Hi everyone! Today, we will be looking at how noise pollution is defined by certain laws. Up till now, we have been looking at definitions under Singapore laws or International Agreements. Thus, we thought we should change things up and look at laws from other countries! In particular, we will look at the European Union’s Directive 02/49/EC (2002), which has another cooler name of END – Environmental Noise Directive.
Noise as a pollutant
Under the END, noise pollution is not defined, but noise as a pollutant is. The objective of the END is to “avoid, prevent or reduce … the harmful effects, including annoyance, due to exposure to environmental noise” (Article 1). To better understand the scope of the END, the meanings of various terms are better defined under Article 3. As for the 3 terms highlighted, we will further discuss its relevance and importance to noise pollution.
Firstly, “Environmental Noise shall mean unwanted or harmful outdoor sound created by human activities, …”. A few human activities specifically mentioned are the major sources of noise pollution discussed last week, such as transportation and industrial activities. It is crucial to note that the list of industrial activity sites is the same as the European Union’s Directive 96/61/EC (1996) concerning integrated pollution prevention and control. This shows that to the European Union, noise pollution is as important a problem as other forms of pollution. While we mentioned that noise pollution can come from natural sources, the END only looks at anthropogenic sources (as underlined).
Secondly, as inferred from the objective, noise pollution should cause “harmful effect” to people. “Harmful effect” is defined as “negative effects on human health”. Under Article 3, “annoyance” should be “determined by means of field surveys”, making it subjective. More interestingly, under Annex III of the END, “annoyance” is considered a “harmful effect”. This problem is in line with our previous post, where we investigated how noise, even at a low volume is also harmful to our environment and health. This makes the law align with the concept where the impact of noise pollution should not be measured through the physical characteristics of the noise, but the burden it imposes on a specific person or group (Hammersen, Niemann, & Hoebel, 2016).
Concluding thoughts
In conclusion, we find the END a rather simple to understand policy, and its drafting shows clear influence from scientific and epidemiological studies. For us, questions surface as to the treatment of noise pollution that are considered both harmful and beneficial. For example, clubs and concerts have loud music which can become noise pollution. Under such scenarios where there are various and conflicting stakeholders, such as those who are enjoying the concerts (“beneficial”) and those living near-by (“harmful”), it would be interesting to see how the END takes effect. This problem can even occur on the same group of stakeholders, where the club-goers are also those most affected by the loudness of the noise.
For readers who are interested in this conversation, do comment down below and we can have a discussion! Otherwise, we shall end the post here today and in our next post, we will conclude, compare and comment on the definitions of noise pollution we have seen (and heard)!
Signing out,
Lee Yang
References
‘Council Directive 02/49/EC of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise’ (2002) Official Journal L 189 pp. 12 – 26
‘Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control’ (1996) Official Journal L257, p. 26
Hammersen, F., Niemann, H., & Hoebel, J. (2016). Environmental noise annoyance and mental health in adults: findings from the cross-sectional German Health Update (GEDA) Study 2012. International journal of environmental research and public health, 13(10), 954.