Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 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'
Date: 2000-07-13
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: aid system, air transport, environmental policy, environmental protection, environmental tax, noise

C 268/62

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

19.9.2000

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 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 268/14)

On 8 December 1999 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the above-mentioned
communication.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 8 June 2000. The rapporteur was
Mr Garcı´a Alonso.

At its 374th plenary session (meeting of 13 July 2000) the Economic and Social Committee adopted the
following opinion by 83 votes to three with seven abstentions.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
The purpose of this communication from the European
Commission is to initiate a debate with the other Community
institutions on the mounting impact of air transport on
the environment with a view to putting forward legislative
proposals in the second half of 2000 aimed at remedying or
at least mitigating this trend.

The communication is important because the growth
1.2.
in air transport is outstripping the technological advances
designed to reduce its harmful impact on the environment,
such as the emission of greenhouse gases which deplete the
ozone layer and cause acid rain, and noise.

1.3.
Another factor, referred to only indirectly, is the global
dimension of air transport and the problem of measures which
cover only EU companies and airspace. This need to reach
international agreements on a good number of the proposals
is the third basic element to be taken into consideration.

The communication pinpoints four areas for analysis,

1.4.
namely:

— improving technical standards and related rules

— strengthening market incentives to improve environmen-

tal performance

— assisting airports

proliferation of local rules at numerous Community airports.
More flexible solutions need to be sought which reconcile the
interests of localities and regions acutely affected by noise with
the need to uphold the single market.

1.5.2.
Possible action is centred on phasing out, within an
ICAO framework, the noisiest chapter 3 aircraft and authoris-
ing stricter regional rules where duly justified. Furthermore, if
is not reached in ICAO, EU rules would be
agreement
considered in 2001.

For gaseous emissions, the current ICAO rules apply
1.5.3.
to various pollutants (smoke, HC, CO and NOx), generally
based on the landing and take-off cycle (LTO). Possible action
mentioned is to establish new methodologies and standards
and to extend the NOx agreement to allow for the global
dimension of this pollutant.

Improving air traffic management (ATM) could mean
1.5.4.
a reduction of 350 000 hours of flight annually compared
with present levels, representing a considerable saving in
kerosene. The European Commission has approved another
communication on this topic and wishes to lend its full
technical and organisational support to the ATM system,
through Eurocontrol in particular.

— advancing technological improvement.

1.5. With regard to technical standards and related rules,
the following specific topics are highlighted:

1.5.5.
Operational measures are important because they
can be put into effect immediately and therefore provide
solutions in the short term. Such measures allow aircraft
greater flexibility in choice of route, avoiding concentration of
noise and emissions, around airports in particular.

1.5.1.
The communication points out that the agreements
on aircraft noise adopted by ICAO (International Civil Aviation
Organisation),
including the rules adopted unilaterally by
the Community, have not been sufficient to eliminate the

The second area highlighted by the communication is
1.6.
strengthening market incentives, subdivided into the following
chapters and possible actions:

19.9.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 268/63

The Commission communication (1) announces the
1.6.1.
findings of a study on taxing kerosene: under option A, a tax
of EUR 245/m3 (the same as that on automotive fuels), applied
on all routes departing from a Community airport, would
mean a reduction of 2,4 % in kerosene consumption (and
proportionately in emissions), but also a fall of 14,7 % in EU
carriers’ revenue and of 6,7 % in employment by 2005.
Calculations were also done on the basis of a tax of
EUR 185/m3 (as applied in Japan) and EUR 10/m3 (as applied
in the US). It would also require legal changes at IATA level,
especially the bilateral air service agreements (ASAs). The
Commission therefore suggests maintaining the formula
approved in 1996 pending progress on an international
agreement to apply it effectively.

1.7.1.
Environmental management schemes, based on both
the EMAS system and ISO-14 000, enable airlines and airports
to improve their own internal environmental management.
The Commission proposes facilitating the exchange of experi-
ence in this field.

1.7.2.
Voluntary environmental agreements are another
interesting alternative. According to the Commission’s com-
munication,
they would necessitate the establishment of
environmental targets and conclusion of tailor-made agree-
ments with the players involved (airlines, aircraft manufac-
turers, engine manufacturers, airports, etc.). The Community
and global dimension of such agreements would have to be
taken into consideration.

1.6.2.
There are other possible environmental charges on
air transport and ways of distributing these charges. The
Commission is working through IATA which is due to debate
and approve a new international system of environmental
charges in 2001, which it is hoped will meet EU requirements.

1.8.
The third area is assisting airports, more specifically
the search for a balance between uniform ‘bottom line’ rules
and the specific environmental situation of each airport.

The communication also refers to the application of
1.6.3.
the ‘emission trading’ system, a concept still untried in this
sector which could be developed at EU, Member State,
company and even airport level. The possibilities opened up
by carbon sinks should be included here too.

1.8.1.
The first step in this direction should be the establish-
ment of a common noise classification scheme for IATA
chapter 3 aircraft (the only ones which will be able to operate
in the EU in the near future) and, at the same time, a system
for noise measurement. This will help to standardise the
noise-related environmental charges currently levied in some
European airports.

1.6.4.
Drawing together all these points on market incen-
tives, the communication proposes an action plan based on
the following elements:

The Commission also proposes including the situ-
1.8.2.
ation of those living in the vicinity of airports as a selection
criterion for granting Community support.

— continue preparing proposals for a system of environ-
mental charges on European air transport to be presented
in 2001;

— in the meantime maintain the Commission’s 1996 pro-

posal on the imposition of a kerosene tax;

1.8.3.
The third option is to establish common rules setting
out, with due respect for the subsidiarity principle, the criteria
for restricting air traffic on the basis of environmental
conditions or factors. As part of this action, a Community
system could be introduced for establishing stricter rules for
particularly noise-sensitive airports.

— continue to study innovative concepts such as emission
trading and carbon sinks which facilitate new technical
and legal solutions.

1.8.4.
Finally, as part of the revision of the trans-European
transport networks guidelines, the Commission intends to
press for the use of rail as an alternative to air for shorter
journeys and an improvement in rail/airport connections.

1.7.
In parallel with these market incentives, the Com-
mission communication advocates encouraging industry
initiatives, including environmental management schemes and
voluntary environmental agreements.

The fourth and final area is advancing technological

1.9.
improvements, which includes the following:

(1) COM(2000) 110 final.

1.9.1.
The Commission’s actions under its R&TD frame-
work programmes have affected air transport in various ways,
more especially in the areas of aeronautics, noise, climate
change, emissions, etc.

C 268/64

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

19.9.2000

1.9.2.
addresses the following areas and objectives:

Specifically, the Vth R&TD framework programme

— atmospheric impact of aircraft emissions

environmental performance. The practices whereby load
capacity is improved and flight volumes, and thereby unit and
overall emission levels, reduced depend in large measure on
the structure of companies and their freedom to respond to
demand.

— 20 % improvement in aircraft fuel economy over the next

10 years

— significant reduction in emissions of NOx and particulates

— 10dB reduction in external noise in 10 years.

This communication follows on from the Treaty of
1.10.
Amsterdam which stipulates that the environmental dimension
must be integrated into all Community sectoral policies.
Consequently, the impact of air transport on the environment
will be monitored regularly on the basis of TERM (transport
and environment reporting mechanism). Cooperation with the
Member States in this field will be strengthened.

2. General comments

The Economic and Social Committee wishes to con-
2.1.
gratulate the Commission on presenting this communication
on the impact of air transport on the environment. It identifies
the main effects and opens up various avenues of discussion
in the search for solutions which reconcile the future of this
sector — so important for the development of European
society and the general competitiveness of the Community
economy — with proper respect for the environment.

2.2.
In the same constructive spirit the Committee would
put forward a number of comments and recommendations,
firstly of a general nature and then focusing on each of the
specific aspects raised in the communication.

2.3.

The general comments are as follows:

2.3.1.
The present regulatory situation within the EU is
more conducive to efficient flexible operation than was the
case previously, which in itself eases the task of operators,
in working to achieve better
individually and collectively,
environmental performance. However some areas remain, e.g.
slot allocation, where the earlier reforms are not yet complete,
while in others, e.g. airline ownership and restructuring, the
elimination of old rules has not yet worked enough change.
Probably most important of all, rules analogous to those which
the EU has removed are still dominant in world-wide air
transport operations in which EU airlines need to be competi-
tive.
in particular the
regulations on structural restrictions and national LTO distri-
bution, should be addressed as an essential and integral part
of any serious review of obstacles to better air transport

In combination the above factors,

this communication should spell out

Although in other documents the Commission has
2.3.2.
carried out an overall appraisal of the transport sector and
the interaction between the various modes, the Committee
considers that
the
possible effect of other modes of transport — especially high
speed trains — on the scenarios for air traffic growth. At the
same time consideration should have been given to the impact
of EU enlargement, which will lead not only to an increase in
intra-Community traffic but also in domestic traffic in the new
Member States.

2.3.3.
Thought should also have been given to the impact
of the new information society technologies, especially in the
light of the recommendations put forward at the Lisbon
Summit, concerning a potential fall in the demand for business
travel by air.

2.3.4.
This ties in with the compilation of precise transport
statistics under the TERM project. The Committee considers
that some of the proposed actions should be analysed after the
actual start-up of the TERM project, the first results of which
were published by the European Environment Agency after
this communication was drawn up.

2.3.5.
The Committee regards it as fundamental that the
Commission take a close look at the subject of air safety in
relation to the protection of the environment. Although a
communication on this matter is to be published shortly,
some environment-related aspects — such as better airspace
management and land-use planning — have an obvious and
direct impact on the safety of both passengers and workers
and should have been assessed.

2.3.6.
By the same token, in a European Union in which
employment is an urgent priority, there is no appraisal of the
impact — be it positive of negative — of many of the proposed
measures on employment, not only in the aeronautical indus-
try but also in direct and indirect airport services which
employ hundreds of thousands of workers, many highly
skilled, in the EU, or of their impact on alternative forms of
transport to air travel.

2.3.7.
The final comment concerns the lack of a more
precise description of all the actions contemplated, all of which
would seem to have the same priority, and in particular the
failure to identify precisely which public authority (Com-
munity, national, regional or local) will be responsible for
implementing the planned actions and the means for ensuring
that an action framed at Community level is implemented
effectively at each of these administrative levels.

19.9.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 268/65

The Committee would make the following comments

2.4.
on the subject of noise reduction:

The Committee would like to see a central ATM authority in
Europe.

2.4.1.
Noise reduction requires action on three fronts:
quieter engines, operating restrictions at airports, and land-use
planning around airports.

2.5.3.
This would have an immediate effect not only on
emission levels, but also on airport efficiency, air traffic safety
and improved punctuality, with a consequent leap in the
productivity of the Community economy.

2.4.2.
The Committee approves the Commission proposal
for more stringent noise standards, including determination of
the level of low-frequency noise and the possibility of creating
a new Chapter 4 at the next ICAO conference in 2001; only if
this conference failed to make progress in this matter would
the Commission propose Community requirements, with
additional compliance periods for existing air services in less
developed countries.

2.4.3.
The use of noise criteria to restrict nightflights by the
noisiest aircraft or to allocate new landing and take-off slots is
a good solution. But first two problems need to be resolved.

A study should also be undertaken of ways of
2.5.4.
improving traffic management of aircraft on the ground
(optimisation of movements, minimum number of engines
needed for movement, etc.).

2.5.5.
On the subject of improving technical standards and
the efficiency of new engines, the Committee is adamant that
parallel progress be made on noise levels and emissions. It is
necessary to establish minimum efficiency values for engines
(which means lower emissions) and not just deal with noise
levels.

2.4.3.1.
The first is that aircraft noise classification differs
from one Member State to another. Hence there is an
urgent need for Community harmonisation of noise level
classifications, based on the work already carried out by the
industry and by other scientific institutions or bodies.

2.5.6.
The Committee endorses the complementary com-
munication on the kerosene tax and shares its conclusions.
This possible tax will function best within the framework of
an international agreement; the Commission is therefore urged
to submit to the Council a common position on the matter
which can be discussed in the ICAO Assembly in 2001.

Secondly,

these standards should be based on
2.4.3.2.
transparent, non-discriminatory and objective criteria which
are proportionate to the end proposed and can therefore be
used to report cases of non-compliance to the European
Commission.

2.6.
The third area of action mentioned in the Commission
communication is economic incentives. In this connection the
Committee would repeat some of its earlier comments:

2.5.
Concerning the second area of technical standards,
namely gaseous emissions, the Committee has the following
comments to make:

2.5.1.
Here again, action needs to be taken on three fronts
to reduce gaseous emissions: improve combustion technology
for greater efficiency and reduced NOx emissions, improve air
traffic management (ATM) systems and provide economic
incentives.

2.5.2.
The Committee would stress that the most urgent,
cheapest and most efficient priority is an improvement in
ATM, which means enlarging the airspace open to civilian
traffic and reducing military airspace at the same time, and
improving ATM technical resources.
is also proposed
that Eurocontrol be given responsibility for setting uniform
standards within the European Union for air traffic control
technology and laying down uniform procedures.

It

2.6.1.
Economic incentives, be they in the form of environ-
mental or other charges or positive tax incentives, can play a
very important role in the future development of air traffic
and its impact on the environment. They need to be drawn up
in accordance with the following principles:

Assessment of their implementation should be
2.6.1.1.
based on objective, transparent, non-discriminatory criteria
which are proportionate to the end proposed.

From the competition angle, differences between
2.6.1.2.
EU and third country legislation and taxation,
including
differences between Member States, may result in distortion of
competition not only in the aeronautical and air services
industry but also in other sectors of the economy.

2.6.1.3.
From the employment angle, they may lead to job
losses when in fact Community policies and measures should
be framed and implemented with a view to a high level of
employment.

C 268/66

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

19.9.2000

From the environmental protection angle,

2.6.1.4.
the
kerosene tax and other types of environmental charge will not
increase global environmental protection as such a tax could
not apply to non-Community aircraft; hence the intended
environmental policy objectives would not be adequately met,
the only effect being that the Community would give a lead in
recruiting other countries to these rules.

2.6.4.4.
The Committee considers that the proceeds from
such charges would have to be used without restrictions by
the beneficiaries for the necessary environmental improve-
ments. The Commission should define some criteria for
distribution between the various authorities and bodies con-
cerned.

2.6.2.
In its document the Commission opts for an environ-
mental charge in the form of a basic levy which is calculated
as either a tax added to the ticket fare or a levy which takes
into account
the distance flown and the ‘environmental
efficiency’ of the aircraft.

2.6.3.
aspects of this preliminary Commission proposal:

The Committee has various reservations about some

Route charges are very similar to the kerosene tax
2.6.3.1.
rejected in the short term, although it does incorporate some
valid elements such as the aircraft’s ‘environmental efficiency’.

2.6.3.2.
A tax added onto the price of the ticket and not on
the operation of an aircraft does not take into account the
benefits of increasing aircraft occupancy rates, if this would
reduce the total number of flights.

2.6.3.3.
A charge calculated on distance could unduly
penalise long-haul flights (more than 5 000 km) where other
forms of transport are not a practical alternative.

2.6.4.
For these reasons the Committee considers that a
possible course of action in this field could be a charge which:

2.6.4.1.
Is levied on take-off and landing operations (LTO
charges), to be reviewed periodically, and modulated according
to the ‘environmental efficiency’ of aircraft with regard to their
pollutant emissions.

2.6.4.2.
This charge would only be possible if and when it
applied to all aircraft operating from an airport irrespective of
their nationality (consideration could be given to as short a
transitional period as possible for aircraft from less developed
countries).

2.6.5.
The Committee supports the trading of emission
rights for greenhouse gases in the air transport sector —
within the general framework of this system — in line with
the recent Commission communication. It agrees with the
Commission that there is a need to further assess the capacity
of such measures to solve environmental problems in this
sector, whilst respecting legal requirements.

2.6.6.
Similarly the Committee supports the rapid appli-
cation in this sector (encompassing both airlines and airports)
of the eco-management and audit systems (EMAS and ISO
14 000) in tandem with the application of voluntary agree-
ments by the industry.

2.7.
Under the topic of ‘assisting airports’ the communi-
cation assesses the impact of noise on people living near
airports and proposes the creation of a Community system for
aircraft noise classification and for allocating slots. These
aspects have
already been addressed in points 2.4.3
and 2.4.3.1.

2.8.
The Committee also supports the communication’s
proposal for some guidelines for land-use planning around
airports which, with due respect for the subsidiarity principle,
set out some common criteria to serve as a reference frame-
work for local and regional authorities.

Only on this basis — standardisation of noise measure-
2.9.
ment systems, common guidelines for land-use planning and
assessment of the populations affected — can thought be
given to the creation of a Community framework for estab-
lishing specific environmental restrictions or slot allocation
criteria in individual airports, which could be more stringent
provided that the local authority and airport management
demonstrate to the European Commission that such restric-
tions are necessary, proportionate and non-discriminatory.

2.6.4.3.
This charge would have to apply to all Community
airports and would have various harmonised levels of charge
which could take into account factors such as: airport traffic
over the last year, average flight length to/from airport, degree
of congestion, impact on neighbouring population and other
factors such as the airport being situated on an island or not
on the mainland territory of a Member State. It would have to
be formulated and implemented in such a way that it acted as
an incentive for operators to reduce environmental pollution
rather than merely increasing costs.

2.10.
The Committee welcomes the Commission’s proposal
for intermodality between air and other forms of transport,
such as rail and clean buses. It would stress that Europe’s main
airports must be connected efficiently not only to the nearest
city or cities by a rapid public transport system, but that
intermodality with the high-speed rail network should be
promoted; this network should, as far as possible, have stations
in the airport itself, as is currently the case with Charles de
Gaulle airport.

19.9.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 268/67

2.11.
As regards the relationship between air transport and
R&TD policy, the Committee supports the guidelines set out
in the Commission document and urges that a new field be
included to assess the possible influence of air traffic demand
in the wake of the new professional situation brought about
by the information society. This could avoid expensive
increases in air traffic capacity and services which could be

reduced or even made obsolete by the impact of new
technologies.

2.12.
Finally, the Committee would urge the European Com-
mission to present, within two years, a new communication on
this subject after the ICAO Conference and after assessment of
the statistical system provided by the TERM project.

Brussels, 13 July 2000.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the Commission discussion paper ‘The
Commission and non-governmental organisations: building a stronger partnership’

(2000/C 268/15)

On 25 January 2000, the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned Commission
discussion paper.

At its plenary session on 26 and 27 January 2000, the Committee decided, under Rules 11(4) and 19(1)
of its Rules of Procedure, to set up a sub-committee to prepare a draft opinion on the matter.

The sub-committee drew up its draft opinion on 28 June 2000. The rapporteur was Mrs Sigmund.

At its 374th plenary session (meeting of 13 July 2000), the Committee adopted the following opinion by
92 votes to 16, with 21 abstentions.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
The Commission discussion paper entitled ‘The Com-
mission and non-governmental organisations: building a
stronger partnership’(1) sets out proposals for more efficient
cooperation between the Commission and NGOs and for
making better use of the funds provided for this purpose. This
paper is part of the Commission’s general reform programme
and marks a response to socio-economic restructuring and the
greater importance of NGOs. The number of civil society
organisations which are ready and able to be players in
for a Europe-wide participatory democracy has
a model

significantly increased over the last
twenty years. These
representatives of organised civil society point quite rightly to
the added value which they can contribute to the integration
of Europe. Attention is drawn in this context to the Committee
opinion of 10 December 1997 on cooperation with charitable
associations as economic and social partners in the field of
social welfare (2) and its opinion of 28 January 1998 on the
role of voluntary organisations and foundations in Europe (3).

1.2.
The Committee gave detailed consideration at a con-
vention (4) last year to the role and contribution of civil society

(1) COM(2000) 11 final.

level — 15/16.10.1999.

(2) OJ C 73, 9.3.1998, p. 92.
(3) OJ C 95, 30.3.1998, p. 99.
(4) First

convention of

civil

society organised at European