The European Commission (EC) has made it clear that the industry downturn is likely to push back the timetable for any tightening of environmental legislation.
This is a change of tune since the immediate aftermath of 11 September. Then, Brussels had insisted on going ahead with passenger rights proposals, arguing that by the time they came into force in 2004, the industry would be in a healthier state.
The EC had been pushing the idea of emissions charging in the run up to the next formal meeting of ICAO's Committee for Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP 6) in spring 2004. It is also pushing for a further tightening of NOx emission standards. But a source close to EC transport commissioner Loyola de Palacio says that "she doesn't want another hushkit row", referring to the transatlantic spat two years ago. In any case, Palacio must stand down from transport after autumn 2004 when the current Commission ends its term of office. For its part, Washington was not keen on the idea of emissions charging even before current industry woes.
The EC sees 2005-6 as a possible target for new environmental measures such as tighter NOx standards following from CAEP 6, but EC officials say that a rerun of the Chapter 4 noise compromise, which saw a trade-off between the noise standard level and the timetable for implementation, cannot be ruled out.
Speaking at the European Regional Airline conference in Stuttgart in March, EC head of unit aviation environment Eckard Seebohm said the EC is "fully aware" of the tough economic background of the airline industry, and that "this is taken very seriously" by Brussels.
He said the EC is obliged to promote environmentally sustainable transport, but added that "policy on transport and the environment is a delicate balancing act".
The EC has been looking at the emissions charge since it rejected the idea of a kerosene tax last year on the grounds that it would only be applicable to European Union airlines. Brussels commissioned a study last year from consultants CE Delft that looked at two charging methods:an environmental charge that would raise revenue; and a "performance standard incentive" that would see worst-offenders pay more while the best performing aircraft would receive a rebate. There are those in Brussels that see the latter as easier to implement, but one insider says it is proving difficult to get this idea accepted at ICAO level. Seebohm says he would "welcome" informal comments on the report.
Brussels is prepared to consider voluntary measures when it comes to environmental issues, but warns these must be "beyond business as usual". Seebohm adds: "They must be measurable with regular reporting and there must be enforcement mechanisms." Such agreements must be "credible", he says.
He notes that emissions trading is complicated and likely to take a few years of further study, but says: "Conceptually, this has clear advantages, given that the costs of reducing emissions are higher for airlines than they are in most other industries." This would require agreement on distribution of allowances to countries and industries, among other issues.
Noise, meanwhile, is further down the agenda now that a new Chapter 4 standard has been agreed within ICAO, together with guidelines for restricting marginal Chapter 3 aircraft, including hushkits, under the so-called "balanced approach". Attention is now focused on implementation of this approach, which requires airports to look at wider solutions such as land planning before imposing a blanket ban on marginal Chapter 3 aircraft. If member states do not follow these rules, Seebohm says Brussels "is not just entitled, but is obliged to take action".
COLIN BAKER STUTTGURT
Source: Airline Business
