1

Evaluation of Directive 2002/49/EC relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise

Workshop working paper 2

The Evaluation of the END – emerging findings

September 23rd 2015, Brussels

1

Table of contents

1. Introduction – the aims and scope of the evaluation 1

2. Methodology 1

3. Evaluation criteria, intervention logic and methodological issues 2 3.1 Evaluation criteria 2 3.2 Intervention Logic 2 3.3 Methodological challenges in evaluating the END 3

4. Evaluation findings 4 4.1 Relevance 4 4.2 Coherence 5 4.1 Effectiveness (and impacts) 9 4.2 Efficiency 15 4.3 EU value added 18

5. Conclusions 21 5.1 Relevance 21 5.2 Coherence 22 5.3 Effectiveness 22 5.4 Efficiency (except the CBA) 22 5.5 EU added value 23

6. Questions for workshop participants 23

1

This workshop working paper provides a summary of the emerging evaluation findings from the Evaluation of Directive 2002/49/EC relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise EC (the Environmental Noise Directive – the “END”). The study is being led by the Centre for Strategy & Evaluation Services LLP (CSES) and ACCON supported by AECOM, an acoustics/environmental consultancy.

The purpose of this working paper is to secure the validation of conference participants to the preliminary evaluation findings. Any further feedback from stakeholders unable to attend the conference will also be welcomed.

Preamble. It should be emphasised that whilst this working paper is necessarily short for the purposes of the conference, many of the evaluation issues addressed are quite complex. There is often no simple answer, given that the nature of the challenges varies between countries depending on their approach to END implementation (e.g. centralised, decentralised), the level of governance and type of competent authority at which implementation takes place and the specific circumstances in Member States where the Directive is implemented. Our proposed means of reflecting this will be to structure the analysis in the draft final report according to the approach to END implementation in different clusters of Member States”.

1. Introduction – the aims and scope of the evaluation

In a 2013 Communication "Regulatory Fitness and Performance (REFIT): results and next steps"1, the Commission announced that Directive 2002/49/EC will be evaluated to assess the relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency and EU added value of the Directive. Through REFIT, the European Commission is undertaking systematic assessments of EU legislation in order to check whether they are "fit for purpose". REFIT also emphasises the importance of checking that EU regulation is pursuing public policy objectives that could either be best achieved – or could only be achieved - at EU level. More generally, the evaluation provides an opportunity to take stock of the extent to which progress has been made towards the achievement of objectives. The evaluation scope covers the period since the Directive’s adoption in June 2002 - late 2014 (i.e. both Rounds 1 and 2 of END implementation).

2. Methodology

The main research methods that have been used to carry out the evaluation of the END are described in brief below:

Table 1 Research methods for primary and secondary data collection

Data type Research method & detail

Secondary Desk research – in addition to the legal text of the Directive, a range of documentation at EU / national level has been examined, such as reporting data on strategic noise mapping and selected Noise Action Plans (NAPs) submitted by Member States, a review of guidelines developed at EU and national levels on the development of NAPs and Strategic Noise Maps (SNM) and good practice documents, and a review of literature on cost-benefit assessment and estimating the economic and social costs of noise. In addition, documents relating to the development of CNOSSOS-EU were reviewed. A number of research papers focusing on assessing the effectiveness of END implementation to date and the outstanding challenges in particular countries were also examined.

Primary Interview programme – interviews have been undertaken with circa 90 END stakeholders to date. A further 15+ interviews will be carried out. The main stakeholders types interviewed were: the national competent authority and other competent authorities

1 COM(2013)685 final

2

involved in carrying out noise mapping and action planning at regional and local levels, industry associations, other national stakeholders, consultancies providing strategic noise mapping services and technical support for action planning, NGOs and community groups consulted through public consultations linked to action planning, etc.

Primary Online survey - three online questionnaire-based surveys were carried out with (i) public authorities (ii) NGOs/ community groups and (iii) consultancies that have been involved in the development of strategic noise maps and/ or providing technical assistance to public authorities carrying out the action planning.

Primary Quantitative case studies to assess the costs and benefits of the END. A proposed approach to assess efficiency based on 19 case studies (studies (10 on agglomerations, 5 on airports, 2 on major roads and 2 on major rail) followed by an extrapolation to EU28 level) is set out in detail in Working Paper 3.

As part of the analysis, the evidence obtained via these different methods has been triangulated i.e. the results from the interview feedback and online survey have been compared to help verify and validate the research findings.

3. Evaluation criteria, intervention logic and methodological issues

3.1 Evaluation criteria

The key evaluation questions, based on the European Commission’s standard set of evaluation criteria - adapted to the evaluation of the END - are summarised in brief below:

Relevance - the extent to which an intervention’s objectives are pertinent to needs, problems and issues to be addressed;

Coherence - the extent to which the intervention logic is non-contradictory/the intervention does not contradict other interventions with similar objectives;

Effectiveness - the extent to which objectives set are achieved and the main drivers and barriers to achieving the objectives;

Efficiency - the efficiency of management and implementation arrangements. The extent to which the desired effects are being achieved at a reasonable cost (i.e. cost-effectiveness, to be determined through the cost-benefit assessment); and

EU added-value - the value added of action at EU level that would be difficult or inappropriate to achieve at national level alone.

3.2 Intervention Logic

Before discussing the key evaluation issues, it is important to understand the intervention logic that underpins the Directive. The “Intervention Logic” diagram has been developed by the research team to explain the approach of the END, the inter-linkages between its objectives, and the actions required by Member States to achieve these objectives through Strategic Noise Mapping and Action Planning and making information accessible to the public and the expected outputs (immediate outcomes), results (intermediate outcomes and impacts, longer-term outcomes) were the Directive to be fully and effectively implemented.

3

An intervention logic diagram is provided below:

Figure 1 – intervention logic diagram

This schematic framework is relevant to all the evaluation criteria. However, the mapping and analysis of the intervention logic is especially relevant to the assessment of relevance and coherence, because it demonstrates the problems and needs identified that the Directive seeks to address.

3.3 Methodological challenges in evaluating the END

Before outlining the emerging findings it is useful to point out some of the methodological challenges in evaluating the specific achievements of the Directive, such as:

Attribution - in assessing the achievements of the END, there is a need to consider causal attribution i.e. the extent to which costs and benefits can be specifically attributed to the END or would have occurred anyway. For instance, some measures mentioned in NAPs have specifically been developed as a result of the END, whereas in other cases, the primary driver may be air quality, road safety or similar, but with important secondary benefits in terms of mitigating and / or reducing noise. Equally, in assessing attribution, there is a need to consider whether measures in NAPs are driven by the END or by pre-existing national legislation.

The balance between the quantitative and qualitative – DG ENV have rightly put a strong emphasis on assessing the cost-efficiency of the Directive through an assessment of the administrative costs of implementation and a review of the costs/ benefits of individual measures and a scaling up exercise to EU28 (detailed in WP3). However, in addition, the qualitative benefits /impacts of the END should be taken into account in the evaluation. Many interviewees saw there being wider benefits of a more strategic approach to environmental noise management that extend beyond the directly quantifiable benefits. It is important that both these elements are combined in assessing achievements to date.

4

4. Evaluation findings

In the subsequent sections, a number of questions are now considered in turn grouped together under the evaluation criteria - relevance, coherence, effectiveness (impacts), efficiency and EU added value.

It should be noted that for the sake of brevity and because of the complexity in addressing each question, the findings from the most crucial evaluation questions are presented to ensure the validation of the main emerging findings.

4.1 Relevance

4.1.1 Relevance of the Directive’s objectives

A number of stakeholders commented that understanding the relevance of the Directive’s objectives is not as straightforward as it perhaps should be. Whilst the END specifies two “objectives” in Article 1 (1) and Article 1(2), these can be viewed as “intermediate objectives” (i.e. short – medium term steps along the way to a longer term aim). The END does not set out a clear longer-term public health based objective against which to evaluate its “relevance”. Rather it seeks to define a “common approach” to better understand the issue at a national and an EU level and seeks to provide a basis for future measures to reduce noise at source.

The following messages are emerging from our ongoing analysis of respondent feedback in respect of the two objectives that are explicitly mentioned in the END:

The objective of Article 1(1) remains relevant as there is a perceived need among most END stakeholders for a “common approach” to the assessment of environmental noise, and a general acceptance that strategic noise mapping is a suitable mechanism to provide evidence of population exposure at both MS and EU level.

However, not all stakeholders acknowledge the importance of adopting a “common approach” to the assessment of environmental noise. This is perhaps a reflection of the fact that harmonised data is predominantly needed for European/National strategic purposes rather than for local decision-making purposes. This view is more commonly encountered in those countries that have long-established national noise policies and legislation prior to the END, and in countries with existing procedures to remedy noise problems at the local level.

The objective of Article 1(2), that the END should provide a basis for developing Community measures to reduce noise emitted by major sources, was viewed by most stakeholders as being highly relevant to identified needs. It was acknowledged that whilst environmental noise at receptor is a local problem that should predominantly be tackled through local measures, such measures could be ineffective without additional controls over noise emitted by the major sources of noise, particularly given the growth in the number of such sources.

However, not all stakeholders were fully aware about the inter-relationship between the END and the development of noise at source legislation. Several expressed the view that the first objective of the END is the core objective, since the collection of data for benchmarking purposes at EU level is useful, and saw the second objective as secondary to their day to day work in mitigating and where possible reducing noise at local level.

The collection of adequately harmonised and standardised data at EU level was regarded as being an important and relevant pre-requisite for strengthening the evidence base for reviewing existing EU noise at source legislation.

The lack of a clear longer term objective is seen by several respondents as a failing in the approach taken by the END. Although some health benefits will emerge from the Directive’s implementation, since there is no mandatory requirement to implement measures, the full health benefits will only be delivered in a subsequent, currently unspecified, stage.

5

The implicit, longer-term objective of the Directive, to protect public health, remains relevant. The evidence from Strategic Noise Mapping to establish the number of exposed persons suggest that the issue of excessive environmental noise continues to be a problem in many EU Member States, with a high number of exposed persons (estimated in the Noise in Europe 2014 report as one in four being (potentially2) exposed to a level of noise in excess of 55 dB(A).

The benefits of the END for national and EU policy makers should in principle increase over time since once data is comparable and produced on a common basis through the new common assessment methodology (CNOSSOS-EU). This will then provide a better basis for informing policy development.

The availability of harmonised noise mapping data will mean that the adverse health effects of environmental noise can more easily be compared. The benefits of measures to mitigate and reduce noise can then be more easily demonstrated. This should then in turn help those working in the environmental noise field to secure budget for expenditure measures. However, because such cost-benefit data is not yet readily available (indeed, the first effort to collect such data is taking place through 19 case studies that form part of this evaluation study (see Working Paper 3), the utility of the data for policy making purposes is not yet optimal.

The END is not currently focussed on delivering longer term policy needs, such as the protection of public health. Therefore, a key finding is that as the Directive currently stands, it only indirectly addresses environmental and health protection by seeking to influence noise at source legislation (Art. 1(2)), but relies on the Member States to fund and implement environmental noise abatement and reduction measures at receptor. Although this is in line with the subsidiarity principle and the respective competences of the EU and the Member States, there is a question as to whether it is sufficiently clear what the Directive is meant to achieve over the longer term.

4.2 Coherence

As part of a REFIT evaluation, it is important to examine how far the END is coherent with other EU and national legislation to tackle noise. There is therefore an “internal” dimension to coherence in terms of how consistent the various provisions of the Directive are and whether they complement each other, as well as an “external” dimension related to how consistent the Directive is with other EU source legislation, as well as national legislation on noise.

4.2.1 Coherence and consistency with other EU legislation on noise

The interview feedback did not generally find evidence of a lack of coherence between the END and noise at source legislation. Stakeholders were clear that whilst source legislation is top-down and plays an important role in tackling the problem, it is equally important to address noise at receptor through local measures.

The majority of stakeholders agreed that the relationship between the END and other EU legislation on noise is a symbiotic and mutually supporting one, especially with regards to noise at source legislation. However, not all END stakeholders were aware of the detailed inter-relationship between the END and source legislation, especially with regard to the importance of collecting data at EU level to inform the revision or existing and / or the development of new EU legislation. In addition to this relationship, the END is also supported by projects funded under EU and other research programmes, such as the City Hush project.

2 It was pointed out by a number of stakeholders that the END measures the number of persons potentially rather than

actually exposed to noise since it is not possible as part of a strategic noise mapping (or necessarily cost-effective) to obtain detailed data on the dwellings concerned (e.g. have they had noise insulation windows installed, are the bedrooms facing a major road or not?)

6

Most stakeholders did not perceive there to be any overlap or duplication between the END and other EU environmental legislation. A small number of stakeholders did however raise concerns about possible areas of overlap, but these were dependent on how different Directives have been implemented at national level.

An example of possible duplication (mentioned by respondents form three MS) is the fact that industrial noise is covered within the scope of the END and industrial noise control also falls within the scope of the Industrial Emissions Directive, formerly the IPPC.

Another area where there is a risk of duplication (raised by two MS) is in the designation of protected areas under the Habitats Directive, the Wild Birds Directive and Natura 2000 and the designation and protection of quiet areas in agglomerations and open country under the END. Whilst the two designations are clearly made for different reasons there may be benefit from avoiding double designation for the same areas of land.

In summary, the END is regarded as broadly coherent and complementary (with the possible exception of noise from industry) to other EU legislation on noise, and the emerging END data should be particularly relevant to the development of future EU policies on noise at source.

4.2.2 Clarity regarding the obligations of Member States (at the level of the Competent Authority) and other stakeholders involved in national implementation (e.g. airport operators, transport authorities responsible for roads and rail)?

Whilst the flexibility provided by the END is welcomed by most stakeholders, some interviewees noted that this may come at the expense of clarity (in that the Directive is not prescriptive in setting out the obligations of different stakeholders in detail). It is up to individual Member States to provide national guidance on END implementation so as to ensure that all stakeholders involved in the Directive’s implementation are clear about their responsibilities.

This means that the END does not put any specific obligations, for instance, on transport authorities, because there is no guarantee when transposing the END that the MS concerned would impose any specific obligations on transport authorities. Overall, this flexibility enables Member States to determine the most appropriate implementation arrangements and to set the obligations that different competent authorities must fulfil in each EU country.

Feedback in some countries (such as Denmark, France and the Netherlands) suggests that the lack of detailed requirements in the Directive with regard to implementation arrangements, whilst respecting subsidiarity, can cause some difficulties in national implementation. Examples were provided where local authorities have not complied with requests for information from the national competent authority about progress in carrying out Strategic Noise Mapping and Noise Action Planning or have provided information very late because the national competent authority had no sanction at their disposal to require them to provide the information.

In conclusion, the Directive fully respects subsidiarity in its implementation and in making the Member States responsible for setting out their implementation arrangements. However, if the Directive were to be reviewed in future, some stakeholders would be in favour of an approach that sets out the obligations of the Member States in greater detail so as to provide clarity. Conversely, other national competent authorities were in favour of maintaining the status quo since this provides them with considerable flexibility to determine national END implementation arrangements.

4.2.3 Clarity of the legal text of the Directive

The majority of stakeholders (60%) responding to the online survey for public authorities stated that there was at least one element of the Directive that they perceived as being unclear. However, when asked about which specific terms and definitions raised issues or difficulties, most stakeholders stated that the great majority of terms and definitions in the legal text of the END did not pose any problems.

7

The problems were instead concentrated in relating to a few areas, such as the definitions of ‘quiet areas in agglomerations’ and quiet areas in open country. Other definitions terms that appeared to have caused some confusion include harmful effects, limit values, and dose-effect relations which were among those cited as lacking clarity (typically by between 10 and 20% of respondents).

A further issue raised through the interview feedback relates to the concept of hotspots. The legal text of the Directive itself does not explicitly mention hotspots. Instead, in Article 1, the first objective of the END is that of “defining a common approach intended to avoid, prevent or reduce on a prioritised basis the harmful effects, including annoyance, due to exposure to environmental noise”. However, several Member States have interpreted the words “on a prioritised basis” as being synonymous with the need to define “hotspots” i.e. sources either where there is the greatest number of exposed persons and/ or a high number of exposed persons in the top dB threshold. There is confusion among some END stakeholders as to whether tackling hotspots is an explicit requirement and more generally, how to go about prioritising noise.

8

In summary, the specific definitions and terms that appeared to cause greatest problems for END stakeholders were the following:

Agglomeration – should this be solely based on total population or also population density? Different countries appear to have interpreted the term differently.

Quiet areas – many Member States appear to have difficulties in interpreting this concept in national law. There were also one or two examples of misinterpretation in the transposition of the END (e.g. by applying quiet areas only in an urban context).

4.2.4 The relationship between the END and national noise policies and legislation

In EU countries where there was a pre-existing legal framework, such as the UK, the Netherlands and Germany, there were generally no inconsistencies between the implementation of the END and national legislation on environmental noise. However, ensuring coherence with existing approaches has sometimes complicated END implementation from a practical perspective. For instance, in the Netherlands, protected areas in open country had already been defined in national legislation. Since the transposition of the END, there has been confusion among END stakeholders about the difference and delineation of protected areas as defined in national legislation and quiet areas as defined in the END.

In Member States that did not have a pre-existing national regulatory framework on environmental noise, there was no evidence of inconsistencies with national legislation. In many of the new Member States, legislation on environmental noise was adopted as part of the transposition process of the END. In some countries, in transposing the END, additional requirements have been incorporated into environmental noise legislation (e.g. Latvia) since all noise-related legislation has been combined in a single integrated legal act as part of a process of rationalisation/ simplification.

Lithuania mentioned that as in many other EU countries, there is national legislation on environmental noise incorporates limit values at noise receiver, whereas the END does not impose common limit values. This can be problematic for policy makers working on environmental noise issues because there is a tendency for domestic policy makers in other areas to turn to EU legislation for guidance on limit values and without any such limits, it is difficult to enforce national standards when these are exceeded. This appears to apply more in some new member states/ countries that have only had a legal framework to tackle environmental noise since the END was adopted.

Some countries (e.g. Denmark and Sweden) reported difficulties resulting from technical aspects of the changes in prediction methods (due to the introduction of the common assessment method).

The concluding findings on coherence with national legislation are:

The END provides evidence to support the development of future noise policies in those MS without extensive pre-existing policies and procedures, but it does not currently provide an alternative to the development of national policies and expenditure measures to manage, mitigate and potentially reduce environmental noise (as it only provides an intermediate step focused on a “common approach”); and

The END can be implemented in a way that is broadly coherent and complementary to any pre-existing national policies and legislation on noise, but care has to be taken to avoid duplication and potential confusion.

9

4.1 Effectiveness (and impacts)

4.1.1 Progress of Member States in achieving the first objective set out in the Directive:

Introduction

Article 1(1) of the END relates to defining a common approach intended to avoid, prevent or reduce on a prioritised basis the harmful effects, including annoyance, due to exposure to environmental noise (“a common approach”). Interviewees and online survey respondents were asked for their perceptions as to the extent of progress made to date.

The evaluators note that two objectives of the END are mutually supporting and reinforcing. Although many environmental noise issues arise at local level and are specific to each Member State, progress towards a “common approach” to the measurement of environmental noise through strategic noise mapping is a crucial step towards harmonising the data and enabling national-level data and information on population exposure by transport source to be collected at EU level. This is an important precursor if END data is to subsequently be utilised by EU policy makers to inform the revision of existing EU noise at source legislation, the second objective of the END.

There are two different aspects to addressing this question. Firstly, there is a need for an assessment of (i) the extent of progress towards the overall objective of a “common approach” and (ii) progress in each of the specific actions mentioned in Article 1(1) a – c of the Directive which collectively should contribute to the achievement of a common approach:

Article 1(1)a - the determination of exposure to environmental noise, through noise mapping, by methods of assessment common to the Member States;

Article 1(1)b - ensuring that information on environmental noise and its effects is made available to the public; and

Article 1(1)c - the adoption of action plans by the Member States, based upon noise-mapping results.

In relation to stakeholder views on the extent of progress made since the Directive was adopted in 2002, the online survey with a total of 74 respondents found that good progress has been made towards defining a common approach.

Out of 70 online survey participants responding to this question, 26% are of the view that the END has already achieved its objective of defining a common approach in full, whilst another 61% believe that either “significant” or “some progress” has been made. Only 11% believe that little progress has been made (the interview feedback suggested that this was mainly to do with the comparability of the data).

Figure 2 - Assessment of progress towards the first objective of the END: a common approach - Article 1(1) - (n=70)

Among the specific findings in relation to the implementation of Article 1(1)a (noise mapping through a common assessment method) were that:

26%

21%40%

11%

1% 0%

In full

Significant progress

Some progress

Little progress

No progress

Don’t know

10

Considerable progress has been made towards the development of a common approach to noise assessment methods in Europe through the CNOSSOS-EU process, which commenced in 2009. This should in principle lead to harmonised data3.

However, an area of weakness mentioned by a small number of stakeholders was that although input databases have been developed by source (e.g. road, rail), there is limited standardised input data available, which means that the output data may not always be comparable. This is an important point which could potentially undermine the CNOSSOS effort.

Although it is difficult to harmonise input parameters, and producing standardised input data may not be appropriate for some sources, a range of stakeholders thought that over the longer term, input data could be harmonised.

END stakeholders interviewed recognised that the adoption of CNOSSOS—EU to update and replace Annex II through a new Directive was a major achievement towards the objective of a common approach. This was especially the case given that until the adoption of the END, most Member States did not use a noise mapping based approach to model and manage environmental noise, and those that did tended to use a variety of different approaches and methodologies.

Most (although not all) stakeholders agreed that the detailed technical approach that has been developed for each source reflects scientific and technical progress and “state of the art”. For instance, some elements from the existing interim methods have been incorporated into the development of CNOSSOS-EU as well as the results from the Harmonoise project. Conversely, a few stakeholders stated that CNOSSOS fell short of their expectations and would not be able to fully substitute the Nord2000 method currently used.

The timescales involved for the development of a common approach are somewhat behind the expectations of at least some stakeholders involved in END implementation. The common approach envisaged will not lead to comparable data until the fourth round of noise mapping (2022) at the earliest, given that the implementation of CNOSSOS-EU at national level will only be voluntary in Round 3 and not become mandatory until Round 4.

Although some countries such as Denmark and Sweden will continue to use their own national mapping methods alongside CNOSSOS for their own purposes, this is not expected to exacerbate the problem of comparable data provided they implement CNOSSOS in full. In such cases, however, the level of administrative costs may be particularly high.

There were some broader concerns about the administrative costs of the transition to implementing CNOSSOS-EU, given that Rounds 1 and 2 have been implemented using a combination of national and interim methods, and there will be a need to use the new methods by Round 4 at the latest (e.g. mentioned in France, Denmark and Sweden).

A small number of END stakeholders, including two competent authorities, expressed concern that CNOSSOS-EU goes beyond the minimum requirements implied by strategic noise mapping because it requires more detailed mapping than some Member States think is necessary. There was a concern about the additional costs involved, but also whether CNOSSOS adheres to the principle embodied in the END of a strategic approach. There were

3 In accordance with Art. 6.2 of the END), the European Commission developed the common noise assessment framework (CNOSSOS-EU) (CNOSSOS-EU) for road, railway, aircraft and industrial noise for the purpose of strategic noise mapping as required by Article 7 of the END. The development of CNOSSOS-EU was coordinated

by the JRC and undertaken in close liaison with the CNOSSOS-EU Technical Committee.

11

concerns that in future, ever-more detailed mapping could be required, with limited benefits from a noise action planning perspective.

The lack of aggregation of maps produced relating to different sources was mentioned by several stakeholders. This wasn’t an issue related to particular Member States, but rather a more general issue applying EU-wide. Whilst source-specific strategic noise maps are useful for policy makers and planners in those particular areas, from a citizen engagement perspective, the lack of aggregated data on the cumulative level of environmental noise exposure in a particular areas undermines the practical utility of the noise maps. It is unlikely that anyone but a specialist, more technical audience would utilise noise maps relating to a single source. This was mentioned several times (e.g. in IE, NL).

In relation to Article 1(1)b (making information publicly accessible), the findings were that:

The results of strategic noise mapping have generally been made available to the public. In addition, the number of exposed persons at receiver level by transport source has also been made publicly accessible via the EEA’s EIONET website.

However, it was noted that there have been considerable delays in some countries in respect of the publication and making available online of Round 2 noise maps. Clearly, this may risk undermining the provision of accessible information to the public in a timely manner.

There was a concern in several EU countries among END stakeholders that the Lden and Lnight indicators are quite difficult for a non-technical audience to understand. This limits the audience among EU citizens for accessing such data and information. Given the high costs involved in producing such data, the small number of downloads of maps was mentioned as being of concern in some countries (e.g. Netherlands, Denmark).

Notwithstanding the general lack of interest among citizens in the maps themselves, the feedback gathered through the evaluation suggests that this data was seen as useful by different target audiences, such as:

o Policy makers, especially at city / town and in larger municipalities (although the maps were seen as not very useful at all in small municipalities).

o Local community groups and NGOs interested in information and data about local environmental noise issues, disaggregated by source.

o Private sector actors such as investors, developers, planners and architects.

The results from public consultations relating to noise action plans have generally been made available to the public, for instance, by publishing them online and / or by incorporating the consultation responses directly into draft action plans. However, there were concerns among some NGOs as to the overall effectiveness of public consultation, given that the emphasis tended to be on ensuring that summaries of consultation feedback was published, rather than making information available on how consultation feedback had been taken into account in the finalisation of noise action plans. The response of the public to consultation efforts was also very limited in many MS, casting doubt on the effectiveness of the process.

Some good practices identified in holding public consultations include: o Allowing sufficient time for NGOs/ community org’s to contribute by holding

consultations over a minimum of 6-12 weeks o Organising public meetings and events o Establishing meaningful ongoing dialogue / engagement not just “one-off“

consultation o Provide a summary of public consultation responses received in annexes of NAPs

12

o Ensuring that ideas generated directly by local communities are fully considered and ideally taken on board in the finalisation of NAPs (or at least if should be made clear which consultation feedback has been useful and which it is not possible to take on board and why).

A less positive finding was that in some EU countries there have been minor delays in the submission of Strategic Noise Maps and major delays in the development of Round 2 Noise Action Plans (and their submission under END reporting procedures). Indeed, in some cases, these have not been prepared at all (although the data analysis to compare what was meant to be reported and actually reported is still underway with incomplete and out of date data). These delays are specific to a number of countries.

In terms of the impacts of the delays encountered in Round 2, a number of knock-on consequences were observed during the evaluation. First, reporting data is incomplete, with gaps in several EU countries in June 2014. Secondly, in EU countries where delays have been encountered, the information on Round 2 has not yet been published in many cases, with consequences in terms of achieving the END’s objective relating to Action 1(1)b on making information accessible to the public. Thirdly, the lack of completeness of data undermines evaluations.

Unless the issue of the timely provision of reporting information (SNMs and NAPs) is improved, this may serve to undermine the overall effectiveness of END implementation. For instance, the availability of a complete set of comparable SNM will become increasingly important in future in terms of baseline-setting for EU policy makers responsible for noise at source legislation.

Among the reasons cited by MS for delays were: a general lack of human and financial resources, the short time span between the deliverance of SNMs and NAPs (12 months), which was viewed in 15 Member States as being too short – given the need to allow time for public consultation, and the time take consultation into account in Noise Action Plan revision.

Lastly, in respect of progress towards Article 1(1)c (the adoption of action plans by the Member States, based upon noise-mapping results), the findings were that:

There is considerable divergence between Member States with regard to the approach that has been adopted to the development of Noise Action Plans (“NAPs”), with considerable differences in the length and quality of NAPs. Some EU countries saw the purpose of preparing NAPs as being an opportunity to set out a strategic approach to noise management, with detailed implementation left to be determined later in the implementation period, whereas others have focused on making their NAP as operational as possible. This results in wide variance as regards the number of NAPs per country from one per source (e.g. England) to hundreds of action plans, in the case of France, and possibly thousands in the case of Germany, because action planning is carried out not just at the level of agglomerations, but also by local authorities within agglomerations who each produce their own action plan. However, NAPs are carried out on a highly localised level in a limited number of countries.

Member States themselves often appreciate the flexibility to develop NAPs that reflected their own vision as to how an action plan should be drawn up, in line with subsidiarity principles.

A further difference was identified in the approach to the development of NAPs between EU countries. Whereas some Member States have a clear preference for identifying a “long-list” of possible future measures (only some of which are ever likely to go ahead), other countries are only able to mention those measures where budget has already been earmarked.

There was evidence that some local authorities were reluctant to include expenditure measures in NAPs unless there was a firm undertaking from state authorities to fund the

13

measures mentioned, since otherwise they would face pressure to identify budget for measures from local communities.

The wide divergence in approaches to the development of NAPs makes it difficult to assess which expenditure measures have actually been implemented in Round 1, and to assess the impact of the implementation of individual NAPs. This in turn makes it more difficult to gather reliable information at EU level on what has been achieved through END implementation.

Many Member States stated that they lacked budget to implement noise mitigation measures. Several stakeholders made a suggestion that it would be easier for environmental noise policy makers to raise budget at the national level, if the EU were to recognise the scale of the problem by making some EU co-financing available. However, this is a “future perspective” given that there is no such EU budget presently available.

4.1.2 Qualitative impacts

With regard to the impacts achieved through the END’s implementation, it is important to note that in addition to outcomes from the implementation of measures that can be assessed in terms of a benefit-cost ratio (see the “efficiency” section of this Working Paper and WP3, which focuses on cost-benefit assessment), it is also important to take into account wider benefits of the END, that shed light on overall effectiveness.

Examples of some of the non-quantifiable benefits and impacts discerned through the interview feedback are:

o Promoting a more strategic approach to noise management, mitigation and reduction through the discipline of an action planning approach;

o Heightening awareness among other policy makers (e.g. transport planning, urban development and planning, infrastructure development) about the importance of tackling environmental noise issues from the outset;

o Strengthening coordination and cooperation between civil servants responsible for environmental noise and other policy areas.

o Additional budget being made available to tackle environmental noise by public authorities (e.g. national road agencies, Ministries) that are more aware because of the END that they need to be seen to be taking environmental noise at receptor into account more closely in policy development, in the design of road schemes, in urban planning etc.

o Providing information on the number of exposed persons that can be combined with other data sources to facilitate policy making and to carry out further research, for example, on the health effects of noise, with air quality data to assess the aggregate health benefits, if combining such data is of interest to particular Member States and for EU policy makers.

In some countries, such as the UK and Ireland, the strategic benefits of the END appear to be viewed as adding as much value as local measures that require expenditure (such as laying quiet road surfaces noise insulation and installing noise barriers).

However, views on the extent to which a strategic approach adds value were mixed since some Member States were highly focused on operational measures.

14

4.3.2 Progress of Member States in achieving the second objective of the Directive: Article 1(2) - Providing a basis for developing Community measures to reduce noise emitted by major sources

The complementary nature of the END to noise at source legislation through the process of measuring the scale of the problem through strategic noise mapping was emphasised by many stakeholders interviewed.

There is a complex interplay between the achievement of the first and second objectives of the END. The EU is still in the process of harmonising noise at receiver data (i.e. measuring the number of exposed persons) with a view to influencing noise at source legislation.

There are challenges at this stage in the legislation’s implementation in ascertaining the precise extent of influence on policy-making (as noted above, this will remain the case until CNOSSOS-EU is fully implemented). Moreover, many different factors that influence the revision of existing, and the development of new legislation besides the END. Examples are industry viewpoints on what are realistic source limits to achieve by particular dates during the policy development process, and how new possible limit values on noise at source compare with current levels. It has therefore been necessary to try to identify and isolate the specific impacts of the END.

The evaluation identified a number of different ways in which data collected through the END has already had at least some influence on EU policy makers responsible for noise at source legislation and other stakeholders that influence policy making, such as European and national industry associations and their members. For instance:

The relevance of data collected at EU level through the END was mentioned as being important to help establish baselines for impact assessment purposes. For example, the impact assessments pertaining to noise at source legislation undertaken by responsible Commission Directorate Generals (e.g. DG MOVE, DG GROW) have mentioned the END’s relevance in providing a strategic reference point in EU policy for tackling environmental noise at receptor.

The END appears to have had a greater impact to date in influencing the development of policy thinking for some transport modes than others. For example, EU policy makers in the railway sector4 appear to have paid more attention to the END and seen it as more relevant than other transport modes. In a recent impact assessment on extending TSIs on railway noise to existing rail wagon fleets rather than only new wagons, the role of an enhanced END in future was considered as one potential – long term - policy option.

Whilst EU industry associations interviewed during the course of the study were broadly supportive of the END, some industry stakeholders expressed concerns about the need to ensure an appropriate sharing of the burden between industry, which is affected by noise at source legislation, public authorities, which are responsible under the END for tackling noise at receptor and other actors, such as road construction companies5. Striking an appropriate balance between addressing the problem of environmental noise at source and at the level of receptor through a sharing of responsibility and the cost burdens between the public and private sectors was therefore emphasised as a priority by some industry stakeholders.

4 An example is the TSI on the interoperability of new rolling stock. 5 It was noted that whilst tyre manufacturers are subject to noise at source legislation, road construction companies are able to decide whether to lay quiet road surfaces or to take noise into account from the outset of the road design process without any mandatory requirements.

15

4.2 Efficiency

Efficiency can be defined as the extent to which the desired effects are being achieved at a reasonable cost. In other words, it provides an assessment of the relationship between the resources that have been deployed (inputs) and the results that have been achieved (a distinction is often made between outputs, results and impacts). At this interim stage in the evaluation, the assessment of efficiency is preliminary because some data collection is ongoing.

Data has been obtained from 11 national competent authorities on the estimated administrative costs of END implementation. There remain however data gaps in many Member States. In addition, the assessment of efficiency has involved an assessment of the costs and benefits of expenditure measures implemented through the carrying out of case studies to gather cost-benefit data (see Working Paper 3, which sets out three examples of test case studies and explains the approach to the extrapolation to the EU level and the cost-benefit assessment). To date, fourteen out of nineteen cost-benefit case studies have been completed.

The work undertaken so far on a cost-benefit analysis is described in more detail in the working paper. The workshop will provide an opportunity to discuss and validate any assumptions. 3.

Box 2 - Data collection on administrative costs

Although data estimates have been requested from all Member States, only 11 countries have so far provided data on administrative costs. Moreover, the data is often partial, for instance, only estimates of the number of full-time equivalents (FTEs) at national level were provided and it was not possible to estimate how many different people were involved in END implementation across different organisations at regional and local levels. Only in a limited number of cases were estimates available on the total estimated costs of noise mapping and action planning.

Our proposal is that even if there is an incomplete dataset, based on the limited data available, this can be scaled up to the EU28 level to arrive at a total estimate of administrative costs, but the estimates will require assumptions to be made, and appropriate caveats to be attached. For instance, data may only be available from one major city rather than for the country as a whole, so the data could be scaled up to the national level.

4.4.1 Proportionality of administrative costs of END implementation compared to the outputs, and differences – and their reasons - of administrative costs between Member States

Initial findings from the analysis indicate that:

There are limitations as to how far efficiency can be assessed through a straight forward input-output relationship, since the Directive has been implemented differently across EU countries, with some countries adopting a centralised approach whilst others a decentralised approach.

Direct comparisons between countries would not therefore yield useful results since the relationship between the administrative costs of implementing the END (measured in terms of human and financial resources, the costs of producing SNM and NAP, organising public consultations etc.) and the outputs (e.g. the collection of EU-wide data, the development of strategic noise maps by source and of action plans), is difficult to establish.

It will nevertheless be helpful during the remainder of the study exercise to collect data on the estimated administrative costs of END implementation, so that the overall costs at an EU level can be analysed. This data can then be fed into the CBA in order to assess cost-effectiveness overall relative to the health and other benefits of the Directive.

Nevertheless, general trends can be discerned based on the somewhat limited data available so far (in 11 countries), the administrative costs of END implementation have typically

16

considerably declined in Round 2 compared with Round 1 even though there was an increased volume of Strategic Noise Mapping required due to changes from the transitional threshold in Round 1 to the definitive threshold in Round 2. There were however some exceptions in this regard, where costs actually increased between Rounds (e.g. Germany, Slovakia). Among the reasons cited for the general decline in costs were:

o Additional cost burdens in Round 1 due to familiarisation with the legislation, managing the procurement process and appointing consultants to carry out noise mapping for the first time. In Round 2, there was greater familiarity among competent authorities with the process and the requirements involved in Strategic Noise Mapping and Noise Action Planning.

o However, whilst those that were involved in Round 1 gained a lot of experience, since the thresholds changed from the transitional to the definitive, there was an increase in the number of competent authorities involved in END implementation for the first time. Some evidence was discerned of the sharing of experiences between competent authorities that were involved in both Rounds 1 and 2 with those that only became involved for the first time in Round 2.

o The economic and financial crisis had an impact on the costs of noise mapping. There was less budget available for noise mapping in many EU countries. Some MS (e.g. LV, LT) faced particular budgetary constraints in R2 to carry out noise mapping. In other countries, due to greater familiarity among acoustics consultancies that carry out Strategic Noise Mapping, there was also evidence of a reduction in prices more generally, reflecting greater competition and an ability to adapt the same product for multiple clients.

o In several countries in Central, Eastern and Southern Europe, it was noted that the actual budget committed for noise mapping was often lower than the initial allocation. This reflected strong competition in public procurement contests among acoustics consultancies. In Western Europe, there was also evidence of greater competition in Round 2 and of the maturation of the market.

o There were one-off costs in Round 1, such as familiarisation with the legislation, purchasing noise mapping software licenses and IT systems, setting up the systems and processes for data collection and information and reporting to the EC. There are however also some recurring costs (e.g. purchasing GIS data).

o At this stage in the END implementation cycle, as with many pieces of EU legislation, during the initial period of implementation, there are one-off, upfront costs of END implementation, but these costs tend to fall away over time, although there are of course some recurring costs, such as the procurement of external technical expertise to produce Strategic Noise Maps and other technical support from consultants.

The fact that the costs have diminished in most EU countries between Rounds 1 and 2 may indicate that the level of costs is likely to become more acceptable to stakeholders compared with the benefits over time and the legislation’s implementation trajectory progresses.

Stakeholders generally agreed that the magnitude of benefits from END implementation should increase over time, for instance in terms of the utility of the data collected at EU level as this becomes more comparable through the implementation of CNOSSOS-EU (voluntarily in Round 3, mandatory in Round 4)6.

6 As noted earlier, through the 19 case studies focusing on the costs and benefits of groups of measures mentioned in Noise Action Plans, we will at a later stage of the study be carrying out a scaling-up exercise (see Working Paper 3).

17

Whilst assessing the cost-effectiveness of individual / groups of measures in NAPs will provide useful cost-benefit data, it should be recalled that this can only be considered as an indirect indication of the Directive’s efficiency, because the END formally requires only the drawing up of an action plan. It does not formally require Member States to implement measures, even if this is implicit.

It was acknowledged that the administrative costs to date have been relatively high. It is quite common when assessing the costs and benefits of legislation that the distribution of the administrative cost curve is centred upfront through one-off costs (albeit with some recurring costs) whereas the distribution of the benefits curve will tend to show that the most useful benefits will only occur at a much later stage during implementation (e.g. harmonised approach to noise measurement and comparable data).

Overall, most Member States thought that the administrative costs were proportionate to the anticipated future benefits, once a common, harmonised approach to noise mapping through a common assessment method has been fully implemented.

4.4.2 Possibilities to simplify the Directive or its administrative requirements

The findings so far indicate that:

As noted earlier (see relevance), some stakeholders viewed the policy objectives of the END as not being sufficiently clear, because of the focus on intermediate rather than final objectives. One means of simplifying the Directive would therefore be to review the objectives in future and consider making it clearer what the final objective of the Directive is. This would then make it more feasible to identify, standardise and specify the data requirements that will be necessary to deliver on that objective.

Stakeholder feedback found support for providing a clearer definition of some terms in the Directive, such as “agglomeration” and “quiet area”.

The scope for synergies (and ensuring greater consistency) between the Noise Actions Plans under the END and the Air Quality Plans under the Air Quality Directive was mentioned as an area that could be further explored.

4.2.3 Efficiency of reporting mechanisms

This question considers the efficiency of reporting mechanism and its contribution to the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the Directive’s implementation.

The reporting mechanism for Strategic Noise Maps – set up by the EEA in close conjunction with the EC - was generally regarded as being efficient and effective because it allows the Member States to submit data relating to Strategic Noise Mapping directly through Reportnet7, a centralised data repository.

There were however complaints from some Member States that the information and data requested by the EEA was sometimes too detailed, and went beyond the minimum requirements stipulated in the END.

Information on Noise Action Plans was seen less readily available which makes it more difficult to obtain a clear picture as to progress against implementation reporting by the

7 http://www.eionet.europa.eu/reportnet - Data Exchange Modules (DEMs) are used to collect and validate data delivered by the countries. Most DEMs are Excel templates that are converted to XML by CDR. Others are online webforms.

18

Member States. Two national competent authorities commented that the EEA should extend its quality checks of noise maps to Noise Action Plans.

An issue raised by some END stakeholders was that the Member States have to provide reporting data on noise maps by a specific cut-off date. Although recognising that this is necessary for the EEA’s reporting purposes (e.g. for the Noise in Europe report 2014), if the cut-off date is missed, then the data will show considerable implementation gaps.

Another aspect of reporting that received comments from several national competent authorities was the requirement to inform the Commission and the EEA 2 years ahead of carrying out noise mapping what the major noise sources are that are going to be measured and reported on. The concern was that there could be changes in the intervening period meaning that what is actually reported may differ from what was meant to be reported. However, the EC / EEA have made clear that they take such factors into account when assessing the completeness of reporting information. Nevertheless, there was a concern among stakeholders that this could be interpreted as non-compliance.

Overall, it is not the reporting mechanism that is the primary problem. Rather, the main challenge is that not all Member States have provided timely reporting data to the EEA. There are consequently gaps in the availability of data and information. This was attributed to various factors, such as the way in which the END was implemented at national level and the 12 months’ timeframe between the submission of SNMs and NAPs, which was seen as being too short to allow sufficient time for consultation among different policy makers with an interest in the NAP (and responsibility for public budgets) and for effective public consultation to take place and the results to be incorporated into the finalisation of NAPs.

Furthermore, some Member States pointed to a lack of sufficient guidance as to the reporting responsibilities at different levels of administrative governance in-country. These are however purposely not specified in the Directive, but are left up to the Member States to determine under the subsidiarity principle. A consequence of the fact that the Directive does not set out reporting obligations at sub-national level was that some national competent authorities (e.g. Denmark, France, the Netherlands and other countries), felt that they did not have sufficient enforcement powers to compel local authorities to provide the necessary reporting information and data to enable them to report to the EEA/ Commission on time even if those administrative bodies had been designated within the national implementation system as competent authorities. This has led to knock-on effects such as additional delays in the submission of national reporting data to the EEA/EC.

4.3 EU value added

The assessment of EU value added has considered how far the END has added value over and above what could have been achieved at a national level alone. The counterfactual, i.e. what would have happened in the absence of the END, and what would happen were the END to be repealed, will also need to be considered during the latter part of the study.

4.5.1 Overall EU added value of the Environmental Noise Directive

The assessment of the added value of a European approach to the management of environmental noise is linked to the issue of the different competences of the European Commission and Member States respectively. It is important to recap that the EC is responsible for noise at source legislation and for ensuring effective coordination in END implementation, whereas the Member States have competence for tackling environmental noise and for the implementation of the END at national level, in line with subsidiarity principles. The implications of this need to be considered in addressing this evaluation question. This means for instance that no limit values at receiver are set in the Directive. This along with their enforceability are instead left to the discretion of the Member States.

19

Among the emerging findings are that:

Overall, 93% of respondents to the online survey of public authorities agreed with the statement that the Directive has added value to what Member States were already doing, for instance by:

o Fostering a “common approach” through the development of common assessment methods;

o Raising public awareness and putting environmental noise on the policy agenda (which would not have occurred in absence of the END);

o Introducing a degree of accountability and benchmarking as to what national authorities are doing to mitigate noise

The END has added value by putting in place a common legal framework across the EU. Many Member States did not have environmental noise legislation prior to the adoption of the END, and its transposition into national legislation.

In many new Member States, such as Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia, the END was seen as having added value, for instance through the existence of the legislation, which required national legislation on environmental noise to be developed through transposition processes, putting environmental noise on the domestic political agenda for the first time, or at least increasing its perceived importance.

In such countries, the Directive has made a significant positive contribution to putting environmental noise on the political agenda and in raising awareness among policy makers, politicians and the wider public about the nature and extent of the problem.

There are however quite a number of Member States whose noise legislation dates as far back as the 1970s, 1980s and the 1990s (Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal and the UK). A minority of stakeholders in these countries maintained that added value has been limited given that there was existing national legislation on environmental noise and initiatives. However, most interviewees acknowledged that the main benefit of the END was in promoting a more “common approach”. The requirement to produce SNM using the common Lden and Lnight indicators was recognised as making the data more comparable in Europe.

Another advantage of the END even in countries where there was existing legislation is that because there is a European Directive, it has raised the visibility of environmental noise issues with colleagues in other policy areas.

Looking beyond this feedback from our research, it should also be noted that the EU also needs to collect data for its own purposes, which include providing data on the extent of noise exposure by transport source. This provides an important input for baseline data to inform the development and revision of noise at source legislation.

4.5.2 Attribution of implemented measures to the END

A further question in relation to added value is the extent to which measures implemented to date mentioned in Noise Action Plans were implemented specifically due to the END, or would have gone ahead regardless, due to national legislative requirements or because there were drivers unrelated to environmental noise.

In some instances, stakeholders reported that many measures would have gone ahead irrespective of the END, because there are other primary drivers of measures (e.g. strengthening air quality, improving road safety, pre-planned infrastructure upgrades) that have important external effects as they contribute to noise reduction.

20

In Round 1, some instances were identified (e.g. in the UK, Germany and other countries) of measures that were already planned before the END came into effect but were mentioned in Round 1 NAPs as END measures. This is perfectly acceptable since budgetary limitations may make it inevitable that the NAPs bring disparate measures and initiatives in different policy areas (e.g. planning, public transport, road infrastructure development) together.

4.5.3 Action at EU level

The feedback from the online survey of public authorities indicates that there is a strong support for continued action at EU level. This partly also reflects the fact that stakeholders recognised that bringing about a common approach, with harmonised noise assessment methods through CNOSSOS, is a long-term process.

In terms of feedback on the anticipated timescales, in response to the question when approximately do you expect the objectives of the Directive to be fully achieved at EU level? the majority of public authorities either could not estimate when this was likely to be the case, or estimated that the END’s objectives will not be achieved before 2020.

Sixty per cent of public authorities also believe it will be 2020 or after until the objective relating to the development of a “common approach” will be achieved. Relatively few public authorities considered the END objectives to be close to full implementation, strongly indicating the need for continued action at EU level.

The second objective of the END of laying the basis for future source legislation, appears to be a long way off being realised. 91% of public authorities could either not estimate a completion year or believed it would not be before 2020 or later. The interview feedback found that this reflected the longer timeframe involved in achieving comparable and comprehensive data through a common approach before EU policy making in respect of noise at source legislation can be can fully informed by noise exposure data.

Some stakeholders believe that the full added value will only materialise in subsequent reporting rounds because:

o The implementation of expenditure measures mentioned in Noise Action Plans often requires several years. Moreover, whilst the costs will tend to be incurred upfront, assessing the full benefits requires a long-term time horizon.

o Noise maps and population exposure data will only become more comparable across Europe once CNOSSOS is fully implemented from Round 4 (2022).

4.5.4 Further enhancement of European added value

A further question analysed was whether there are any ways in which the European added value of the END could be further enhanced. A number of suggestions were made in this regard, for instance:

It was suggested that Member States could be required to actually implement noise mitigation measures rather than to produce NAPs and identify measures, which is a more limited ambition.

The added value could be strengthened by detailing specifications for quiet areas in the future (Sweden).

Several European industry associations (and a small number of national competent authorities interviewed) pointed out that added value could be strengthened by providing EU funding to support for Member States to co-finance noise mitigation and abatement measures.

Among the other comments received were that:

21

There is scepticism amongst most stakeholders as to whether introducing EU noise limit values would be sensible, since environmental noise at receptor was viewed as a domestic issue best tackled at local level, making it difficult or impossible to implement a harmonised approach, .

There was support in 15 Member States for reviewing the 12 month period between the requirement to submit and report on Strategic Noise Maps and the requirement to produce NAPs. However, there were differences of opinion as to whether the five year END implementation cycle should be extended, with a risk of a loss of experience among civil servants in managing the SNM and NAP development process and technical expertise among acoustics consultants to carry out noise mapping, if the reporting lifecycle were to be extended to 10 years. That being said, the flexibility already in the Directive to only produce new noise maps once every five years if there has been a change was appreciated.

5. Conclusions

5.1 Overall conclusions

1. The drawing up and initial period of implementation of the END represents a major strategic achievement towards the assessment of environmental noise on a harmonised basis. Although it will take a long time to achieve fully comparable data based on a harmonised approach, previously, there was no common EU-wide approach to quantifying the number of exposed persons to environmental noise at receptor.

2. The actions put in place to implement the END - strategic noise mapping and the preparation of noise action plans - provide a potentially effective mechanism to deliver the information and data needs to support the implementation of Art. 1(1) of the Directive and to achieve the second objective (“to provide a basis for the development of Community measures to reduce noise emitted by major sources”).

3. Nonetheless, the Directive is not yet realising its full potential to achieve its two key objectives set out in Articles 1(1) and 1(2).

4. The first objective of a “common approach” – Clear progress has already been made towards a “common approach”, for instance, through the development of CNOSSOS-EU and common assessment methods. However, since this will not be fully implemented until 20198, the achievement of a “common approach” can only realistically be realised over the longer term, given the outstanding challenges

a. The second objective of informing the development of Community measures (inter alia noise at source legislation). The END has already provided a source of inspiration for – and influenced - the development of new, and the revision of existing legislation. However, the main outstanding challenge is that there is a need to improve the comparability, quality and completeness of population exposure data so that the END can provide more complete baseline data.

5.2 Relevance

The objectives of the Directive remain relevant. There is a perceived need among most END stakeholders for a “common approach” to the assessment of environmental noise, and that the collection of adequately harmonised and standardised data at EU level remains an important and relevant pre-requisite for strengthening the evidence base for reviewing existing EU noise at source legislation. The unstated longer-term objective of the Directive, to protect public health, by monitoring the number of persons subject to noise exposure at particular 5 dB categories in order to

8 Member States have to transpose by 31 December 2018. All maps produced later will need to be with the new method.

22

assess the impact of measures identified in Action Plans also remains relevant (even though at present, the fact that there is no requirement to actually implement measures in NAPs) weakens the Directive’s overall coherence.

5.3 Coherence

With the exception of two definitions (agglomerations, quiet areas), the Directive was viewed as being internally coherent. It was also recognised as fully respecting subsidiarity in its implementation in that it makes the Member States responsible for setting out their own implementation arrangements.

With regard to “external” coherence (e.g. with other EU legislation), the Directive was seen as being strongly coherent with other EU legislation to tackle noise at source Most stakeholders did not perceive there to be any overlap or duplication between the END and other EU environmental legislation. A small number of stakeholders did however raise concerns about possible areas of overlap, but these were dependent on how different Directives were implemented at national level.

5.4 Effectiveness

Considerable progress has been made in achieving the first objective of the END of a common approach to noise assessment methods through the CNOSSOS-EU process. Nevertheless, the full potential impact of the END has not yet been realised, due to the lack of a comprehensive and comparable dataset across EU28.

In terms of progress towards achieving the second objective of the Directive, (Article 1(2)) providing a basis for the development of Community measures to reduce noise emitted by major sources, the data collected on noise exposure levels has already been useful for EU policy makers. However, its utility is limited by lack of data completeness and lack of comparability.

The late submission (and/ or the non-submission) of reporting information and data by some Member States in Round 2 risks undermining what the EU is trying to achieve through the END (e.g. comprehensive and comparable baseline to inform the development of source legislation). It also makes effective monitoring and evaluation difficult.

5.5 Efficiency (except the CBA)

A cost-benefit analysis is being produced, based on case studies, with a proposal to extrapolate the data to the EU level (see Working Paper 3). In this paper, conclusions can nevertheless be summarised in relation to other aspects of efficiency.

The administrative costs of END implementation have typically declined considerably in reporting Round 2 compared with Round 1. This was found to be partly due to the economic crisis, but equally due to one-off, upfront costs of END implementation, but these costs tend to fall away over time, although there are of course some recurring costs, such as the procurement of external technical expertise to produce Strategic Noise Maps and other technical support from consultants.

The overall administrative costs were considered to be proportionate to the anticipated future benefits. Although the benefits will only be realised in full after 2017, it is not uncommon that the cost curve in implementing new legislation is centred on the initial stages of implementation (including one-off costs) whereas the benefits of bringing about a common, harmonised approach to noise mapping through a common assessment method will only fully materialise over the longer term.

•The reporting mechanism for Strategic Noise Maps – set up by the EEA in close conjunction with the EC - was generally regarded as being efficient and effective, although the quality check could perhaps be extended to include Noise Action Plans.

23

5.6 EU added value

The END has a clear added value for EU policy makers who need complete and comparable data at EU level in order to inform the development of new and the revision of existing noise at source legislation, and to monitor the impact of environmental noise at receptor on health (although this objective is more implicit, as noted earlier, it is nevertheless important). The END was also broadly recognised as adding value for Member States, even those where national legislation on environmental noise was already in place, for instance by:

Fostering a “common approach” through the development of common assessment methods;

Raising public awareness and putting environmental noise on the policy agenda (which would not have occurred in absence of the END);

Introducing a degree of accountability and benchmarking as to what national authorities are doing to mitigate noise and encouraging them to more explicitly recognise noise in policy and planning documents and through more dedicated expenditure measures;

The above strategic benefits are important to note considering that some noise mitigation measures would have taken place irrespective of the END, either because the measures were pre-planned, or because noise was not the primary driver, but road safety, air quality etc. with important secondary benefits for noise mitigation, abatement and reduction).

To fully achieve the Directives’ objectives, further EU level action is needed to complement the measures being implemented by Member States.

6. Questions for workshop participants

1. Do you have any comments on the findings of the evaluation as described in this working paper?

2. Do you broadly agree with the main evaluation findings from the conclusions?

3. What are your views on the contribution CNOSSOS will achieve, the outstanding difficulties and possible means of overcoming these?

4. Do you agree with the proposed possible enhancements of the Directive proposed in the context of this evaluation, e.g.

a. Scepticism towards noise limit values.

b. Revisiting the duration of the five yearly cycles for maps and action plans, and the delay between the preparation of Strategic Noise Maps and Noise Action Plans and their submission to the Commission.

c. Detailed specifications of quiet areas.

d. Explore EU funding support for Member States to co-finance noise mitigation and abatement measures.

e. And do you have any further suggestions or proposals as to how the efficiency, effectiveness and impact of the Directive could be improved?

5. What would happen if the Directive were to be repealed?