Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-03-12-Speech-2-126"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020312.6.2-126"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I am not going to insist on identifying the precedents which have led us to today’s discussion, which I hope will lead to a positive result tomorrow, because we all know what has happened following the negative attitude of a series of Member States of the ICAO and we all want to make progress in the fight against noise at airports. We are also aware of the decision which the European Union adopted in relation to a certain type of modified aircraft which conforms to Chapter III and the circumstances which have led us to the current situation. What I wish to do first is to warmly thank Mr Jarzembowski for the wonderful work he has done on a very delicate issue and also Mr Blokland for the series of very positive amendments – in terms of the environment – which he has contributed to this Commission proposal.
The Commission would also like to express its support for a general exemption applicable to genuinely exceptional services, for humanitarian reasons or maintenance work which cannot be carried out elsewhere for example.
Ladies and gentlemen, the fact that decisions are taken in a coherent way throughout the Community is a fundamental step forwards. This means that we have the opportunity to replace the current patchwork of restrictions with prepared measures within a coherent framework of analysis, in such a way that similar solutions will be applied in European airports which have similar problems.
I believe that we have an applicable directive which conforms to our international obligations and which, furthermore, will contribute to improving the quality of life of the citizens who live close to airports. In this respect, Mr President, I would like once again to thank the two rapporteurs and the honourable Members for their work and I am grateful for the cooperation and understanding of Parliament, which wanted to participate in this very difficult exercise of adopting legislation in record time, which allows us to prevent other types of problem in the international field.
Thank you very much, Mr President. I hope that tomorrow the vote and the support of the honourable Members will allow us once and for all to resolve this issue which we have been dealing with for far too long.
I believe that it is very important – and everybody here has said so – that today we find a solution, which, as Mr Sterckx said, and I agree with him, is not the ideal solution, but which at least represents a step forward and prevents further clashes with third countries. We must understand that we are part of a multilateral system; that, thanks to the decision of the European Union, things have moved on within the ICAO and the situation has improved and that we now have a proposal which offers us clear opportunities to improve the situation of airports in the future.
I perfectly understand that we have many amendments and that, if we did not have international commitments which are binding of all of us, the honourable Members would probably like to support them. I would ask you tomorrow to bring that international agreement within our reach; that we may have a proposal which supports what the 15 countries of the Union have decided, voted for and supported within the ICAO. I would therefore like to thank Mr Jarzembowski and Mr Blokland and the two committees for their ambitious and at the same time realistic work and efforts, which show common sense and support for the decision of the 15 countries in the ICAO and therefore for the international decision.
I believe that, after removing the requirement for an alternative airport, the definition of an urban airport hugely broadens the scope and this is positive. We could not reduce the number of movements to 30 000 since, amongst other things, it would contradict the limit laid down in the directive on environmental noise, which this very Parliament approved recently.
I believe that the definition of the competent authority has improved and allows for the appropriate margins. I would also like to insist once again that we are not obliging any Member State to create a new body, but that the competent authority in each case will be defined and determined by the Member State in question, and it is therefore necessary that the State in question does define and determine it, and I would like to point out that we agree with Parliament that it is essential to make it clear that operative restrictions, according to the acoustic level, are based on methodologies described in the third edition of volume 1 of Annex XVI of the ICAO. This document has been agreed at international level and we would not accept any less rigorous document.
It is also clear that, if the operative restrictions were not based on acoustic levels, but on the runway and the time, it would be difficult for us to refer to this Annex.
With regard to the obligation to carry out analysis, the amount of information has been an issue on which a careful balance has been achieved: Article 5, paragraphs 1 and 2. On the one hand, we do not want to impose unnecessary burdens on airports or on the States of the Union, but, on the other hand, we must ensure that we have a suitable basis for decision making. Even in the event that an airport does not propose significant operative restrictions, we believe that it will be to their benefit to make as complete an analysis as possible in order to make decisions in full knowledge of the facts.
We have studied very carefully the rhythm which the airports could impose with the withdrawal of aircraft from the fleets in question and we are convinced that this reference should be made according to movements. I believe that a minimum of five years is a very tough requirement and we could not therefore reduce this time period even further.
With regard to the developing countries, the Commission has carried out a detailed study which has concluded that these countries have acted in a responsible way by reducing their fleets of Chapter II aircraft and we applaud this action. We must be fair towards these operators and I believe that the compromise amendment presented is a solution we can support."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples