  to  the  Commission.  Some  Member  States  have 
reported  positive  experiences  from  integrating  air  quality  and  noise  implementation,  e.g.  by 
integrated  action  planning  in  particular  for  road  hot  spots  with  noise  and  air  pollution 

EN 

9 

   EN 

problems. These aspects could be explored further with the view to foster synergies and create 
experiences.  

5.1.4.  Facilitating reporting issues  

The  Directive  has  several  cyclical  reporting  obligations  which,  in  some  cases,  create  an 
additional administrative burden without generating the necessary added value for EU action. 
The  streamlining  of  reporting  and  the  electronic  reporting  processes  could  be  further 
optimised and used on mandatory base. Other shortcomings which have been highlighted by 
several Member States were, in particular the input data requirements including coordination, 
collecting  and  accessibility  of  data,  lack  of  data  and  guidance  on  quality  requirements, 
problems  with  the  assessment  heights.  Implementation  activities  under  the  INSPIRE 
Directive37 (e.g. on common noise data infrastructure) may lead to the consideration of further 
alignments.  

5.2. 

Legislation regulating noise sources 

Environmental  noise  is  addressed  at  the  EU  level  through  a  wide  range  of  instruments 
including  provisions  on  market  access  requirements  for  certain  vehicles  and  equipment, 
railway  interoperability  specifications38  and  rules  on  operating  restrictions  at  airports.  In 
addition to the various actions and improvements of EU legislation in this area over the past 
decade39, the Commission is considering developing these measures further in order to reduce 
the  noise  exposure  and  pollution  in  the  EU.  In  the  Commission  Work  Programme  2011,  a 
number of important initiatives with regard to noise were included, in particular:  

•  The  White  Paper  on  Transport40  which  provides  a  roadmap  until  2050  to, 
amongst many other objectives, contribute to the reduction of noise pollution from 
transport (e.g. action to develop "vehicle standards for noise emission levels");  

•  The revision of Directive 2002/30/EC on airport noise which will, as part of the 
airport  package,  improve  noise  mapping  on  the  basis  of  an  internationally 
recognised  method  and  data,  and  drive  towards  the  adoption  of  cost-effective 
noise mitigating measure, taking into account internationally agreed standards to 
streamline the relationship between the airport noise directive and the END. It will 
also update the definition of noisy aircraft ("marginally compliant aircraft") in line 
with the current composition of the aircraft fleet. 

•  The next revision of noise from motor vehicles with at least four wheels will, on 
the  basis  of  an  improved  test  procedure,  assess  the  possibilities  of  introducing 
tighter limits ensuring that quieter vehicles are actually being put on the market. 
This  may  include  a  proposal  for  a  regulation  relating  to  the  permissible  sound 
level  and  the  exhaust  system  of  motor  vehicles.  The  main  objective  of  the 

37 
38 

39 

40 

OJ L108, 25.04.2007, p.1-14 
Commission  Decision  2006/66/EC  on  Technical  Specifications  for  Interoperability  "Noise"  for 
conventional rolling stock 
In particular, revision of EU Rail Noise Policy based on 2008 "Communication on Rail noise abatement 
measures  addressing  the  existing  fleet"  and  subsequent  Commission  proposals  such  as  Directive 
2001/43/EC  on  tyre  noise  and  proposals  related  to  noise  from  L  category  vehicles  regulated  by 
Directive 97/24/EC  
COM(2011) 144 final  

EN 

10 

   EN 

                                                 
initiative is aiming at reducing the negative impact of noise exposure of European 
citizens caused by motor vehicle traffic.  

•  The  revision  of  the  Outdoor  Noise  Directive41  will  evaluate  the  scope  of 
equipments covered and revise the noise requirements to reflect the current state-
of-the-art  technology.  At  the  same  time  related  administrative  requirements  will 
be simplified. 

In addition, the Commission intends to continue analysing other potential measures to reduce 
noise pollution at EU level, such as e.g. low noise road surfaces and will come forward with 
proposals, as appropriate.  

5.3. 

Issues for further consideration 

As part of the review, the preparatory work looked also into elements that might need to be 
addressed in achieving effective and efficient EU-wide legislation on environmental noise. In 
particular:  

•  Trigger or target values: Member States introduced a wide variety of approaches 
and level of ambition preventing further convergence towards a level playing field 
in the internal market and establishing significantly different protection levels for 
citizens  across  the  EU  (cf.  4.2).  This  being  said,  the  setting  of  mandatory  noise 
limit/target  values  at  EU  level  would  touch  upon  subsidiarity  issues  by  limiting 
the flexibility of national and local authorities to adapt the level of protection and 
the  action  plans/measures  to  their  specific  situations.  Other  options  could  be  the 
establishment  of  EU  noise  trigger  values,  minimum  requirements  or  EU 
recommendations.  These  approaches  could  serve  as  minimum  thresholds  to 
trigger  action  on  noise  but  would  not  prevent  Member  States  to  set  stricter 
requirements, where necessary.  

•  Noise  indicators:  In  the  current  Directive,  Member  States  are  required  to  use 
specified  noise  indicators  of  Lden  and  Lnight  and  report  the  noise  exposure  of  the 
population  of  55  dB  and  50  dB  or  more,  respectively  (cf.  4.2.).  However,  the 
current  reporting  neglects  the  fact  that  there  is  a  considerable  share  of  EU 
population exposed to noise pollution at lower levels which are still likely to cause 
harmful effects on health (cf. 2). According to the latest WHO recommendations, 
reporting bands of the indicator values of Lnight should be lowered to 40 dB, Lnight 
in  order  to  achieve  a  much  more  realistic  assessment  of  noise  pollution  impacts 
across the EU. 

•  Enforcement: The Directive is lacking a clear enforcement regime where action 
plans are directly linked to exceedances in noise levels and possible penalties even 
in  the  cases  when  Member  States  have  legally  binding  limit  values  at  national 
level, the assessment presented by the noise maps revealed that noise limit values 
appeared  often  to  be  infringed  without  consequences.  Clarification  on  the 
objectives, the content and the enforcement of action plans could be considered, 
bearing in mind that the subsidiarity and proportionality principles were respected.  

41 

Directive 2000/14/EC on noise from outdoor equipment 

EN 

11 

   EN 

                                                 
•  Technical  definitions,  requirements  and  concepts:  A  number  of  possible 
technical  improvement  were  identified  including  clarifications  of  the  definitions 
and  obligations  related  to  agglomerations,  quiet  areas,  major  roads,  industrial 
noise and action plans. Furthermore, the question of measurement points remained 
a  concern  including  flexibility  regarding  the  measurement  height  which  caused 
concern  in  some  Member  States  because  of  their  specific  building  structures. 
Finally,  the  presentation  of  values  and  assessment  results  would  benefit  from 
further clarification or harmonisation.  

•  Administrative  burden  and  aligning  legal  aspects:  There  would  be  scope  for 
streamlining  and  facilitating  the  reporting  timetable.  Some  reporting  elements42 
were reported several times. Also it was not sufficiently clear in the END that the 
different stages in the assessment framework (noise mapping and action planning) 
were  building  on  each  other.  Moreover,  the  short  timeline  between  the  strategic 
noise mapping and the finalisation of actions plans was reported to be one of the 
main  obstacles  for  carrying  out  an  appropriate  public  consultation.  Finally,  the 
relevant provisions of the END would need to be aligned, where relevant, with the 
new  system  of  delegated  acts  and  implementing  measures  (Article  290  and  291 
TFEU).  

6. 

CONCLUSIONS 

Environmental  noise  remains  a  significant  problem  across  the  EU  with  significant  health 
impacts.  Based  on  the  information  that  has  become  available  about  the  health  impacts  of 
noise,  it  appears  that  further  actions  should  be  considered  to  reduce  the  number  of  people 
affected by harmful noise levels.  

The implementation of the END has just recently entered into an active phase regarding noise 
mapping  and  action  planning.  This  first  implementation  report  identifies  significant 
achievements  but  also  several  difficulties  and  areas  for  improvement.  However,  the  full 
potential  of  the  END  has  not  been  harvested  yet.  The  action  plans  are  only  now  being 
implemented and have often not created the envisaged effects (yet).  

The  Commission  will  consider  further  actions  as  described  in  this  report  in  relation  to 
implementation improvements and possible measures on noise source reduction. In addition, 
harmonisation of the assessment methodological framework is under preparation. As part of 
the  review,  the  preparatory  work  (cf.  5.3)  looked  also  into  elements  such  as  indicators  and 
strengthened  enforcement  mechanisms  that  might  need  to  be  addressed  in  the  future  to 
achieve effective and efficient legislation on environmental noise.  

This report will be the basis for further discussions with Member States and other interested 
stakeholders to explore the possibilities of improving the effectiveness of the noise legislation.  

Independently  of  this  consultation  process,  it  needs  to  be  borne  in  mind  that  a  more 
comprehensive  and  realistic  assessment  of  the  effectiveness  of  the  END  can  only  be  made 
after  the  second  round  of  noise  mapping  when  the  knowledge  on  noise  pollution  will  have 
improved further.  

42 

E.g. agglomerations, major roads, major railways and airports. 

EN 

12 

   EN