Introduction 1.
Use of numeric rules for definition
of noise classes 2. Scope of the Directive
3. Sensitive Zones 4. Definitions of ‘agglomeration’ and scope 5. Definition of
airports
6. Definition of roads 7.
Scope of noise mapping 8.
Future Commission proposals
9. Regulatory Committee 10.
Working group on aviation
Introductory
comment:
As noise is a major environmental and public health problem, the EEB and
T&E warmly welcome the development of a Framework Directive on Noise. The
legislative framework across the EU is scattered and very diverse with respect
to measurement methods, limit values and abatement measures. Furthermore, only
a minority of Members States have fully integrated noise policies and none of
them have implemented a consistent noise abatement plan in recent years.
This
state-of-the-art is difficult to understand if one compares the initiatives
taken in other equivalent issues like air quality. Taking the same evaluation
and risk analysis methods as a basis, we can easily conclude that the risk of
major health problems induced by noise is much more visible and numerically
observable than for other pollutants.
Our general assessment of the draft Framework Directive on Noise is
therefore generally positive. However, we believe there are certain details
that need to be addressed, particularly in the case where positive elements of
earlier drafts have been removed. The following are preliminary comments,
regarded by T&E and the EEB to be of particular importance, for version
Dir28 of the draft Framework Directive on Noise, distributed 1st
March 2000. Our work in this area is ongoing and more detailed comments will
follow later. (Please refer to our earlier comments of October 1999 for our
general view of the process and our basic positions regarding the issues).
1. Use
of numeric rules for definition of noise classes
The environmental NGOs
observe with great concern, the maintained withdrawal without any technical
justification of a central aspect of the Directive. We are of the opinion that
the March 1999 draft – officially not available to us - had a central feature:
an annex with several numeric rules for the definition of noise quality
classes. Those classes were based on sound research concerning ‘annoyance’, and
had significant health and environmental implications. These guiding
principles for the definition of noise quality classes should be re-introduced,
as a consistent EU noise policy is not attainable without a precise definition
of noise classes. It is difficult to understand why - with the amount of
research available on the subject and with similar results obtained throughout
different Member States - the EU noise policy should not introduce minimum
limit values or, at least, scientifically based indicators to be used as
guidance.
2. Scope
of the Directive
The change of the “scope”
article (n° 2) from the previous draft corresponds not only to a new
formulation but also to an all-new philosophy. We agree that the objectives of
the EC policy are much better defined in the new and reformulated articles 8;
9,10, 11 and 12, that answers many of the stakeholders worries about the role
and the goals of the EC. However we strongly disagree with the removal of
‘neighbour noise’ and ‘work noise’. For the first
time, the EC aimed to have a comprehensive and scientifically based noise
policy. In order to achieve that goal, considerable amounts of money are being
spent in receiving the inputs of some of the best experts in the field.
Environmental organisations do not understand why this expertise should be
jeopardised, by not extending input to such important noise areas.
In the same context, we
believe that all residential zones - and zones where special projects
may be constructed or are expected to be constructed (i.e.; hospitals, schools)
- should be considered as sensitive zones. These sensitive zones should be
expected to achieve and maintain an overall limited level of noise exposure
defined by the indicators that were removed from the last two drafts. Thus
we strongly recommend the introduction of the concept of ‘sensitive zones’ as
is already being introduced by some Member State legislation.
4. Definitions
of ‘agglomeration’ and scope
We praise the extension of
the Definitions (Article 5) with the introduction of new concepts; discussed by
the stakeholders; namely the concepts of quiet zones in agglomerations and the
open country, and also action plans for agglomerations, major roads, airports
and railways. However, we do not agree that ‘agglomerations’ should be defined
by a minimum of 100,000 persons. It is important to acknowledge that noise is a
problem directly related to human activity and it follows that the greater the
number and density of persons, the higher the probability of experiencing noise
problems. Many neighbourhoods may be experiencing severe noise exposure but may
not be part of such large agglomerations. It should be considered that
unusually high densities can exist despite the fact that they might be part of
small urbanised areas. Thus we strongly recommend that ‘limit
values/indicators’, as originally introduced by the Commission (see Point 1
above), be re-introduced such that sensitive areas suffering from unacceptable
noise exposure be addressed, even though these areas may fall out of the
defined scope of the Directive. We also strongly recommend that the number of
persons in the definition of ‘agglomeration’ be reduced to 30,000 (note: 20,000
has been defined in the air quality framework). Our proposal for the new
phrasing of point J of Article 3 is: “agglomeration” means part of their
territory; delimited by the Member State, with a population in excess of 30000
and/or with such a population density that the Member State considers it an
urbanised area.
5. Definition
of airports
We understand and support,
for the above-mentioned reasons, the definitions used for ‘major ‘roads’;
‘railways’ and ‘airports’. However, we believe the numerical definitions used
are unable to identify and tackle the problem efficiently. First of all, it is
completely inappropriate to define a major airport as having 20,000 take-off
plus landings. Not only does noise perception research show aviation noise to
be more annoying than other transport noise, but research undertaken near
so-called ‘small’ airports shows levels to be higher than anticipated,
exceeding even the weakest forms of existing noise legislation e.g. military
airports, mixed civilian/military airports.
Further, there exist strong seasonal variations in airport use such that
the definition should take in to account this very important aspect. In line
with research findings, we therefore urge that a more inclusive and precise
definition for ‘airports’ be used as well as lower limits.
6. Definition
of Roads
Defining a major road as a
four-lane road with more than 2 million vehicle passages a year is artificially
restraining the problem. We think that these definitions need to be
discussed thoroughly in the working groups.
7. Scope
of noise mapping
We do not
understand that while defining ‘agglomeration’ as containing 100,000 persons,
the proposal states (under Article 7) that noise mappings should only be
prepared for the agglomerations with more than 250,000 persons and for the
major roads, airports and railway within this territory. To maintain
consistency, the proposal should require noise maps for agglomerations of
100,000 persons (or 30,000 as suggested under Point 4). In addition maps should
be prepared for ‘sensitive zones’, that may not be part of a certain sized
agglomeration and therefore fall outside the scope of the Directive, but which
are shown to be suffering from unacceptable levels of noise exposure.
8. Future
Commission proposals
We commend Article 11 of the
new draft. However, as regards the wording of the first sentence, “the
Commission may make a proposal”, the word ‘may’ is non-committal, ‘shall’
is better, and ‘will’ is, in our opinion, the most appropriate
formulation.
We believe that the Committee
described under Article 12 should be open to stakeholders with a standard
procedure to be discussed.
[1] This Directive was adopted on 26 July 2000 as COM(2000)468 Final: Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council Relating to the Assessment and Management of Environmental Noise