1 / 15

11 October 2016

Evaluation of the Environmental Noise Directive (2002/49/EC). European Parliament Hearing on Noise & Transport. 11 October 2016. Study objectives and context. Objectives: 2 nd 5 yearly implementation review of key provisions of Directive by EU MS.

alomax
Download Presentation

11 October 2016

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Evaluation of the Environmental Noise Directive (2002/49/EC) European Parliament Hearing on Noise & Transport 11 October 2016

  2. Study objectives and context Objectives: • 2nd 5 yearly implementation review of key provisions of Directive by EU MS. • Evaluate relevance, coherence, effectiveness (impacts), efficiency and added value of the END. Evaluation context: • EC’s Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT). Publishing date…..TBC • Evaluation finalised but to be published in Nov or Dec 16 (package with second legal implementation review & Staff Working Paper). 1

  3. Presentation overview Evaluation of the END • Key evaluation issues • Relevance • Coherence • Effectiveness (impacts) • Efficiency (cost-efficiency ratios at measure level/ CBA) • Added value • Regulatory fitness - horizontal theme • Conclusions • Prospective issues 2

  4. Relevance • Art. 1(1), a “common approach” to assessment and management of environmental noise, remains highly relevant. • However, Art. 1(1) is a process-focused intermediate objective. There is a lack of a longer-term, public health-based objective. • Art. 1(2), informing source legislation, also remains strongly relevant, given i) the need to assess the (net) benefits of existing source legislation and (ii) gather evidence base to inform revisions of existing, and/ or adoption of new source legislation. • END addresses identified problems and policy needs (lack of EU-wide comparable data, a need to better assess the scale of the problem to inform source legislation and to assess health effects). 3

  5. Internal coherence Internal coherence Assessment considered (i) clarity of legal text & definitions (ii) consistency between Articles/ sub-articles and (iii) clarity of requirements for MS. Findings were that: • END internally coherent overall, but some ways in which legal text might be improved (e.g. clearer definitions of agglomerations, quiet areas in open country). • Terminological usage – minor inconsistencies and ambiguities – e.g. to draw up (Art. 1) or to adopt (Art. 8) a Noise Action Plan? • Subjectivity risk – timing of frequency of noise mapping - what does “revise every 5 years (if necessary) mean? • Responsibilities of MS authorities clear to great majority of stakeholders. • Some confusion as to whether designation of quiet areas is mandatory (in principle, MS should nominate quiet areas but only voluntary). 4

  6. External Coherence External coherence • Directive coherent with EU legislation on noise at source, since source and receptor legislation + measures mutually complementary. • END is only EU legislation requiring strategic noise mapping to establish exposure levels, localised action planning to mitigate noise and to preserve noise where it is good. • Regulatory fitness – most stakeholders did not see duplication risks, but some were concerned about specific areas: • Mapping of industrial noise through END but also the IED (formerly the IPPC). Only seen as problem in a couple of MS. 5

  7. Effectiveness (1) • Greater progress towards common approach under Art 1(1) than informing source legislation (Art. 1(2)). A common approach • Development of CNOSSOS methodology (2007-15) & adoption of Comm. Directive (EU) 2015/996 a major achievement. • R1/2 based on interim / national computation methods, so comparable data requires a long timeframe (R4/ 2021 & between rounds only in R5). • Progress in revision of Annex III (Assessment methods for harmful effects), but only since 2014. Revision of WHO guidelines to assess health effects delayed (knock-on delays in development of European rules on how to calculate dose response relationships). Informing source legislation • END is being cited as a strategic reference point in the recitals and in impact assessments of source legislation . • But population exposure data is not yet being used to inform revision of source legislation (some delays & data gaps, but also comparability issues ). • Strong future potential to inform source legislation and help inform review & setting of Limit Values by transport source if data improves/ becomes more comparable. 6

  8. Effectiveness (2) • Population exposure data incompleteness in R1 and R2 (delays in submission of reporting information). • Lack of data completeness for SNMs pronounced for some sources (esp. major roads/ major railways within agglomerations) and for airports (within/ outside agglomerations). • No mandatory requirement in Directive to implement measures, Divergence as to whether MS have implemented spending measures • Diversity of approaches under subsidiarity: • Some MS already invested significantly in national noise mitigation and reduction programmes prior to the END. Others invested following the adoption of the END. • Some MS have only implemented limited noise measures, others have only implemented non-spending measures. • END is an effective approach, but steps are needed to strengthen effectiveness of common approach and national implementation. 7

  9. Impacts - national level • More strategic approach to env. noise management (e.g. action planning, noise mapping). • Visibility of noise as a societal problem and its adverse health effects. • Easier access for env. noise specialists to colleagues in other policy areas to discuss noise mitigation / reduction issues • Greater budget for env. noise at receptor to tackle noise mitigation / reduction, but only in some MS. • Availability of noise maps provides reference tool for policy makers to prioritise actions and spending. • Limited increase in awareness through public consultation and access to information (noise maps, exposure data) • Level of interest from public varies across EU MS. • Knowledge, information sharing and good practice exchange between MS level has been promoted. 8

  10. Impacts - EU level • Creation of common framework for assessing environmental noise. • EU policy makers have made systematic reference to END as providing an overarching framework for source legislation. • Inclusion of references to END in source-specific impact assessments (rail, automotive). • Exposure data not being fully utilised. Outstanding data completeness gaps and comparability issues need to be resolved. • Ability to generate data on population exposure at EU level, used in the EEA’s Noise in Europe Report. • Positive coordination role of EC. MS encouraged to benchmark approaches to tackling env. noise in other countries (mitigation measures, national limit values, guidance on quiet areas). 9

  11. Efficiency Efficiency - administrative costs • Increase in mapping, but prices generally lower (limited budgets = economic & financial crisis). • Admin costs declined in R2 on a ‘like for like’ basis. More competition among acoustics consultancies, some economies of scale. • R1 - one-off costs - e.g. software, IT equipment. • R2 - recurring costs, e.g. procuring input data and noise mapping / 5 years. Concerns about additional linked to transition to common noise assessment methods (costs in R3 (voluntary) / R4 (mandatory)). Efficiency - findings from cost-benefit assessment test cases. • Favourable cost-benefit ratio (CBR) of individual measures in ‘base case’ scenario. Ratio overall was 1:29 but CBR varies considerably across different EU MS & case studies even for the same source. • Attribution lower in EU MS that already supported noise mitigation and reduction measures prior to the END & higher in MS that had no noise legislation. • Reporting mechanism - user-friendliness of databases could be strengthened. • Positive CBRs for measures because we used health metrics to assess benefits (relatively long-lived compared to the initial investment costs, ceteris paribus). 10

  12. European Added Value (EAV) What difference has the END made? • Prior to END, different national noise indicators and computation methods. Post-END - common EU-wide approach using common metrics). • EAV will only be maximised once revised Annex II (Commission Directive (EU) 2015/996) has been implemented (comparable data to measure changes in population exposure between rounds). • Difficult to distinguish between mitigation measures that pre-date the END since many mitigation programmes/ measures are long-term (20-30 year programmes). • Since measures may pre-date the END and are nationally-financed, often perceived as national, even if the END provides the overarching framework. What would happen if END were to be repealed? • No longitudinal data on which to assess health effects of env. noise on key health end-points (annoyance, sleep disturbance and cardiovascular) • Less attention to env. noise mitigation at receptor in source-specific noise reduction spending programmes in relevant areas (e.g. transport infra., urban planning,) 11

  13. Overall conclusions • Previously, 13 MS had no env. noise legislation. Most MS had no pop. exposure data or noise maps publicly available. • Considerable progress towards achievement of more strategic management of environmental noise on a harmonised basis using common assessment methods across EU28. • Outstanding challenges • Absence of long-term objective as to what END is meant to achieve. • Lack of comparability of data between rounds and countries • Variations in commitment and resources to implement measures • Lack of effective enforcement of END by MS who set binding LVs, are responsible for their enforcement in case of exceedence. • Work needed to assess health effects, pending revision of WHO guidance on dose response relationships. 12

  14. Prospective issues Selected forward-looking suggestions • Consider whether END should go beyond a “common approach” and set a more explicit objective as to what the Directive should ultimately achieve. • Give consideration to introducing non-binding targets relating to the reduction of noise in each MS (compared with baseline). • EU policy makers should utilise population exposure data more extensively to inform noise at source legislation. • Make better use of EU funded research project results and develop/ disseminate good practice publications (e.g. on quiet areas) • Thorough review to improve clarity of legal text and to eliminate ambiguities. • Stricter monitoring to ensure more timely submission of SNMs and NAPs. • Strengthen effectiveness of action planning by building in more systematic monitoring of NAP implementation to report back on what has been achieved in each successive five year cycle. 13

  15. End of presentation Thanks for your attention! • Any questions? Contacts: • The evaluator - CSES mwhittle@cses.co.uk • The cost-benefit assessment specialists - petrina.rowcroft@aecom.com; and Markus.Petz@accon.de 14

More Related