Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-04-14-Speech-5-081"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000414.4.5-081"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I have taken careful note of all the comments made by the Members and I will pass them on to the Commissioner responsible for transport. Parliament’s message was very clear, as might have been expected, for most of the Members who spoke represent the interests of citizens who live very close to airports.
On the other hand, it was pointed out, and very rightly so, that airports represent major economic factors and that, if we start to impose bans, there is a serious danger that this will have adverse implications for employment.
Of course, the question which arises is how to reconcile economics with preserving the standard of living. Clearly, the level of noise pollution from night flights varies from one airport to another, according to the topography of the areas and population density. This is why, for the time being, the Commission is not going to place a blanket ban on these flights. Moreover, very few airports in the Community impose a full curfew: Paris-Orly is the only one to impose a total ban on night flights. Munich and Berlin-Tegel limit night operations to mail freight. A general ban on night flights would therefore seriously disrupt air transport activities. Most large airports place restrictions on the use of the noisiest types of aircraft or employ economic instruments in order to limit their use.
There are, effectively, a number of alternatives to banning night flights used by various airports, all compatible with Community legislation on market access. A notable example is the use of a noise quota system such as that employed by the London airports, or a ban on using the noisiest runways during the night, which one very well-informed Member referred to. In addition, the use of flight paths which generate less noise pollution, avoiding sensitive districts during take-off and landing, and the application of differentiated airport tax, calculated according to the environmental characteristics of the aircraft, are some of the solutions currently employed.
The question now arises of how to proceed in the future, and, most importantly, when to act. Pages 34 and 35 of the communication on air transport and the environment contain an action plan setting forth a precise schedule. I will not bore you with the details. You have the documents in your possession. The Commission has absolutely no intention of postponing decisions on this matter indefinitely. It has committed itself to precise deadlines.
With regard to the regulatory framework, we aim to present it at the end of this year, or early next year at the very latest. This harmonised framework could include common reference points for measuring the operational noise levels to be limited or prohibited, a provision allowing operators sufficient time to come into line with the new operational restrictions and the establishment of a right for people living near airports to request consultation and negotiations on noise reduction objectives. The economic measures proposed also provide for differentiated treatment of airlines according to the characteristics of their aircraft. In addition, the Commission envisages the development of a code of conduct based on current best practice.
I would also like to reply to the question on the drafting of a new noise standard. The ICAO is currently working on drafting a new standard, and this is long overdue, for the present standards date from 1977 – ages ago. Given the long life of an aircraft – thirty years – clearly, the effects of a new standard will only be seen in the long term. This is why we are insisting on the fact that these new standards should be sufficiently ambitious to counteract the environmental effect of the fast-growing air industry.
In the short term, the Commission considers that rules stipulating the progressive, but rapid withdrawal of the oldest and noisiest aircraft are the best solution, especially for airports whose capacity is restricted by environmental constraints. And the best way to ensure the environmental efficiency of these rules is to act at a worldwide level within the framework of the International Civil Aviation Organisation, as the Commission is doing, in tandem with decision making at a purely European level."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples