Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Commission White Paper on Air traffic management: freeing Europe's airspace` (97/C 56/05)

On 12 March 1996 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the 'Commission White Paper on Air traffic management: freeing Europe's airspace`.

The Section for Transport and Communications, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 9 October 1996. The rapporteur was Mr Moreland.

At its 339th plenary session (meeting of 31 October 1996) the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following Opinion by 56 votes for and one vote against.

1. Commission proposal

1.1. This is a 'White Paper` (i.e. the Commission's definitive view as opposed to a consultation document) on the future of air traffic management in Europe. However before reaching its conclusions, the Commission examines the background to the current situation and the shortcomings of the present arrangements.

1.2. Despite a considerable reduction in the early 1990s, delays have increased since 1994. The Commission states (paragraph 9 of the White Paper) that the 'cost of ATC delays to airlines has steadied at around ECU 2 000 million annually`. The Commission believes that the position can be improved by more effective decision making and by more efficient use of resources.

1.3. At present the services and function are the responsibility of individual countries. The control centre of Eurocontrol at Maastricht provides air traffic control for the upper airspace of the Benelux countries and North Germany. Eurocontrol was given the responsibility for setting up and now operating a Central Flow Management Unit (CFMU) to provide air traffic management over most of Europe. However the regulatory framework in which the operational function is provided is essentially a national prerogative. Two Member States do not belong to Eurocontrol (Spain and Finland) and eight non-EU states belong to Eurocontrol.

1.4. Previous efforts by the Commission to move towards a single traffic management system have not been progressed by the Council as the Council has seen multilateral cooperation within the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) as the way forward while calling upon the Commission to help Eurocontrol in this connection.

1.5. The Commission believes that this approach has not been adequate to meet the challenge of increasing air traffic movements. It believes:

a) Air traffic management is too fragmented: in addition to the different national administrations, ECAC and Eurocontrol, there are other bodies responsible for air traffic management.

b) There is a lack of decision making mechanisms.

c) There is a lack of decision making aids: information available to decision makers is inadequate.

d) There is a lack of means of following up decisions.

e) There is a lack of tools for implementation and support.

f) There is inadequate cost control.

1.6. The Commission examines three alternative solutions:

1.6.1. 'A European monolithic structure`

This would bring both policy making and service provision under one umbrella.

1.6.2. 'A solution limited to the Community`

This could involve Eurocontrol becoming a Community agency. Using existing Treaty provisions the Community could provide a legislative framework for action to meet the shortcomings of the existing situation.

1.6.3. 'A broader European solution`

This would allow for the involvement of non-member states. The Commission would become a party to Eurocontrol. Nevertheless the Commission foresees a 'reinventing` of Eurocontrol giving it more powers to introduce decisions that would be binding on participants and a role in monitoring and in the provision of support mechanisms.

The Commission envisages the 're-invented` Eurocontrol would have a regulatory function but that most operational tasks should remain decentralized at the national level. Central Flow Management would remain a 're-invented` Eurocontrol activity.

1.7. The Commission concludes that Option 3 is the most suitable and it states that it 'will make recommendations, in order to allow the Community to become a party to Eurocontrol and ensure that the conditions for this option are fully met.`

2. The Committee's opinion

2.1. General Comments

The Committee endorses, in general, the Commission's description of the shortcomings of the current air traffic management system in Europe and strongly supports the need for action to improve the system in the interest of reducing delays, air safety and in providing consistency of national management systems. The Committee believes the situation demands a multinational solution and supports the Commission's conclusion that it is necessary to set up a system of air traffic management 'which is able to cut across national boundaries`. Of the three options proposed by the Commission 'a broader European solution` should be the option on which positive action should be based.

2.2. The improvement of the air traffic management system should be the prime objective of the Council in considering the White Paper. In this context Eurocontrol should be 're-invented` () with stronger regulatory powers.

2.3. Although a 're-invented` Eurocontrol should lay down procedures for better management, most operational tasks should be the responsibility of participating state authorities. In this context it is important for all Member States to improve their national air traffic management (ATM) systems to become cost effective and customer orientated. Indeed, regardless of progress from the White Paper, improvements to national air traffic management organizations are essential and will contribute to the improvement of the overall system in Europe.

2.4. Delays in air transport are not due to air traffic management solely (see Appendix). The majority of time lost to passengers relates to many other factors such as, airport capacity, airline and airport management, ground handling, airline and airport security and weather. There are occasions when delays are falsely attributed to air traffic management deficiencies. The Committee believes that the attention given to air traffic management should not divert attention from ensuring delays from other causes are reduced.

3. Specific comments

3.1. The Community as a member of Eurocontrol

3.1.1. Currently, Eurocontrol is responsible for some regulatory functions, managing the European Air Traffic (ATC) improvement programme and providing operational services. As stated in 2.2 the 're-invented` Eurocontrol should have regulatory responsibility to cover all relevant aspects of ATC. The White Paper is not clear in terms of the precise division of operational responsibility between 'multinational` responsibility and national responsibility. The Commission needs to provide more detailed information on its view on the differences between regulatory and operational functions and the role of the bodies responsible for their performance. The Committee's view is that Central Flow Management should be the responsibility of the 're-invented` Eurocontrol with all other operational matters being provided by national authorities. In any event the Committee would welcome the membership of those Member States and other European States that are not members currently. Indeed the Committee believes that the jurisdiction of Eurocontrol should be comprehensive of all European Countries.

3.1.2. Clearly the essential features of a 're-invented` Eurocontrol are authority and the ability to take decisions which would be binding on service providers with powers to enforce these decisions. This will require, inter alia, the use of majority voting (which is already in operation in Eurocontrol's permanent commission). Further, it should encourage the service providers to work cooperatively.

3.1.3. The Commission's proposal - that the Community should be a party to the 're-invented` Eurocontrol - is a possible political solution. However it does raise questions that must be answered such as:

a) What would be the role of the Commission? Would it represent the Council at meetings of Eurocontrol under a mandate given by the Council? How will the Council reach their position in giving the Commission a mandate?

b) What would be the voting balance of the European Union vis-à-vis other non-EU states? (At present the EU Member States on Eurocontrol have 69 of the 83 votes on the Permanent Commission.)

c) How will cases involving exclusive competence of the Community, exclusive competence of the Member States and shared competence be handled? What will be the impact of the functioning of the reinvented Eurocontrol in each of these cases?

d) What would be the jurisdiction over military space? Will this be dependent on a substantial advance in European Union competence over defence?

3.1.4. Variants on the Commission's proposal could be considered. However a Commission involvement is necessary particularly if there is a need to translate Eurocontrol decisions into Community legislation or other action.

3.1.5. The INSTAR (Institutional Arrangements) study (of ECAC) is completed and the follow on work to develop an institutional strategy is now under way (INSTRAT Study). Final decisions should await the outcome of this work but should also take account of other views such as this Opinion and that of the European Parliament (particularly as ECAC by its nature is reflective of national civil aviation directorates rather than take a broader view). The effect on human resources should also be taken into account. (The Committee may consider giving an 'additional opinion` once this phase of the work has been completed.)

3.1.6. There should be proper democratic accountability for any new structure. There should be annual reports available to the Council, the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee on its operations.

3.2. Military air space

3.2.1. Flexible management of air space must be brought fully into any air traffic organization. The move to flexible operation of civilian and military air space in most Member States is welcomed and should be agreed by all States involved in Europe's air traffic management. The Committee would support even closer working between the management of civil and military air traffic systems to maximize more fully the use of air space.

3.3. Safety

The Committee notes that the concentration of attention is on reducing delays. While safety is not ignored by the Commission the Committee believes the suggestion of all safety aspects of ATC being the responsibility of another authority rather than an integral part of a 're-invented` Eurocontrol should be viewed with caution.

3.4. Airborne avionics capabilities

Operational ATM should take fully into account future airborne avionics capabilities. The future organization of ATC in Europe should also take into account the organizational implication of the introduction in the foreseeable future of satellite navigation in Europe. New technologies will play an important part in the institutional arrangements. Furthermore a common funding will be needed and this will require common management of airspace.

Brussels, 31 October 1996.

The President of the Economic and Social Committee

Tom JENKINS

() The word 're-invented` is the Commission's word. 'Enhanced` or 'greatly strengthened` would be a more accurate description of the envisaged future of Eurocontrol.

APPENDIX

>TABLE>