1. Agenda Welcome, agenda and minutes Results of the evaluation
Results of the implementation study
12:30-14:00 Lunch break
Upcoming round of noise maps
NOISE IN EUROPE conference on 24 April
WHO Guidelines on noise
Implementation of Annex II
AOB (corrigendum, tool to calculate impact)

2. Bernhard Berger, Marco Paviotti DG Environment, European Commission
The Evaluation of the Environmental Noise Directive Expert Group Meeting 28 February 2017
Bernhard Berger, Marco Paviotti
DG Environment, European Commission

3. The Directive
Directive 2002/49/EC: achieve a common European approach to avoid, prevent or reduce the effects of exposure to environmental noise harmful for health
Actions: noise mapping + action planning in 5-year cycles
Excludes: limit values + prescribed measures

4. Interview Programme Online survey Validation workshop Desk research
Methodology
Interview Programme
Online survey
Validation workshop
Desk research
Case studies

5. Public consultation from 21 December 2015 to 28 March 2016
Type of respondent
Number of replies
% of total replies
As a single citizen
1008
70,5
As an association of citizens
121
8,5
Private company - non SME 17
1,2
Private company - SME 33
2,3
Public company 51
3,6
Academic/scientist 52
National/regional/local authority 89
6,2
Industrial or trade association
Consumer association 4
0,3
Other 21
1,5
Total
1429
100,0
EU added value: Overall EU involvement seen as crucial, important to inform source legislation and to have a clear picture of the situation. In many MS, EU action is seen as the key step for putting the issue on the political agenda.

6. The evaluation questions
Relevant
Coherent
Effective
Efficient
EU added value
Retrospective, with limited prospective elements

7. Relevance Objectives remain relevant, as
Findings Evaluation
Relevance
Objectives remain relevant, as
noise remains a major environmental health problem
data needed to further develop EU noise-at-source legislation
Relevance: The 2 objectives of the Directive remain relevant (common approach to noise assessment, inform source legislation). In addition, it would be necessary to spell out the implicit objective of the Directive, namely to protect citizens from excessive noise, which also is highly relevant. Some stakeholders advocate for limits, but the outcome is inconclusive.
Coherence: Directive overall coherent, some small issues could be improved (some definitions, logic in text etc.)

8. largely internally coherent
Findings Evaluation
Coherence
largely internally coherent
external coherence with other relevant EU legislation
Coherent also with national noise control legislation
Relevance: The 2 objectives of the Directive remain relevant (common approach to noise assessment, inform source legislation). In addition, it would be necessary to spell out the implicit objective of the Directive, namely to protect citizens from excessive noise, which also is highly relevant. Some stakeholders advocate for limits, but the outcome is inconclusive.
Coherence: Directive overall coherent, some small issues could be improved (some definitions, logic in text etc.)

9. Effectiveness the objectives
1 To define a common approach intended to avoid, prevent or reduce on a prioritised basis the harmful effects, including annoyance, due to exposure to environmental noise. 2 To provide a basis for developing Community measures to reduce noise emitted by the major sources, in particular road and rail vehicles and infrastructure, aircraft, outdoor and industrial equipment and mobile machinery.

10. Progress has been made (CNOSSOS) but…
Findings Evaluation
Effectiveness
Progress has been made (CNOSSOS) but…
..effects have not yet materialised
…exposure data not yet been used by the EU
…impact cannot be fully evaluated at the moment (long-term effects)
EU added value: Overall EU involvement seen as crucial, important to inform source legislation and to have a clear picture of the situation. In many MS, EU action is seen as the key step for putting the issue on the political agenda.

11. Public Consultation
Assessment of progress towards the first objective of the END: a common approach - Article 1(1)
EU added value: Overall EU involvement seen as crucial, important to inform source legislation and to have a clear picture of the situation. In many MS, EU action is seen as the key step for putting the issue on the political agenda.

12. Public Consultation
Do you think that the END has provided a good basis for developing source-based regulatory measures?
EU added value: Overall EU involvement seen as crucial, important to inform source legislation and to have a clear picture of the situation. In many MS, EU action is seen as the key step for putting the issue on the political agenda.

13. In total €18 million per year for EU-28
Findings Evaluation
Efficiency
Administrative costs low
Noise mapping €0.15
Action planning €0.03
In total €18 million per year for EU-28
Efficiency: Administrative costs overall reasonable, declined in many MS from first round to second reporting round due to one-off costs.
The median costs per inhabitant (out of the total population of 11 EU MS who provided the necessary data) for noise mapping – circa €0.15 – and for action planning - €0.03 – were low.
The analysis revealed that the END has made a positive contribution to reducing population exposure to high levels of environmental noise. Whilst the magnitude of costs and benefits of noise mitigation measures was found to vary between countries and sources, a positive cost-benefit relationship was identified under a range of scenarios, where the scenarios reflect both differences in the underlying assumptions regarding the extent to which costs and benefits can be attributed to the END and the range of uncertainty in relation to the value of impacts on human health. The base case scenario results in a favourable cost-benefit ratio (of 1:29) overall, although the ratios vary substantially between measures. The benefits are likely to be understated, since the analysis only considered the effects of noise reduction on the ‘highly annoyed’ and ‘highly sleep disturbed’ populations. It should be noted that whilst the CBA is an important element of assessing efficiency, measure-level data only provides a proxy, since NAP measure implementation is not compulsory and does not take into account the strategic, qualitative benefits of the END (see impacts under “effectiveness”).

14. Administrative costs for some Member State
Findings Evaluation
Administrative costs for some Member State
Member State
Noise mapping cost in € per capita rounded in R2
Action planning cost in € per capita rounded in R2
Bulgaria
0.17
0.01
Croatia
0.13
0.03
Czech Republic
0.16
0.02
Finland
0.18
0.09
Germany
0.11
0.29
Latvia
0.04
Lithuania
0.28
0.07
Poland
no data
Portugal
0.15
0.05
Slovakia
0.56
United Kingdom
Average
0.06
Median
Efficiency: Administrative costs overall reasonable, declined in many MS from first round to second reporting round due to one-off costs.
The median costs per inhabitant (out of the total population of 11 EU MS who provided the necessary data) for noise mapping – circa €0.15 – and for action planning - €0.03 – were low.
The analysis revealed that the END has made a positive contribution to reducing population exposure to high levels of environmental noise. Whilst the magnitude of costs and benefits of noise mitigation measures was found to vary between countries and sources, a positive cost-benefit relationship was identified under a range of scenarios, where the scenarios reflect both differences in the underlying assumptions regarding the extent to which costs and benefits can be attributed to the END and the range of uncertainty in relation to the value of impacts on human health. The base case scenario results in a favourable cost-benefit ratio (of 1:29) overall, although the ratios vary substantially between measures. The benefits are likely to be understated, since the analysis only considered the effects of noise reduction on the ‘highly annoyed’ and ‘highly sleep disturbed’ populations. It should be noted that whilst the CBA is an important element of assessing efficiency, measure-level data only provides a proxy, since NAP measure implementation is not compulsory and does not take into account the strategic, qualitative benefits of the END (see impacts under “effectiveness”).

15. Cost-benefit analysis
Findings Evaluation
Cost-benefit analysis
all costs (implementing measures + admin costs)
Benefits: reduction of impacts on human health for 4 end-points
(annoyance, sleep disturbance, acute myocardial infarction and hypertension)
Efficiency: Administrative costs overall reasonable, declined in many MS from first round to second reporting round due to one-off costs.
The median costs per inhabitant (out of the total population of 11 EU MS who provided the necessary data) for noise mapping – circa €0.15 – and for action planning - €0.03 – were low.
The analysis revealed that the END has made a positive contribution to reducing population exposure to high levels of environmental noise. Whilst the magnitude of costs and benefits of noise mitigation measures was found to vary between countries and sources, a positive cost-benefit relationship was identified under a range of scenarios, where the scenarios reflect both differences in the underlying assumptions regarding the extent to which costs and benefits can be attributed to the END and the range of uncertainty in relation to the value of impacts on human health. The base case scenario results in a favourable cost-benefit ratio (of 1:29) overall, although the ratios vary substantially between measures. The benefits are likely to be understated, since the analysis only considered the effects of noise reduction on the ‘highly annoyed’ and ‘highly sleep disturbed’ populations. It should be noted that whilst the CBA is an important element of assessing efficiency, measure-level data only provides a proxy, since NAP measure implementation is not compulsory and does not take into account the strategic, qualitative benefits of the END (see impacts under “effectiveness”).

16. Impact pathway Findings Evaluation
EU added value: Overall EU involvement seen as crucial, important to inform source legislation and to have a clear picture of the situation. In many MS, EU action is seen as the key step for putting the issue on the political agenda.

17. Methodology Findings Evaluation
18 test cases, but eliminating the agglomerations (incomplete data)
3 scenarios:
Worse case
Base case (most likely)
Best case
Considering the variation of the value of disability weights, VOLYs or the extent to which the change in the size of the population exposed to noise can be attributed to the implementation of the END)
Assessment over a 25-year period (2002 to 2026) and discounted using the 4% social discount
EU added value: Overall EU involvement seen as crucial, important to inform source legislation and to have a clear picture of the situation. In many MS, EU action is seen as the key step for putting the issue on the political agenda.

18. 18 Case studies Findings Evaluation
Airports: Glasgow, Stuttgart, Athens, Vienna, Frankfurt
Roads: Austria (2,500km) and Greece (75km)
Rails: Austria (2218 km) and Slovakia (506 km)
Aggl.: Augsburg, München, Nürnberg, Essen, Düsseldorf, Malmö, Bukarest, Bratislava, Helsinki
EU added value: Overall EU involvement seen as crucial, important to inform source legislation and to have a clear picture of the situation. In many MS, EU action is seen as the key step for putting the issue on the political agenda.

19. Findings Evaluation Total costs Total benefits Cost-benefit
Aggregate assessment of total costs and benefits at the EU scale under the base case (most likely) scenario (million €)
Total costs
Total benefits
Cost-benefit
Major airports
438
2 854
1:7
Major roads
667
24 248
1:36
Major rail 82
7 317
1:89
TOTAL
1 190
34 418
1:29
EU added value: Overall EU involvement seen as crucial, important to inform source legislation and to have a clear picture of the situation. In many MS, EU action is seen as the key step for putting the issue on the political agenda.
The Directive is very efficient

20. inform source legislation
Findings Evaluation
EU added value
level playing field
inform source legislation
not yet delivering the EU added value that it could provide
EU added value: Overall EU involvement seen as crucial, important to inform source legislation and to have a clear picture of the situation. In many MS, EU action is seen as the key step for putting the issue on the political agenda.

21. Public Consultation What would happen if the END were repealed?
EU added value: Overall EU involvement seen as crucial, important to inform source legislation and to have a clear picture of the situation. In many MS, EU action is seen as the key step for putting the issue on the political agenda.

22. Adjusting to new regulatory developments
Findings Evaluation
Issues to be addressed
Hidden objective
Reporting timing
Adjusting to new regulatory developments
Noise not a priority
Implementation provisions
Clarification of definitions
EU added value: Overall EU involvement seen as crucial, important to inform source legislation and to have a clear picture of the situation. In many MS, EU action is seen as the key step for putting the issue on the political agenda.

24. Next step
The Implementation report – according to Article 11 – is planned for April 2017 – in time for the conference - and will contain the action plan