Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-03-Speech-2-049"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020903.3.2-049"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
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."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples