Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-09-04-Speech-2-221"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070904.24.2-221"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr Savary, I thank you and, through you, Mr Costa, because I think this question has been very well put and the problem it raises is a real one.
The reform in March 2004 was intended to organise air traffic in line with operational requirements, not national borders. It is a way of shortening flights and avoiding aircraft flying around unnecessarily. I shall answer each of the questions.
The first concerns the cost of air traffic management and the repercussions for the Single Sky. You and Mr Costa have just quoted the key figure of EUR 1 billion if the Single Sky is not implemented, and I might add that, according to Eurocontrol, the potential savings are even greater, since EUR 3 billion could be saved. In addition to the reduction in airline costs, a saving of two billion would be achieved through the improved efficiency of aviation services.
It is true that, as Mr Savary says, completion of the Single European Sky is not progressing quickly enough, given the importance of the objectives: competitiveness, sustainable development, combating climate change and promoting safety in the air. Should we, for that reason, stand there with our arms folded and do nothing? No. For the first time, the adoption of basic rules on the Single Sky has given the Community real powers in this area. The 2004 reform has been implemented: separation between regulation and the provision of services, certification of providers in accordance with European rules, air traffic controllers' licences and a range of technical measures adopted by comitology. Lastly, there has been the launch of the SESAR industrial project, a real addition to the Single Sky.
But we need to move faster. The Commission must take stock of what has been done. Back in December 2006, I consulted a group of high-level experts and this July they presented their report to me on the reforms that are imperative. The Commission will be submitting a communication based on that this autumn.
The second question relates to functional airspace blocks. It is true that in the 2004 reform the Council opted for a bottom-up approach, with action by the national governments on the creation of the blocks. Frankly, that was not an entirely satisfactory approach, because it limited the possibilities for the Commission and the Community institutions to ensure that the blocks were actually created and that work at local level did not become bogged down. Another part of the problem is that insufficient stress was placed on improving the economic efficiency of the service provided. We are going to try and introduce a performance-based approach by the first half of 2008. That would set specific performance targets for service providers and provide for incentives and intervention mechanisms in the event of non-completion. I believe that that performance-based approach will speed up the creation of functional blocks, because they will be essential to the achievement of the performance targets. We are working on the idea of a performance review body and a coordinator responsible for developing the projects more quickly. I personally think that a coordinator of the kind we have for the trans-European networks would be very useful in speeding up the creation of these functional blocks that we need.
We shall not, of course, be waiting until 2009 to accelerate the creation and efficiency of the functional blocks. I would hope to present you with an initiative by the middle of 2008. It is generally agreed that the blocks can only be effective if upper and lower airspace are regarded as indivisible.
Lastly, the fourth question, the bottom-up approach of the Member States, which, it must be admitted, has in some ways been a failure. In that case, should we adopt exactly the opposite approach? I am not sure. I think we still have to try and make the best of the bottom-up approach, but in order to develop a Single Sky we need to move on to a second stage, based on performance, on mechanisms. We have to cooperate actively with the Member States to encourage political commitment and exercise pressure from above to develop functional airspace blocks.
That is why this question was so welcome. It has given me an opportunity to explain the main initiatives we shall be taking, which are in line with the very pertinent comments made by Mr Savary."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples