Tina Garrity follows the progress of the draft directive on the assessment and management of ambient noise

The Commission's draft directive on the assessment and management of environmental ambient noise (EHJ, October 2000, page 342) is making its way gradually through the EU institutions. The proposal seeks to define a common approach to noise across the EU and to develop common methods for the assessment of environmental noise. It would require noise maps to be published every five years for large conurbations and would contain a general obligation on member states to reduce noise where necessary and to maintain noise quality where it is good.

The Economic and Social Committee (ESC) welcomed the proposal at its meeting in November 2000, noting that the Commission has had to tread a difficult line between protecting human health and the environment across the EU, while at the same time respecting the principle of subsidiarity. The Committee expressed concern about the difficulty of establishing comparable average noise conditions for day (Lden) and night (Lnight) in all EU countries, particularly in view of seasonal differences. It also expressed concern over the lack of reference to spatial planning criteria, particularly in relation to areas bordering roads, railways and airports or subject to vibration.

With regard to the setting of noise levels, it suggested that Community harmonisation might be based on a minimum level, enabling those member states which wished to introduce more stringent levels of protection to do so. It also suggested that the directive should ensure that permanent low noise pollution levels are built into the design of new residential areas. The Committee would welcome a reference to the impact of noise on social wellbeing, eg the capacity to communicate in open areas exposed to noise, and to the environment in general.

Regarding the definition of an agglomeration, it felt this should also depend on the existence of a single competent authority able to draw up action plans, so as to avoid confusion where conurbations are administered by more than one authority. The Committee also suggested that the directive should cover major seaports. Referring to the five-year rule for noise maps, it suggested that redrafting should take place whenever substantial changes made earlier updating advisable. Conversely, where an authority could prove no major changes had occurred, it should be allowed to postpone redrafting for five years.

MEPs got their chance to debate the proposal in December 2000, when they approved it on first reading, subject to a number of amendments. In particular, MEPs want an obligation on the Commission to draw up daughter directives to cover all sources of noise emissions, particularly those from commercial vehicles, motorcycles, railways and aircraft. More controversially, they voted for EU limit values on environmental noise around airports. According to the European Environmental Bureau, this was opposed by a number of British MEPs when the proposal was discussed in the Environment Committee. Additionally, MEPs voted for an amendment requiring persons or entities responsible for significant point sources of noise such as construction plants to draw up action plans on how to deal with it.

In February this year, the Committee of the Regions (CoR) looked at the draft directive. Like the Parliament and the ESC it welcomed the initiative, claiming that noise is the chief environmental and public health problem for the public. The Committee called for the definition of common action thresholds for noise levels where the impact of health is obvious, in particular for airports. It is not so sure about the proposal's use of the term "annoyance", saying that in the absence of any dose effect relations for an annoyance indicator there should be scientific studies to examine this issue more closely.

In the meantime, short-term target levels for noise should be drafted. The Committee would like to see the guideline values used in the Green Paper on "Future noise policy" incorporated into the directive (EHJ, January 1997, page 17), as these were based on scientific research into the concept of annoyance published by the WHO. The CoR's view on the definition of an agglomeration is that it should be based on the scale of the transport network, the zone's land-use classification and the number of individuals concerned. As it stands, the directive would not protect people outside large conurbations who suffer from noise pollution.

In its opinion, the Committee criticised the scant attention paid by the Commission to the role of regional and local authorities in implementing the directive. It wants to see a working method for implementation, which brings local and regional actors together, and a network for the exchange of information, experience and know-how. On the subject of public information, the Committee felt the directive should go further than just requiring noise maps to be published but did not make any suggestions as to how this would be done.

One of the key elements of the proposed noise directive is the establishment of common noise indicators across the EU. Last year the Commission published a position paper on noise indicators which explores the benefits of harmonisation, looks at the current situation in the EU member states and sets out some criteria for selecting noise indicators. It suggests possible indicators and examines some of the studies undertaken on the relationship between noise and effects. The paper reveals that there are considerable differences between member states and local governments in the way noise is addressed and that it may involve considerable effort for some member states to implement different noise parameters. Nevertheless, the working group on indicators felt the long-term benefits could be considerable.

ESC Opinion. OJ C116. 20.04.01. pp 48-51
CoR Opinion. OJ C148. 18.05.01. pp 7-8
European Parliament Report: A5-0378/2000. 05.12.00. www.europarl.eu.int

"Position paper on EU noise indicators." ISBN 928288953X. http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/pubs/urban.htm#INDICATOR (Stationery Office Ltd £ 7.50).

OTHER NEWS
New EMAS regulation
The Community eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS) is set for a revival with its extension to allow voluntary participation by organisations. The revised scheme incorporates ISO14001 as the management
system and it is hoped the two will no longer be seen as competing.
The UK competent body, the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IMEA), says that EMAS is the next logical step for those organisations with ISO 14001 who want to build their environmental credibility. Organisations will be able to produce different reports for different audiences using selected data from their environmental statement. Any environmental information published will be allowed to bear the EMAS logo, which is revised and simplified in the new scheme,
provided the information has been validated by an environmental verifier according to a set of criteria laid out in an annex to the regulation. The scheme allows for
corporate EMAS registration for multi-site organisations under one certificate, though each site will have to prove compliance with the scheme's requirements. Further information can be found on the EMAS website at www.emas.org.uk and in the IMEA journal.
Regulation No. 761/2001 allowing voluntary participation by organisations in a Community eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS.) OJ L144. 24.04.01
pp 1-29.