Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the "Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Air Transport and the Environment: Towards meeting the Challenges of Sustainable Development"

(2000/C 317/11)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Air Transport and the Environment - Towards meeting the challenges of sustainable development (COM (1999) 640 final);

having regard to the decision taken by the Commission on 8 December 1999, under the first paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to consult the Committee of the Regions on the matter;

having regard to the decision by the Bureau on 2 June 1999, which directs Commission 4 - Spatial Planning, Urban Issues, Energy and Environment - in liaison with Commission 3 - Trans-European Networks, Transport and the Information Society, to draw up the relevant opinion;

having regard to the contribution of Commission 3 - Trans-European networks, transport, information society (Rapporteur: J. Walsh, UK, ELDR), and

having regard to the draft opinion (CdR 14/2000 rev. 2) adopted by Commission 4 on 11 May 2000 (Rapporteurs: J. Soares, P, PSE and J. Walsh, UK, ELDR),

adopted the following Opinion at its 34th plenary session (meeting of 14 June) on 14 and 15 June 2000 unanimously.

1. Views and recommendations concerning the Communication

1.1. The Committee of the Regions endorses the approach and the Actions proposed in the Communication subject to the inclusion in the study of additional "Actions" and the consideration of other identified matters as set out below.

1.2. The work programme should contain targets which are specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and timetabled (Smart) and the implications of failing to achieve policy goals should be considered.

1.3. The identification of measures to minimise worsening air-quality conditions for people living or working near to airports should be treated as a priority. This could include the introduction of a categorisation system of aircraft by their emission levels, in the same way as for noise, to facilitate the introduction of regulatory controls (to penalise the worst and reward those airlines operating less polluting aircraft). Airlines should be encouraged to publish details of their aircrafts' performance in environmental and current terms (which can be understood by users) to offer a choice to travellers wishing to fly in the best environmentally-friendly way.

1.4. In respect of the study of environmental charges, emission trading and carbon offsets, the approach must not be taken that polluters can pay to pollute. Charging by regulation or any other means is only a palliative.

1.5. Night-time noise, not only from aircraft but all the associated transport activity, is a concern affecting people living near airports. Guidance should be given on this issue in addition to general guidance to assist land-use planning. Grants for the expansion or construction of airports should reflect land-use policies and their implementation together with the powers that airport owners possess in respect of adjoining land uses. This should also contain a call for airport operators to fund soundproofing measures (soundproof windows and ventilation equipment) in residential areas severely affected by aircraft noise.

1.6. The importance of improved procedures related to both air-traffic control and ground handling of aircraft (taxiing and queuing) has a major impact on the local environment at an airport. Best practice advice should be offered.

1.7. The COR believes that airports should be encouraged to introduce environmental management systems to evaluate all types of environmental impact. The examination of the role of agreements between the aviation industry and countries/local authorities to achieve environmental enhancements appropriate in the particular circumstances should feature in the study. Best practice advice should be offered.

1.8. The importance of good air/rail connections and the development of competing transport modes for passenger and freight between European centres is recognised. New technologies such as the Transrapid project could provide a sensible addition to what is on offer at the moment, and help to bring about a decisive improvement in the overall situation. However, any introduction of taxation to encourage one form of transport over another should take account of the availability of competitive land-based alternatives.

1.9. The issue of the overall transport impact on an area including modes and distance of transport to the airport interchange and all servicing arrangements, for example, airport-employee journeys and vehicles used by industries associated with airport, should be the subject of best practice guidance. The imposition of local taxation or charging arrangements may well be appropriate. In order to improve the environment in areas near airports it is important to reduce the pollution caused by the private cars used to reach these airports. The use of integrated environment-friendly modes of public transport such as the underground network, local trains and "green" city buses should therefore be encouraged.

1.10. The COR considers it necessary that, in line with the subsidiarity principle, the Member States should still be able to organise and regulate air traffic at airports in keeping with local conditions, thus helping to take into account important local interests and needs.

1.11. The Committee endorses the needs for the European Union to work more closely with ICAO and to influence, as far as is possible, its decisions. However, the environmental problems facing the population of Europe are being felt now and it is vital that appropriate actions, which are aimed at introducing methods, procedures and guidance to contribute to reducing the worsening environmental impact of increasing air-transport operations, are not delayed. Appropriate resourcing to meet the work programme objectives should be a priority.

Brussels, 14 June 2000.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Jos Chabert