10th Noise Expert Group BREYDEL auditorium, Brussels, Belgium

Agenda (1) Welcome (2) Adoption of the agenda and of the minutes of the last meeting (3) Update on recent policy initiatives regarding noise and concerning: (a) road noise (b) railway noise (c) aircraft noise (d) outdoor machinery noise (4) Update from the World Health Organisation on the development of the environmental noise guidelines for the European Region 12:30-13:30 Lunch break (5) Based on the last Noise Expert Group on future EU environment noise policy, presentation from the Commission on first ideas on how to assess the feasibility of the proposed actions. (6) Collection of views on: (1) what elements to include and how to model future scenarios for the noise policy, (2) what elements and how to include the interlink between European, international and national obligations and activities, and (3) what parameters and objectives to consider in assessing how to uptake the EU noise policy. (7) AOB

What? Discussion on the future EU Environment Noise Policy, based on the proposal made by the Commission in its 2nd Implementation Report and the outcome of the "Noise in Europe" conference from 24 April 2017 This is meant to give stakeholders the opportunity to present their views and ideas in particular on: • the ambition of the Directive (e.g. introduction of concrete targets at EU level) • to broaden the scope of the Directive beyond transport and industry sources (e.g. include more roads, rails and airports, think about wind turbines) • to lower the thresholds for noise mapping, currently excluding significant sources of noise (i.e. below 55 Lden and 50 Lnight) • to further clarify some definitions (such as "Quiet Areas", "Agglomerations", "Harmful effects”)."

Summary from the Conference The European Commission organised a conference on "Noise in Europe" to raise awareness on the negative impacts of noise from transport on human health. At the Conference, the WHO representative confirmed that noise remains a serious threat to human health, causing cardiovascular diseases, including ischaemic heart disease, stroke and diabetes, sleep disturbance, annoyance (stress) and cognitive impairment of children. The WHO is in the final stage of the revision of its guidelines and recommendations on maximum noise levels to protect against all serious adverse health effects. The recent exposure data from the European Environment Agency (EEA) demonstrate that more than 100 million European citizens are affected by high noise levels negatively impacting human health. The recent evaluation under the Commissions' REFIT Programme has shown that the Directive is generally fit for purpose, but needs to be better implemented. The Commission will support EU Member States in this, for instance through the Environmental Implementation Review. Involvement of stakeholders will be key when further reflecting on several aspects of the EU noise policy identified during the evaluation and the conference, such as: to possibly increase the ambition of the Directive and/or of the associated legislation addressing noise at source, including the possible introduction of concrete targets at EU level through binding science-based limit/target values; to broaden the scope of the Directive beyond transport and industry sources; to lower the thresholds for noise mapping, currently excluding significant sources of noise (i.e. below 55 Lden and 50 Lnight) and; to further clarify some definitions (such as "Quiet Areas", "Agglomerations", "Harmful effects”). Public funding for noise reduction measures - covering the full life cycle costs - was considered to be important. Also, costs have to be internalised, respecting the polluter pays principle and thus ensuring a level playing field. Clear public procurement rules are crucial. Increased stringency of EU at source standards needs to be balanced against other effective measures such as road surface improvements and urban planning measures. Interconnections between noise and urban planning actions should be enhanced. End-of-pipe measures such as operating restrictions (mainly during the night) should - according to transport sector representatives - be avoided, while at the same time citizens claim that sleep at night has to be respected.

Summary from the last NEG (30/11/2017) a. Limits or targets to set progressive & technologically feasible targets, EU Limit values (controversial positions) if yes, limits should mirror WHO recommended levels b. Implementation of action plans action plans interventions should be better implemented concrete actions on most cost-effective interventions public consultation to take place and be effective c. Link with at source legislation EU plan for reducing noise progressively lowering limits for at source legislation limits triggered by EU targets and promote technically feasible solutions polluters' pays principle d. Lowering of the reporting bands WHO limits should be used for thresholds for reporting if meaningful data can be produced e. Broadening of the scope of the Directive wind turbine leisure noise smaller agglomerations f. Role of urban planning urban planning and energy should be integrated in the policies set a special protection depending on use of land, specifically concerning schools and hospital. move noise to quiet areas or protect quiet areas?

Summary from the last NEG (30/11/2017) g. Noise indicators introducing an event based index an indicator for the health personal risk for the citizens to better understand the problem h. Protection of night the ban of the flights during the night (controversial?) i. Links to other pollutants deadlines and definitions aligned with air quality trade-offs amongst pollutants when setting policies

How to assess the feasibility of the collected ideas The Commission intends to restructure the ideas collected, grouping them in between: streamlining EU legislation: framework legislation (END Directive) at source legislation (e.g.: 540/2014, TSI-Noise,…) streamlining international legislation (e.g. UNECE Regulations, ICAO Annex 16) guidance/soft legislation (e.g.: Urban Planning, Green Public Procurement, 598/2014) funding dividing between direct actions on solutions (e.g.: limits on cars) and indirect actions to local/national authorities (e.g.: polluter-pays, EU targets or limits) re-assess the impact on health thanks to the latest WHO evidence and maps structure ideas collected into the (potential) intervention logic figure out which ideas would be (technically and legally feasible) cost-effective and cost-efficient select the most promising ones assess how they could be implemented depending on (few) different ambition levels discuss this with the NEG!

The Commission intends to proceed analysing the stakeholders' input Task 1: develop a model with scenarios of future noise exposure reduction as a result of the implementation of different measures, both at EU level (EU legislation) and at local level (based on local/national action plans reported to the Commission) and per sector (road, rail, air). Quantify and monetise the health benefits, the real estate gains, the working power gains and the savings in health care of different scenarios. Task 2: develop a model for the causal link between EU legislation and National legislation and the implementation of noise reduction measures, taking into consideration costs, economic constrains and uncertainties and potential for the industry to deliver innovative products. Task 3: combining the results of task 1 and task 2 assess the combination or combinations of factors and measures that could lead to the most cost-effective and cost-efficient reduction of noise as a function of (few) different ambition levels.

Task 1: what elements to include and how to model future scenarios for the noise policy (1/2) Sources: Drivers: Road, railway, aviation (EU mapping data) framework legislation ? Wind farms noise (no data!) ? set targets ? Leisure noise (no data!) ? set EU limits mandatory action plans (enforce national limits?) Noise reduction measures: barriers cost-effective building insulation consult public car and truck tyres lower reporting bands road surfaces align deadlines new railway vehicles introduce other indicators (easier/event based) brake blocks at source legislation new aircraft vehicles lowering road vehicle limits operating restriction of aircrafts lowering tyres limits expansion/reduction of quiet areas imposing road surface intervention? lowering railway vehicle limits international legislation lowering aircraft vehicle limits

Task 1: what elements to include and how to model future scenarios for the noise policy (2/2) Monetisation of: Evaluation of: health effects / benefits availability of noise reduction measures by the industry real estate gains work productivity capacity of the local/national authorities to implement measures health care administrative costs synergies with air quality policy implementation costs of the measures conflicts with other policies international constraints (e.g.: UNECE, ICAO)

Task 2: model with causal links (intervention logic) Considering drivers and pressures such as: EU legislation national legislation citizens' expectations request for more mobility transition to electro mobility climate change challenges implementation delays availability of noise reduction measures by the industry availability of funding taxation-charging system …

Task 3: combination of most effective measures Combining the first two tasks rate measures considering their feasibility, cost-effectiveness and cost-efficiency, as a function of the ambition level set NOTE: ambition level could be expressed in different ways, e.g.: it could be the prevention of exposure for the most exposed only, or a global reduction of the exposure, or a redistribution of the exposure…

Your views? Your input?