1. Update on EU developments
Ivana Juraga
DG Environment
EIONET noise workshop, Copenhagen, 21 September 2016

2. Methods to assess the harmful effects of noise

3. Annex III of END
establish methods to assess the harmful effects of noise by means of dose-effect relations
should concern:
annoyance & Lden
sleep disturbance & Lnight
Process
preliminary work started
close attention to be paid to WHO Europe's work on producing revised Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region (expected end of this year)
Initially draft and vote expected for 2016, but delayed due to delays in WHO process

4. Next steps Process preliminary work started
close attention to be paid to WHO Europe's work on producing revised Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region (expected end of this year)
Initially draft and vote expected for 2016, but delayed due to delays in WHO process

5. Evaluation of Environmental Noise Directive

6. Regulatory Fitness and Performance
In parallel with the work on the development of the Environmental Noise Directive, the Directive is undergoing an evaluation in the context of the European Commission's Regulatory Fitness and Performance programme (REFIT).
Once implemented for a sufficient period of time, initiatives are evaluated to check their performance against standard criteria.
REFIT (Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme) identifies opportunities to reduce regulatory burdens and simplify existing laws in order to ensure that the objectives of the legislation or policy can be reached in a more effective and efficient way.
It fits in the context of the Better Regulation package and the Commission's commitment to a simple and predictable regulatory framework.
aim:
assess existing EU legislation
to make it more effective and efficient
without compromising policy objectives

7. END REFIT Objectives Implementation designation competent authorities
noise limits and targets
quiet areas
strategic noise mapping
action plans
An update of the 2011 implementation report
Evaluation
effective and efficient?
coherent with other EU legislation?
match current needs?
additional value?
benefits, costs and burdens
Retrospective, with limited prospective elements
The review of the END in this context is retrospective.
It looks, on the one hand, at implementation.
We all know that implementation of the END is delayed, so this process looks at various ways of END implementation in the different MS, and examine what problems and obstacles to good implementation exist.
On the other hand, we are also evaluating the Directive.
The evaluation aims to respond to the following questions:
have objectives been met in effective and efficient manner?
is END coherent with other EU legislation?
does it continue to match current needs?
does it provide additional value as opposed to national measures alone?
look at benefits, costs and burdens

8. END REFIT Methodology Desk research Cost-benefit analysis
Interviews with stakeholders
Online survey
Validation workshop
Online public consultation
work led by external contractor (CSES/Accon/URS)
EU internal Steering Group (SG, MOVE, RTD, JRC, GROW, EEA)
Methodology started from desk research and a cost-benefit analysis.
Included an extensive consultaiton of stakeholders through questionnaires/interviews/workshop/online consultation
I will proceed by presenting the preliminary findings of the evaluation, based on the contractor’s report. On the basis of this report and other sources, DG Environment is drafting a Staff Working Document on the evaluation. This document will be drafted in cooperation with other DGs and will place the evaluation in the context of the REFIT.
Timeline
Nov 2014 – beginning of process
spring 2015 – collection of data
Sept 2015 – workshop with stakeholders
Dec March 2016 – online public consultation

9. Preliminary Implementation findings
Completeness of reporting for current round of noise mapping and action planning
Entity
In agglomerations
Outside agglomerations
Road noise
Railway noise
Aircraft noise
Industry noise
Major roads
Major railways
Major airports
Noise maps completed
78%
75%
52%
69%
79%
73%
Action plans completed
49%
47% (average)
41% (average)
43%
[1] 22 out of 28 countries
[2] 19 out of 26 countries – 2 countries did not have any major railways in 2010
eveloped criteria/guidelines to identify them, but very few have gone the further step of actually designating any quiet areas.
Completeness of reporting for current round of noise mapping and action planning
Source: Study. Noise maps: END_DF4_DF8_Results 2012 sheet for R2 provided by the European Topic Centre on Air Pollution and Climate Change Mitigation. Analysis last updated in June Action plans: Data in the EIONET reporting system. Analysis last updated in November 2015.

10. Preliminary Evaluation findings 1
Relevance
Objectives remain relevant
Directive has a relevant, but non-stated, implicit objective: protection of citizens from excessive noise
Coherence
Coherent with noise-at-source legislation
Some small issues for improvement
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.)

11. Preliminary Evaluation findings 2
EU added value
Important to ensure level playing field and inform source legislation
Not yet fully there
Effectiveness
Common approach: introduction of CNOSSOS an important step
Informing source legislation: not yet there
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. Preliminary Evaluation findings 3
Efficiency
Administrative costs: human resources in authorities + subcontracting for maps and action plans
Median cost per inhabitant:
Noise mapping €0.15
Action planning €0.03
Costs declined in second round
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”).

13. Preliminary Evaluation findings 4
Cost-benefit analysis
Costs: administrative costs + noise-reduction measures
Benefits: reduction of impacts on human health
Favourable cost-benefit ratio of 1:29 overall
Ratios vary substantially between measures
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. End 2016: Evaluation Report
Next steps
End 2016: Evaluation Report
Early 2017: Implementation Report and Action Plan

15. Fitness check of environmental monitoring and reporting

16. The objective
To develop more modern, efficient and effective regulatory monitoring, building on the past successes, to support the following specific objectives:
Better results on the ground (i.e. higher implementation and compliance rates);
Less pressure on public and private sector contributing to reporting (administrative burden reduction);
Better information and empowerment of citizens (i.e. transparent and public available information);
Facilitating Better Regulation in environment policy (i.e. having the evidence base for evaluation and IAs).

17. The scope
Monitoring and Reporting of all environment legislation falling under DG ENV remit (some 55 pieces of legislation)
Coherence to other policies and DGs (Inter-Service Group, Focus Group)
Link to other REFITs
Energy/Clima Fitness Check
Noise REFIT
Many others
Will address EEA regulation / EIONET dataflows
Assessment criteria: Efficiency, effectiveness, EU added value, relevance and coherence

18. Three areas of work Area 1: the timing Area 2: the process
Area 3: the content
Area 2: the process
Area 1: the timing
Lower frequency of reporting
Better synchronisation
Efficiency gains through
automisation
harmonisation
centralisation
Less data requested
Ensure key performance Indicators
Less text more automised data

19. Next steps Results of supporting studies available in autumn
Presentation of Fitness Check evaluation and Action Plan in 2017
3rd Stakeholder Workshop in September (in the margins of the INSPIRE Conference:

20. Thank you for your attention!