APPENDIX 6
Memorandum submitted by the Royal Society
for the Protection of Birds
SUMMARY
— The RSPB acknowledges that whilst
aviation has economic and social benefits, it can and does have
many widely recognised adverse effects on the environment, at
both a local and global level.
— These adverse effects mean that it
would be misguided to use estimates of unconstrained demand to
support a simple "predict and provide" policy.
— We believe that aviation-related
emissions must be checked unless they are tc swamp the UK's other
climate change measures. We therefore seek a UK emissions charge.
— The RSPB also believes that growth
in aviation transport should be constrained by using economic
instruments to reduce demand, and providing insufficient capacity
to meet demand.
— We advocate that future decisions
on the development of Northern Ireland's airports must address
options that avoid impacts on biodiversity, especially those internationally
protected wildlife sites in close proximity to Belfast City and
Derry airports.
— In the event of proposed development
that could affect designated sites, we highlight the legal justifications
necessary to satisfy the requirements of the Habitats Regulations.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. The Royal Society for the Protection
of Birds (RSPB) is a wildlife conservation charity supported by
a subscribing membership of over 1 million people, of whom more
than 10,000 live in Northern Ireland. We seek to influence society,
including Government, to encourage the adoption of environmentally
sustainable policies which embrace economic, social and environmental
objectives. Conservation of biodiversity is regarded as a key
test of sustainability. We seek to ensure that our views are informed
by sound scientific understanding and policy analysis.
2. POLICY
2.1. The RSPB recognises that during the
20th Century, the growth in aviation contributed beneficially
to the economic development and social life of the UK. This is
particularly true in Northern Ireland where there is a high propensity
to fly, explained by the high level of migrant workers originating
in the province and the poor surface access links with other parts
of the UK.
2.2. However, this growth was not without
considerable cost to the environment at both local and global
levels. Widely accepted adverse impacts include:
(ii) local pollution—both noise and
decreased air quality caused by aircraft and also by associated
ground transportation; and
(iii) site based loss in the area and quality
of wildlife habitat due to airport construction and related infrastructure,
and associated disturbance.
2.3. At the start of the 21st century, we
believe the case for further growth in aviation to be questionable;
the marginal economic and social benefit of additional growth
in aviation is outweighed by its environmental and social costs
and, indeed, the economic implications of addressing these costs.
Authoritative bodies such as the Royal Commission on Environmental
Pollution[1]
and the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee[2]
share this analysis.
2.4. We have considered the key policy issues
under the following headings: (i) Aviation emissions, (ii) Growth
constraint, and (iii) Meeting residual demand.
Aviation emissions
2.5. According to the Government's own statistics[3],
if aviation growth continues unconstrained and the UK's target
of a 60% cut in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 is met, then
aviation emissions could account for 20-25% of all UK emissions
by 2050. This figure does not take into account the fact that
emissions from aviation have a 2-4 times greater effect on global
warming than carbon dioxide emitted at ground level. If the Department
for Transport's unconstrained aviation growth forecasts are anywhere
near correct, aviation emissions wili wreck the effects of the
UK's other climate change measures. In the next 10 years, the
effect of renewable energy development will be swamped by the
increase in aviation emissions, unless these are checked.
2.6. In the aviation White Paper[4],
the Government recognises the impacts of aviation on climate change
but proposes no immediate solution. They rightly identify emissions
trading as a long-term solution but state this could not start
before 2008 at the earliest. Whilst international emissions trading
should be the ultimate objective, it may take time to achieve.
In the meantime, other instruments should be used starting with
a UK emissions charge, moving towards an EU emissions charge and
then an EU emissions trading scheme. This approach will lead to
increasing geographical coverage, economic efficiency, time-scales
of implementation and ultimately, a real chance to mitigate the
climate change impacts of aviation. A UK emissions charge is administratively
feasible and should begin immediately.
Growth constraint
2.7. The RSPB advocates two main policies
in order to address the environmental impacts brought about by
the growth in aviation transport: (i) economic instruments should
be introduced to ensure that aviation meets its environmental
costs and (ii) airport capacity should not be increased to meet
unconstrained demand.
2.8. UK Government models suggest that demand
is very price sensitive yet, unlike other transport sectors, aviation
attracts little or no tax. According to the Government's own analysis,
simply holding prices constant would halve forecast demand for
aviation[5].
Therefore, the RSPB believes demand should be constrained by the
use of economic instruments so that airfares are at least held
constant and, if necessary, increased.
2.9. The second method to manage demand
is to constrain provision. The RSPB was disappointed that the
Government in its White Paper, in effect, adopted a "predict
and provide" policy towards the provision of new capacity,
having rejected the suggestion that it would do so in its consultation
document[6].
In the event, the Aviation White Paper signalled Government's
intention to provide for 47mppa of the forecast demand of 500
mppa by 2030.
Meeting residual demand
2.10. Where there is residual demand, the
Government should demonstrate that all alternative ways to meeting
constrained future air travel demand in Northern Ireland have
been exhausted before embarking on incremental additions to capacity.
This would be done using an iterative approach:
(i) Define unconstrained demand.
(ii) Introduce fiscal measures to reduce
demand.
(iii) Increase capacity on alternative transport
modes.
In Northern Ireland, this would be
principally improved rail links between the urban centres, the
airports, and with the Republic of Ireland.
The RSPB believes that steps i-ii may prove
adequate to meet constrained demand within existing capacity,
and should be applied before embarking on incremental additions
to existing airport infrastructure. However, should Government
determine further capacity is required, then the following process
should be followed in decreasing order of desirability:
(iv) Make best use of existing facilities,
accompanied by increased investment in measures to mitigate impacts
of noise and aircraft emissions on people.
(v) Adoption of new technology to increase
the efficient use of the current airport estate (eg air traffic
control, wing design to reduce air vortexes and reduced landing
separation).
(vi) Additions to the existing airport estate
(eg additional taxiways, runway extensions and additional terminals
and runways).
The RSPB considers no additional runway capacity
should be provided in Northern Ireland. As the aviation White
Paper states, Belfast International "has adequate space within
the airport boundary to serve the whole of the forecast demand
and well beyond".
3. IMPLICATIONS
FOR BIODIVERSITY
CONSERVATION AND
PROTECTED WILDLIFE
SITES
3.1. In our experience, aviation and airports
can affect protected sites and species. The RSPB manages reserves
at Belfast Lough and Lough Foyle. In respect of the latter, proposed
airport developments led to the RSPB's decision to undertake a
judicial review of the Department of Environment's ("DoE")
decision to grant planning permission for a runway-end safety
area.
3.2. Potential impacts on biodiversity can
be direct or indirect. Examples include:
(i) Direct land-take associated with airport
construction and associated service and transport infrastructure.
(ii) Measures to reduce the risk of bird
strike (eg habitat modification such as sward management, and
disturbance including bird scaring).
(iii) Local impact of emissions (eg impact
on pollution sensitive species such as lichens, and eutrophication
of nutrient poor habitats such as heathland).
(iv) Local hydrological impacts due to increased
demand on water resources.
(v) Land-take by associated development,
such as ancillary commercial development.
3.3. In this section, we outline the main
legal and policy framework that applies to the assessment of the
effects on statutorily designated nature conservation sites of
airport development.
3.4. Under national and international wildlife
legislation the Government has legal responsibilities to conserve
and enhance certain sites that are of recognised importance for
their wildlife. The most important sites for wildlife are those
designated as being internationally important for birds as Special
Protection Areas ("SPAs") under the EU Directive on
the conservation of wild birds 79/409/EEC (the "Birds Directive"),
for other species and habitats as Special Areas of Conservation
("SACs") under the EU Directive on the conservation
of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora 92/43/EEC (the
"Habitats Directive"), and under the "Ramsar Convention"
on Wetlands of International Importance. Nationally important
sites are Areas of Special Scientific Interest ("ASSIs")
notified under the Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands Order
1985, as amended.
3.5. SPAs and SACs together form an EU-wide
network of sites of European nature conservation importance known
as Natura 2000. It is Government policy, as set out in Planning
Policy Statement 2 (PPS2), to afford Ramsar sites the same level
of protection as SPAs and SACs. Key protective provisions in respect
of SPAs, SACs and Ramsar sites are set out in the Habitats Directive.
Articles 6(2) to 6(4) set out the main protection regime that
must be applied to SACs. This regime also replaces that which
previously applied to SPAs under the Birds Directive.
3.6. The protective regime of Articles 6(3)
and 6(4) of the Habitats Directive is transposed into Northern
Irish law through the Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc) Regulations
(Northern Ireland) 1995 (the "Habitats Regulations").
Regulations 43, 44 and 48 set out the main tests that the DoE,
as the competent authority, would have to apply to any plan or
project likely to have a significant and (if applicable) adverse
effect (or risk of this) on an SPA and/or SAC. As stated above,
it is Government policy that the same protection be afforded Ramsar
sites. The main tests can be summarised as follows:
(i) Following the completion of an appropriate
assessment, can it be ascertained that the plan or project will
not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the site, subject
to any conditions or restrictions necessary?
(ii) If not, are there any less (ecologically)
damaging alternative solutions to the plan or project?
(iii) If not, must the plan or project be
carried out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest?
(iv) If it is decided that no alternative
solutions exist and that there are imperative reasons of overriding
public interest, the Secretary of State must secure the necessary
compensatory measures to ensure the overall coherence of the Natura
2000 network is protected.
3.7. The tests set out in Regulations 43,
44 and 48 are extremely strict as they concern the protection
of sites that are of recognised international importance. Relevant
effects on a site may be direct (eg direct loss of habitat) or
indirect (eg eutrophication due to increased nitrogen dioxide
emissions or bird hazard management measures). They may also arise
from operations outside the boundary of a site eg changes to drainage
systems. The extent to which any such effects can be removed or
reduced by mitigation measures will vary.
3.8. Where it is not possible to conclude
there will be no adverse effect on a site, it is necessary to
consider whether there are alternative solutions. European Commission
guidance[7]
states that this must examine whether there are alternatives to
the plan or project that better respect the integrity of the site
in question ie are there alternatives that are less damaging to
the SPA, SAC or Ramsar site? Such alternatives could include different
designs, locations or even policy approaches that meet the public
interest objectives of the plan or project.
3.9. If no such alternatives exist, it would
then be necessary to assess whether there are imperative reasons
of overriding public interest (IROPI). The grounds for derogating
from the protective provisions of the Habitats Directive must
be exceptional and not every kind of public interest will be sufficient
when weighed against the objectives of the Directive.
3.10. Finally, if the DoE considers that
all these tests have been passed, it is under a further duty to
ensure habitat compensation is provided so that the overall coherence
of Natura 2000 is protected. It would be necessary to have legal
and ecological certainty that such habitat compensation could
be secured.
3.11. Additionally, there is a duty on the
Government under Article 6(2) of the Habitats Directive to take
appropriate steps to avoid deterioration of habitats and habitats
of species as well as significant disturbance of species for which
an SPA or SAC has been designated. While Article 6(2) has not
been directly transposed in to Northern Irish law, the Government
must have regard to it by virtue of Regulation 3(4) of the Habitats
Regulations.
3.12. In respect of nationally protected
sites, the Government has a duty under Article 38 of the Environment
(Northern Ireland) Order 2002 to take reasonable steps to further
the conservation and enhancement of the flora, fauna, geological
and physiographical features for which an ASSI has been designated.
This duty applies to all ASSIs and is in addition to those duties
described above in respect of ASSIs also designated as SPAs, SACs
or Ramsar sites.
3.13. These are the justifications that
the RSPB would expect to apply, as appropriate, to the consideration
of proposed aviation developments with the potential to affect
European or nationally designated sites.
4. AIRPORTS IN
NORTHERN IRELAND
4.1. This section outlines the nature conservation
implications of expansion at the three airports in Northern Ireland,
having regard to the conclusions drawn in the White Paper.
Belfast International
4.2. Belfast International holds a market
share of around 65%, handling just under 4 million passengers
in 2003[8].
It benefits from unrestricted 24-hour operations. The Government
stated in the White Paper that they support "the development
of the airport within the existing airport boundaries to serve
the forecast passenger and freight demand in full, subject to
consideration of any local environmental impacts". The RSPB
does not consider that the operation of this airport has significant
impacts on the biodiversity or protected sites of the area.
Belfast City
4.3. Belfast City has a market share of
32%, with restricted opening hours[9].
There is currently a very high level of competition with Belfast
International. Resulting discounts on landing charges have been
offered at City, which incurred a substantial loss of £2.6
million in 2002-03[10].
4.4. The White Paper states that the Northern
Ireland authorities are invited to review the form of the current
planning agreement which restricts aircraft movements and passenger
numbers, if they are so requested by the airport operator. The
RSPB identifies no particular impacts on biodiversity under existing
planning restrictions. The impact of lifting the planning cap
is unknown, but could lead to pressure for additional or extended
infrastructure which, given the airport's proximity to designated
sites, could result in direct or indirect effects on those biodiversity
interests, eg habitat loss through expansion, or disturbance to
birds through an intensification of bird hazard management measures.
City of Derry
4.5. The application for the runway-end
safety area at City of Derry airport (see paragraph 3.1 above)
has already illustrated the problems of airport development near
sites protected for their bird interest. The RSPB is aware of
other possible runway extension proposals and has concerns over
potential impacts, both the immediate footprint of the development
and the effects of intensified bird scaring measures as a result
of more, or larger, aircraft.
4.6. City of Derry airport is a peripheral
player, currently commanding just 3% of the market[11].
It incurred significant operating losses in each of the three
financial years 1999-2000—2001-02[12].
The White Paper is rightly more neutral in respect of City of
Derry airport. While recognising the role of the airport in facilitating
access to the northwest, the report suggests that Northern Ireland
authorities will want to give early consideration to the airports
future infrastructure requirements carefully, in conjunction with
the Government of the Republic of Ireland and that all developments
will need careful environmental assessment (paragraphs 7.5 and
7.14).
Conclusion
4.7. Developments at Belfast City and City
of Derry Airports should be subject to the tests outlined in paragraph
3.6, given the likely significant effect on internationally important
protected wildlife sites. Developments determined to have an adverse
effect on the SPA's concerned may not pass the "alternatives
and IROPI tests", given that Belfast International appears
to be an suitable alternative to both Belfast City and City of
Derry Airports.
September 2004
1 Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (2002)
The Environmental Effects of Civil Aircraft in Flight: Special
Report. RCEP. Back
2
House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee Pre-Budget Report
(2003) Aviation Follow-up. Third Report of Session 2003-04. Volume
1. Back
3
Source: response by Mr Morley. House of Commons Written Answers
25 Feb 2004: Column 409W. Back
4
The Future of Air Transport (2003) Department for Transport. Back
5
Sewill, B (2003) The Hidden Cost of Flying Aviation Environment
Federation. www.airportwatch.org.uk/publications/Hidden%20Cost%20Final.doc Back
6
Paragraph 5.2 in The Future Development of Air Transport in the
UK South East: consultation document-second edition (2003) Department
for Transport. Back
7
Managing Natura 2000 sites: the provisions of Article 6 of the
Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC (2000) EC. Back
8
Source: CAA statistics. Back
9
Source: CAA statistics. Back
10
Source: Annual Report and Accounts lodged with Companies House. Back
11
Source: CAA statistics. Back
12
Derry City Council Financial Statements for years ending 31 March
2001 and 2002. Back
| 
