The Commission presented a report on the implementation of the environmental noise Directive in accordance with Directive 2002/49/EC.

This second implementation report reviews the situation since the publication of the first report in 2011, and also represents the action plan following the evaluation of the Directive, which took place in 2016 under the Commission's Regulatory Fitness and Performance (REFIT) programme.

The evaluation and implementation assessment of the Directive have demonstrated several areas where activities are needed to reduce noise impacting citizens' health in the Union, to better achieve the objectives of the Directive and thereby moving closer to WHO recommended values.

The delay in the implementation of the Directive : this is mainly due to the lack of priority given to the issue at the national/local level when deciding on the allocation of limited human and financial resources.

With regard to the preparation of action plans, delays are a repercussion of delays in noise mapping and are also related to the short timeframe between the deadline for the preparation of noise maps and action plans (twelve months). More than 20% of the required noise maps, and around 50% of the action plans for the current five-year reporting cycle, have not yet been reported.

An important implementation challenge was the broadened scope of the Directive and the considerably increased number of entities for which noise maps and action plans had to be produced (e.g. the number of agglomerations covered increased from 176 to 467).

In order to enable Member States to fill implementation gaps , the Commission will adopt targeted implementing measures and provide Member States with scientifically sound guidance , in particular with regard to the assessment of harmful effects with the help of dose effect relationships.

The Commission invited Member States to reconsider their implementation arrangements, including the designation of quiet areas . While many Member States have made progress in developing definitions of quiet areas (in agglomerations and open country) and in defining selection criteria to designate them, only 13 Member States have to date designated any quiet areas.

Database : the report stressed the importance of collecting harmonised data on EU level is important to provide a high-quality evidence base for the further development of EU noise-at-source legislation. With the improved implementation of the Directive, resulting in a complete database on noise exposure in the Union , it will be possible to better inform policy options for noise reduction measures in the area of transport. The Commission is committed to make full use of this in the future when deciding about revising the legal instruments.

Scope : the Commission considered that some clarifications could be made to certain definitions and that the Directive could be updated taking into account recent regulatory developments at EU level since the Directive was adopted. New scientific evidence suggests that harmful health effects can occur at lower levels than those so far addressed by the Directive. The Commission will therefore engage in a dialogue with stakeholders to assess how these issues can best be addressed without unnecessarily reducing the flexibility of Member States to define their own levels of ambition or choice of approaches.

Exposure to excessive noise levels : while competence in this area lies with the Member States, the Commission will stimulate and encourage activities to mitigate excessive noise in urban areas, for example by facilitating the exchange of good practices, as well as supporting research and innovation in this field.

High initial cost of measures and long periods to recover the financial investment : the Commission considered that measures to address the noise problem directly are highly efficient when comparing their costs to the societal benefit. Therefore, it encouraged Member States to implement noise mitigation measures as part of their action plans by also attracting private investment .

Opportunities for co-financing : the Commission suggested that Member States may use targeted EU co-financing from, for example, the Cohesion Fund and the European Regional Development Fund to support the implementation of noise-mitigating measures where they are part of a process to improve the urban environment or to develop low-noise transport systems.

Lastly, the Commission encouraged Member States to raise the awareness of citizens and local and regional authorities to the long-term health implications of exposure to excessive noise levels from transport so that measures to reduce noise be considered as priorities.

COM(2017)0151
EUR-Lex

SWD(2016)0455

SWD(2016)0454

The Commission presents a report on the implementation of Directive 2002/49/EC (Environmental Noise Directive). The report assesses in particular the need for further EU actions on environmental noise and a review of the acoustic environment quality in the EU based on the data reported by Member States. It notes that the implementation of the Directive 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 not created the effects envisaged yet.

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 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 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.

Noise indicators and limit values : the Directive introduced noise indicators for reporting but does not set any legally binding EU-wide noise limit values or targets. Most Member States have set legally binding noise limit values and others 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 States 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 States.

Improving implementation : the analysis of the first stage of implementation of the END has revealed potential areas for improvement and the Commission intends to present a work programme to the Noise Committee on the following issues:

Finalising the harmonised framework for mapping methods : despite the improvements of comparability of strategic noise mapping, the situation is far from ideal. The assessments have shown that it remains difficult to present comparable figures on the number of people being exposed to excessive noise levels. Difficulties relate to differing ways in data collection, quality and availability and assessment methods used. The harmonisation framework of the methods will ultimately lead to the required level of comparability. Developing EU implementation guidance : many aspects of the Directive leave certain room for different interpretation. 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. 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, and preparation of action plans. These aspects could be explored further. 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.

Issues for further consideration: these include the following:

Trigger or target values : Member States introduced a wide variety of approaches establishing significantly different protection levels for EU citizens. However, 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 to their specific situations. Other options could be the establishment of EU noise trigger values, minimum requirements or EU recommendations. Noise indicators : 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. 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. 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. Technical definitions : 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. Administrative burden: there is scope for streamlining and facilitating the reporting timetable.

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. This report will be the basis for further discussions with Member States and other 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.

COM(2011)0321
EUR-Lex

COM(2004)0160
EUR-Lex

Directive 2002/49
OJ L 189 18.07.2002, p. 0012-0026

T5-0232/2002
OJ C 180 31.07.2003, p. 0159-0233 E

T5-0232/2002

Debate in Parliament

3611/2002

3611/2002

A5-0121/2002

A5-0121/2002

EUR-Lex
COM(2001)0621

T5-0491/2001
OJ C 087 11.04.2002, p. 0057-0118 E

T5-0491/2001

Debate in Parliament

A5-0296/2001

A5-0296/2001

EUR-Lex
SEC(2001)0892

06660/2001
OJ C 297 23.10.2001, p. 0049

06660/2001

CDR0271/2000
OJ C 148 18.05.2001, p. 0007

T5-0574/2000
OJ C 232 17.08.2001, p. 0203-0305

T5-0574/2000

Debate in Parliament

A5-0378/2000
OJ C 232 17.08.2001, p. 0009

A5-0378/2000

CES1435/2000
OJ C 116 20.04.2001, p. 0048

2295

EUR-Lex
OJ C 337 28.11.2000, p. 0251 E
COM(2000)0468

EUR-Lex
COM(2000)0468