6. AIRCRAFT NOISE
(24094)
15306/02
COM(02) 683
|
Amended draft Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of a Community framework for noise classification of civil subsonic aircraft for the purposes of calculating noise charges.
|
| Legal base: | Article 80 EC; co-decision; qualified majority voting
|
| |
| Document originated: | 29 November 2002
|
| Deposited in Parliament: | 16 December 2002
|
| Department: | Transport
|
| Basis of consideration: | EM of 6 January 2002
|
| Previous Committee Report: | None; but see (23034) 15014/01 and (23108) 5119/02: HC 152-xx (2001-02), paragraph 3 (6 March 2002)
|
| To be discussed in Council: | Not known
|
| Committee's assessment: | Legally and politically important
|
| Committee's decision: | Not cleared; further information on progress awaited
|
Background
6.1 At present noise charging systems are set either
by individual airports or by Member States. They are typically
intended to provide economic incentives to encourage airline operators
to use quieter aircraft. In December 2001 the Commission proposed
a draft Directive, building on recommendations of the European
Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) in June 2000, to require use
of a common methodology for calculating noise charges levied on
aircraft at airports throughout the Community in order to give
greater certainty to airlines and manufacturers. It would not
have required the introduction of noise charges at any individual
airport.
6.2 The draft Directive sought to improve the effectiveness
of noise charges at airports by basing them on the certificated
noise levels of aircraft as measured under the International Civil
Aviation Organisation (ICAO) noise certification requirements.
In summary, the requirements of the proposed common framework
were:
- any noise charges (as defined by the proposed Directive) at
airports within the Community to be proportional to the relative
noise impact of arrivals and departures for populations around
airports;
- the noise energies at arrival and departure in turn to be
based upon the noise performance of aircraft at the noise certification
points in ICAO Annex 16, Chapter 3 (the most stringent current
noise certification standard);
- the ratio between the highest and lowest noise charge in any
given time period to be no greater than 20:1;
- the common framework to be applied from 1 April 2003 in the
case of newly introduced systems of noise charges or where there
is a significant revision of an existing charge system and from
1 April 2006 in all cases; and
- the proposed calculation method to allow airportspecific
parameters to be taken into account.
6.3 Noise charges under the proposed Directive were to
finance noise mitigation programmes at the airport or be revenue-neutral
in their impact on the sector, so encouraging the use of quieter
aircraft.
6.4 We considered the proposal, together with a related
draft Directive on noise-related operating restrictions at Community
airports, in March 2002 and recommended both for debate.[25]
In the consequent debate in European Standing Committee A on 18
March 2002[26] it was
resolved to support "the Government position to ensure that
the proposed Directives allow the development of a coherent and
balanced approach to managing noise nuisances at UK airports consistent
with existing ICAO rules and standards".
The document
6.5 The Commission has accepted five and rejected seven
amendments adopted by the European Parliament in its first reading
debate on the draft Directive in September 2002. The amended draft
Directive incorporates those five amendments so that it would:
- permit different unit charges for different times of day -
day-time, evening and night-time;
- allow the ratio between the highest and lowest noise charge
in any given time period to be no greater than 40:1 rather than
20:1;
- apply the common framework from 1 April 2004 (rather than
1 April 2003) to newly introduced systems of noise charges or
where there is a significant revision of an existing charging
system.
The Government's view
6.6 The Minister for Transport, Department of Transport
(Mr John Spellar), tells us:
"Unlike other recent EC Directives on airport noise, where
specific airport criteria have been defined, this Directive would
potentially apply to all EU airports irrespective of size. The
Government supports the principle of using economic instruments
such as noise charges in certain circumstances. However,
(1) the aircraft classification system proposed is incompatible
with the current schemes based on the banding of aircraft used
at several UK airports, including Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted;
(2) in rejecting some of the amendments suggested by the European
Parliament, (most notably amendments 15, 16 and 17) the Commission
has restored the proposal closer to its original form. Whilst
we acknowledge that this has been done to try to ensure a 'minimum
level of harmonisation', it has also removed an element of flexibility.
In particular, as the proposal is presently drafted, airports
would not be able to retain existing noise charging schemes even
where these go further or are more advanced than those that would
be adopted under the Directive. We believe that this move is retrograde
and could ultimately have adverse consequences for the noise climate
near major airports.
(3) this proposed Directive could affect the ability of States
to implement tax policy in which case a number of related concerns
might arise;
(4) the Directive could inhibit the development of more creative
noise charging schemes;
(5) as stated in EM 5119/02,[27]
there are also some technical deficiencies, and improvements that
we would like to see in the proposal. [Department of Transport]
officials took up these concerns with the Commission by letter
in June. However, these concerns have not yet been addressed.
"Although the UK remains unconvinced of the need for such
a Directive, and does not support it as currently drafted, it
is likely to be supported by a majority of Member States. We will
therefore seek to secure agreement to amendments aimed at achieving
acceptability to the UK."
6.7 The Minister also says, in relation to subsidiarity:
"Noise annoyance from aviation is a problem experienced in
all Member States. Given the international nature of the aviation
industry, the Government agrees that there is a case for international
agreements and European harmonisation on certain measures to counter
it provided flexibility is retained to enable local solutions
to be developed for local problems. The proposed Directive as
it now stands appears likely to deliver a rather rigid and unnecessarily
complicated set of rules without necessarily creating the greater
certainty for airlines and manufacturers which [is] the stated
benefit. However, the local flexibility over whether or not
to introduce a noise charge scheme and to set the level
of charge where one is introduced is maintained."
6.8 Finally, in relation to the regulatory impact of
the amended draft Directive, the Minister tells us:
- it is not possible to predict the effect on individual UK
airlines, but those operating noisier aircraft — for example
certain cargo and charter operators — could face increased
costs if greater use of noise charges by EU airports ensued;
- as for airports, their costs would depend on the flexibility
allowed in the final Directive and how this relates to existing
noise charging schemes. Airports introducing noise charges for
the first time would be faced with administrative costs, although
the Directive would not necessarily add to them.
Conclusion
6.9 We note that the Government continues to have
reservations about both the need for a Directive such as is proposed
and the content of the draft, even as amended. We note also that
the Government will continue to seek improvement to the draft,
and we wish to hear again from the Minister about the progress
of negotiations when the proposal is ready for further Council
discussion. Meanwhile we do not clear the document.
25
See headnote. Back
26
Official Report, European Standing Committee A, 18 March
2002. Back
27
See headnote. Back
| 
