2021 Amendment to the Noise Pollution Control Rules: Patchwork or Progress?

Noise pollution is perhaps the most pervasive environmental issue in Trinidad and Tobago. It is everywhere and public concern is well documented. During the preparation of the 2018 National Environmental Policy (NEP) the subject of noise was raised at every public consultation. Further, for the period 2015 - 2020 it was the most frequent topic of complaint received by the Environmental Management Authority (EMA), standing at a staggering 1410 complaints or 40% of all complaints received. On average that means the EMA would have received a noise complaint almost every day for the past 5 years! While the 2018 NEP cites noise from recreational venues and events as a prominent concern, noise from fireworks dominated public discourse in 2020 resulting in several recommendations from the EMA to government, including regulating towards noise-reducing fireworks. All things considered, I, along with the wider public, had great expectations when the EMA put out the Administrative Record of proposed amendments to the Noise Noise Pollution Control Rules, 2001 for public comment. And like many, I was left scratching my head for a moment.

The proposed amendment changes the definition of "equivalent continuous sound pressure level" (LAeq) by deleting the phrase "except in rule 9 where the period of measurement is 3 hours". The new definition reads, "equivalent continuous sound pressure level means that value of the “A” weighted sound pressure level of the sound as measured at a specific location averaged over a continuous 30 minute period, when measured using an integrated-averaging sound level meter that complies with the requirements as specified in the Second Schedule and when measured in accordance with the Second Schedule." I know. You are still scratching your head. But this single, technical change has great importance and I will tell you why.

Basically, the old definition constrained the EMA by mandating that it monitor noise for three hours, and only after three hours could enforcement action be taken if the average noise level was above the permitted limits. This change makes it so that the EMA would need to monitor for 30 minutes before comparing the average noise level to the national standards and taking action. Since the rules came out 20 years ago, noisemakers have exploited this three-hour monitoring requirement by adjusting volumes to break continuity and lower the average sound readings, making it impossible to enforce against them while still being a nuisance. This change reduces the window of opportunity of noisemakers to manipulate the system, and allows the EMA's limited monitoring officers to visit multiple events in a night. It fixes the biggest flaw of the 2001 law.

The proposed amendment is important and worthy of public support. But is it enough? Considering that the NPCR, 2001, is only one of 11 laws in Trinidad and Tobago governing noise, and the only one within the control of the EMA, it is a tall ask that amendments to the NPCR be the panacea for the issue of noise. Still, the NPCR has many other areas that can be refined, and it can be a powerful vehicle for implementing some of the more ambitious policy statements of the 2018 NEP.

For example, Rules 11 and 13 could be adjusted so that the non-compliance history of an applicant can be considered in the determination of a new application for noise-variation. Presently, habitual offenders are not prohibited from receiving new variations nor are their transgressions considered in law when prescribing noise limits to their activities. Furthering the objective of the NEP's 2.03(b), another area for progressive action been nice to see changes to Rule 4 and 1st Schedule so that the 'general area' noise zone could be further segregated to account for different sensitive receptors as is done in other jurisdictions. Finally, a rather cheeky example would be to further redefine Rule 2 to have the equivalent continuous sound pressure level be monitored for 15 minutes rather than 30. This would effectively double the benefit associated with 30-minute monitoring, with little compromise to the integrity of results as demonstrated in other jurisdictions (See extract below). Danish regulations add 5 dB to the calculated exposure levels when noise has 'impulsive character'. An inclusion of a system like this into the NPCR would mean that even if the average sound level is below the threshold, the presence of pulsating or high-bursts of sound would add a penalty that pushes the noisemaker beyond the threshold of compliance.

Source: Dehrashid and Nassiri, 2014.

However, as a former public servant, I am minded of the cautionary tale of Icarus' flight. There can be major consequences to over-ambition. The deletion of those 12 words in Rule 2 of the NPCR will immensely improve the EMA's monitoring and enforcement capacity. But there is the chance that if the necessary amendment were packaged with other overly ambitious content, the proposal in its entirety may be rejected or delayed at the Parliamentary level. We have waited 20 years for this opportunity, is it worth risking another? To me, patchwork is still progress.

I would love to know what you think. And the EMA would too! They are inviting comments on the proposed amendment to the NPCR until the 26th March 2021. Please let them know what you think of their change, or what other changes you would like to see made by submitting your comments in writing to the EMA's Corporate Secretary at corpsec@ema.co.tt

Be part of the process. Noise is not our culture.

-----

Ryan Assiu is a Sustainable Development and Climate Change Specialist by qualification, Program Coordinator by experience, and Educator by passion. He is on a journey to discover his authentic professional identity which has taken him to companies, CSOs and governments throughout the Caribbean. His writings focus on sharing his experiences and knowledge on a wide range of environmental topics relevant to Small Island Developing States (SIDS) such as his home country of Trinidad and Tobago. Follow him on LinkedIn @ Ryan Assiu | LinkedIn