President. – The next item is the report (A5-0269/2002) by Mr Blokland, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the establishment of a Community framework for noise classification of civil subsonic aircraft for the purposes of calculating noise charges [COM(2001) 74 – C5-0001/2002 – 2001/0308(COD)].
De Palacio,Commission. – (ES) Mr President, I would firstly like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Blokland, once again for the magnificent report he is presenting us with today.
We are discussing the possibility of providing companies with economic incentives to take account of the noise nuisance caused by certain aircraft, in accordance with the principle of compensating the best and punishing the worst.
Although aircraft noise is already integrated into certain Community airport charging systems, the criteria used for the differentiation and quantification of noise nuisance vary widely amongst the different Member States. It is therefore difficult to compare one system with another. The present proposal deals with this issue, providing a common framework for the classification of aircraft noise which increases convergence and transparency, and allows us to anticipate the situation in each specific case. The proposal is restricted to the minimum necessary to achieve its objective and leaves the Member States with sufficient possibilities to adjust to the specific parameters of particular airports, such as the level of the unitary noise charge, the characteristics of the fleet using a particular airport, or the variation between the highest charge and the lowest charge.
The responsibility for deciding whether to impose noise charges is left to the Member States. There is no obligation to impose charges in all airports, since it is not necessary to establish them in airports with no noise problems.
I would like to thank Parliament for its support on this issue and at the end of the debate I will comment in more detail on some of the amendments, I will say in advance once again they we will accept the majority of them.
Blokland (EDD), rapporteur. – (NL) Mr President, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, I should like to speak about the report on noise charges at airports.
Although we have been contending with aircraft noise for years, noisy aircraft are still able to land at European airports. One thinks of the so-called marginally conforming aircraft, which are equipped with hush-kits that only marginally comply with the standard for Chapter 3 aircraft. Other aircraft too can generate a great deal of noise nuisance, certainly at major airports where many aircraft take off and land. In order to counter the adverse impact of these noisy aircraft, measures are to be taken around airports, such as moving runways, installing noise barriers, moving residential areas, insulating houses and so on. Clearly these measures will require considerable expenditure and effort, and it is such costs that noise charges are intended to cover.
Aircraft noise is already an element in some Community airport charging systems. The aim of the report before us is to harmonise noise charges at airports. It is, obviously, also the intention to promote the use of quieter aircraft. Within the present common European framework, noise charges are calculated in a readily understood format, which enhances transparency, fairness of treatment and predictability and avoids arbitrariness.
I should like to underline that noise charges on the basis of measurements are impossible because there are also other noises sources and aircraft that land or take off simultaneously at airports. This directive is therefore based on a calculation method, since this is the only option.
In order to prevent distortions of competition, the Environment Committee has decided to make noise charges compulsory at all airports. There is, however, more room for flexibility. The maximum variation between the highest and lowest noise charge within a given part of the day may be a ratio of 40 instead of 20. Moreover, it is stipulated that the noisiest aircraft should pay more for the greater nuisance that they cause. The Commission's proposal namely specifies that the noisiest aircraft should not have to pay a higher noise charge than the somewhat quieter category.
I am of the opinion that sufficient flexibility has now been built in. It is therefore not necessary to make exceptions for airports that pursue a strict policy in the field of noise charges. Within the framework which the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy has outlined, a very strict policy is possible. I do not believe that airports exist whose polices are so strict that they fall outside of the framework. If we give some airports special treatment, then this will generate arbitrariness.
As already indicated, the proceeds of the noise charges will be used to make investments intended to reduce noise nuisance. However, the Environment Committee is of the opinion that other costs too, such as environmental costs as a result of noise nuisance, should be covered. In addition, not all effects of noise nuisance can be expressed in money terms down to the last penny. Examples of these are disturbed night rest or psychological effects of noise nuisance, which may be financially compensated. In the final analysis, we should realise that the aim of the noise charges is to promote quieter aircraft.
Finally, I should like to make a comment on the amendments tabled by the Group of the Greens. The use of noise standards to calculate the noise charges is wholly incompatible with this directive's approach. Moreover, we are yet to see whether these standards will ever be drafted. For these reasons, I would advise against these amendments.
With the present report, I hope that noise charges will become fairer and more transparent. However, far more important is that noise nuisance will decrease for our citizens.
Bouwman (Verts/ALE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism.– (NL) Mr President, I am speaking as a guest speaker on behalf of the actual draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, Mr Josu Ortuondo, who is, as you know, in Spain for political reasons.
The step from the European airspace to noise is naturally a simple one. If we simplify this procedure, then we should put a whole ream of conditions and measures in place. I would thank the Commission and the rapporteur, Mr Blokland, for the work they have done, but the problems are clear and evident. Also, years of work have already gone into this topic. I myself attended the debates on hush-kits in the previous session. In principle, noisy aircraft should mainly be forced to become less noisy, in other words Chapters 3 onwards should apply. This is, in fact, the object of the whole exercise, and the enforcement of this via these measures is of major importance.
Needless to say, comments have been made on the Commission’s report. This should first and foremost address noise charges, the expenses involved and the relationship between the two. It is about harmonisation, and these noise charges must naturally be the result of noise classification. It is the noise charges, though, that matter most.
The problem with the Commission proposal is – and this is why amendments have been tabled in a number of committees – that it remains non-mandatory up to a certain point, because there is only a tenuous link between noise pollution on the one hand and levies on the other. It is pretty well left up to the Member States how they want to deal with these levies and, as Mr Blokland has already pointed out to a certain extent in his report, this can have a distorting effect on competition in practice, but mainly fails to motivate the aviation industry in the sense that I referred to previously. Also, it is very important, in my view, to stipulate – and this has been incorporated in a number of amendments – that better practices, insofar as these exist, which fall outside the scope of the directives and are simply better, should be maintained, and I therefore recommend supporting a number of amendments, mainly from the Group of the Party of European Socialists.
There is too little differentiation between the levies, and the link between the noise charges and the expenses is, in my view, an ambiguous one. Allow me to make a brief comment on this. As Mr Blokland already indicated, night rest, psychological effects and some of the environmental effects are difficult to verify, and there is room for improvement in this respect. Once again, I do recommend the amendments on this point tabled by the Group of the Greens, namely Amendments Nos 18, 19 and 20. I would state very clearly that we will certainly be retaining their amendments. I am not saying this on behalf of the Regional Policy Committee, but I would, however, recommend them warmly.
Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE). – (NL) Mr President, legislation addressing the noise nuisance experienced by many citizens around civil airports is of major importance. At present, we see that there are still major discrepancies. What is not possible in Maastricht is allowed in Bierzet, which is only 10 km down the road. Day and night times vary. Whenever night begins in Düsseldorf, we in the Netherlands only fly at dawn and dusk.
It is therefore high time we brought about harmonisation – albeit cautiously – by introducing a system of noise charges applicable to all European airports to promote the use of quieter aircraft and ban noisy aircraft. I can inform you that most of my group will, in the plenary, be endorsing the amended proposal, as approved by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. We welcome the amendments tabled with the aim of making the Commission proposal more binding and, as a result, removing the inappropriate competition element. Mr Blokland's proposal to double the ratio of 20 as an upper limit for the levy to the ratio of 40 is also excellent, for indeed, by expanding the range from 13 to 16 dB, the noisiest aircraft will also be paying more for their nuisance. I therefore support the rapporteur and all the effort he has made in order to reach agreement with everyone.
Since the Commissioner is here, I would like to make a different comment, still in connection with this debate. I therefore venture an observation of a different nature, although it is related to aircraft noise. Commissioner, although I respect the way in which you are trying to tackle aircraft noise, I should also like to hear from you – and if you were unable to respond straight away, you may be able to do so in writing – how we can prevent new sources of noise nuisance from emerging. I would quote the example of Laarbruch at the German-Dutch border, in respect of which many questions have already been asked. In Laarburch, a military airport is being converted into a civil one, and any input from outside is being categorically rejected. In addition, there is no transparency in the conditions under which this airport will be established, the way in which the licences are granted or the question whether the daytime and night-time scheme is being maintained. Commissioner, I would like to find out from you what concrete action you intend to take in order to reduce the incidence of this sort of thing.
Vermeer (ELDR). – (NL) Mr President, I am pleased we are now one step closer to achieving noise restriction in Europe. I should like to single out four points of significance. First of all, it is valuable to establish one basis for applying a system of noise charges which will prompt airlines to use quieter aircraft. In our view, the proceeds should be ploughed back into infrastructural changes to restrict noise nuisance. The introduction of one system would give the currently ambiguous system a dose of clarity.
Secondly, it is not compulsory to introduce this system at all airports, which is useful, since some airports may have natural noise barriers that could be exploited economically.
Thirdly, certification in accordance with the ICAO standard should be introduced. It is important, to my mind, not to start using other standards, but it is certainly worth investigating whether this could be developed in future and it is useful to translate the actual noise pollution as experienced by the public into a noise classification. Working with noise classifications is very complex as it is. As Mr Blokland has already pointed out, there are always external effects intruding. In future, I would like to see this further investigated, and this should then also be possible to implement and measure, but not now.
My final point concerns the ratio, in respect of which we, as the ELDR Group, adopt a different position. In our view, the ratio of 1 in 20 on top of the other systems and on top of the landing rights already has sufficient impact on pricing and on the challenge on the part of airlines and industries to implement the tariffs. A good balance has been struck, in our view. Let us therefore introduce it.
Lannoye (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, noise pollution has a significant effect on the well being of very many European citizens. Noise in the areas close to airports often reaches a level that is unbearable for millions of our fellow citizens. That is why it is absolutely essential to combine regulatory methods with economic instruments in order to minimise noise pollution.
The first measure that should be taken is to withdraw the noisiest aircraft. This measure has only been partially implemented so far. We are aware that many aircraft, which only just meet the standards described in Chapter 3, continue to use airports in Europe. It is now imperative that we supplement the regulatory measures with economic instruments. Therefore, using charges and applying the polluter pays principle is certainly a good initiative. We therefore welcome the Commission’s proposal, which seeks to introduce a system of charges in a harmonised Community framework.
The aim is to encourage airlines to use the quietest aircraft and, in addition, to avoid dumping between airports. Noise dumping of this kind is obviously very harmful to citizens living close to these airports. That said, although the Commission’s proposal is sound in principle, when it is examined in more detail, it can be seen that it is not sufficiently rigorous or effective, as the rapporteur has already pointed out. According to this proposal, then, the introduction of charges is optional, which will inevitably bring about a dumping policy.
Moreover, the differentiation between types of noise pollution is insufficient. Since the proposed ratio of 1:20 between the highest and lowest noise charge was insufficient, the rapporteur suggested increasing this ratio from 20 to 40, which is wholly acceptable. By and large, we agree with the proposals made by the rapporteur, but we added one element to these proposals that the rapporteur unfortunately rejects, namely to take into account the level of noise at night and the level of noise during the day/night/evening, which are two extremely important indicators of noise pollution which allow us to differentiate between charges.
We hope that the rapporteur reviews his position and takes into account the problem of noise at night because it is obvious that this problem is certainly the most harmful nuisance that one can encounter. We are not going to solve the problem with charges alone, but in any case, this measure will help to improve the situation.
Jarzembowski (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Madam Vice-President, in principle, we transport experts among the Christian Democrats also support the Commission proposal on noise charges, as we have to use higher charges for noisy aircraft to give the airlines a practical stimulus to use quieter aircraft, and thereby protect the public from a needlessly high level of perceived noise.
Those of us who sit on the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism are not very happy with the Committee on the Environment, Health and Consumer Policy, as the Environment Committee has simply rejected the proposals that the Transport Committee had adopted by a large majority. The Commission should reconsider how it might reintroduce our proposals, as the Transport Committee's proposals were aimed at giving airports a far more sophisticated framework within which to calculate noise charges.
We want to make it clear in law that it is possible to spread the burden more widely and that aircraft are, as an alternative, to be liable to charges either according to certification or in accordance with the noise levels as actually measured. We take the view that what we proposed in the Transport Committee is more environmentally effective, and that it maintains a higher standard. In the EU, we have in fact always acted according to the principle that, where extensive and effective environmental protection systems are already in place and we lay down a minimum standard at European level, the countries and groups with more highly-developed systems do not have to reduce their standards.
You, Commissioner, are in a position to set at nought my concern that we might be using European law to lower existing noise standards, and you can do it right now. A broad majority of us in this House has agreed on Amendment No 11, which is to be added to the Blokland Report, by which we seek to make it clear that existing, more effective, noise charge systems may be retained, and thus that European law does not mean a step backwards for the protection of the environment. To that extent, Commissioner, I look forward to your comments on Amendment No 11 with great expectation.
Stockmann (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Directive is a constituent part of a strategy to combat the noise nuisance at airports and in the areas around them – an issue very close to the public's heart. The strategy's objective is that quieter aircraft must be brought into service and noise charges must become more effective in environmental terms. That is already happening at many airports in the Community, but not by a long way at all of them. The Commissioner is right to say that each Member State has quite different criteria for differentiating between charges and measuring the amount of perceived noise. There is a real need for harmonisation.
Thus far, the Directive makes sense. It will at one and the same time make for greater transparency and more equal treatment, and make the charges payable by the airlines more predictable, so that, as well as of course markedly improving protection against noise, it will have an incidental effect on competition. The proposal for a directive does, however, have one grave defect, and now I want to sound the same warning note as Mr Jarzembowski in saying that it makes for downward harmonisation, albeit involuntarily. For the proposal for a directive forces the progression to tail off to such a degree that it can no longer be called a perceptible incentive, and that cannot be the objective of our policy on noise and the environment.
Frankfurt, London, Paris, Munich, Amsterdam, Hamburg, Rome, Madrid, and Stuttgart have other systems of charging for noise, which result in markedly better protection against it, and these must be retained, yet it is precisely that which the Commission proposal would prevent if not amended to some degree. Why is this so? There is no effective economic incentive unless noise charges increase markedly and progressively – and, I emphasise, markedly and progressively – in line with the increase in noise volume. Quiet aircraftmust therefore benefit and loud aircraft must incur substantial charges. Whatever harmonisation is needed, our objective must still be to keep Europe's standards of noise prevention as high as possible. My group has therefore reintroduced three amendments, which make it clear that charging systems that are already in existence and are more effective in environmental terms, are to be retained.
I ask the whole House to support these amendments. It would indeed be absurd to penalise airports that provide far better protection against noise than that which has hitherto been proposed.
De Palacio,Commission. – (ES) Mr President, I would like once again to thank Mr Blokland for the work he has done.
The Commission cannot accept all the amendments proposed, amongst other things because, when it comes to regulating this type of issue, we have to ensure that there is a balance between the necessary harmonisation, which prevents everybody from going off in their own direction, and the room for manoeuvre of the various States of the Union and competent authorities, in other words, the principle of subsidiarity.
Ladies and gentlemen, we cannot accept the following amendments: Amendment No 3, which proposes using noise measured at airports as a basis, rather than the certified noise of the aircraft, because that would significantly reduce the transparency of the charging system and also because it could cause discrimination as a result of the considerable differences between the noise measurement systems used in the different airports.
Amendment No 4, which does not make it sufficiently clear that the concept of modulating charges must be applied, both in the case of a neutral framework, from the point of view of revenue, and when revenue is used to fund measures to alleviate environmental effects.
Amendment No 8, which would oblige the Commission to prepare a report on the possibility of replacing the system proposed in the long term with a system based on noise measurement. Since the Commission believes that this methodology would not guarantee sufficient transparency, as I said in relation to Amendment No 3, we believe that it does not make sense to carry out the said study.
While we are saying that these amendments would increase the differences and therefore reduce the harmonising effect sought by the Commission’s proposal, I must say that nevertheless, we must reject Amendment No 9, which establishes a minimum noise charge, because airports without noise problems should not in principle be obliged to impose noise charges.
Amendment No 10 cannot be accepted since it would not make it sufficiently clear that increasing revenue from noise charges is an option and not an obligation. The same can be said of Amendments Nos 11, 15, 16 and 17, because they are contrary to the main objective of the proposals, which is to achieve a minimum degree of harmonisation. In this regard, I would like to say to Mr Jarzembowski that, if we leave what has been done already, I am afraid to say that we would have a much lesser degree of harmonisation.
Amendment No 13 cannot be endorsed, because it would oblige all airports to apply a system of noise taxes and Amendments Nos 18, 19 and 20 are not only ruled out because the inclusion or reference to harmonised European objectives is outside the scope of this proposal, but also because they are completely incompatible with the method proposed for the calculation of charges on noise emissions.
Ladies and gentlemen, there are a series of amendments which are acceptable, but there are others which we cannot accept, either because they propose an excessive degree of harmonisation or because, on the contrary, they would excessively reduce the degree of harmonisation proposed.
I would like to thank the various Members once again for their speeches.