Stakeholder SOR Consultation Workshop on the draft EUROCONTROL Specification for Collaborative Environmental Management (CEM) Minutes

Transcription

1 Stakeholder SOR Consultation Workshop on the draft EUROCONTROL Specification for Collaborative Environmental Management (CEM) Minutes EUROCONTROL Headquarters, 19 May 2014, NEPTUNE conference room 1. GENERAL EUROCONTROL organised a formal consultation on the draft Specification on CEM from 24 September to 30 November A draft Stakeholder Statement of Responses (SOR) document was prepared by EUROCONTROL addressing all stakeholder comments. EUROCONTROL organised a workshop on May 19 th inviting all consulted stakeholders to present and discuss the SOR. The objective of the workshop is to ensure that all stakeholder comments have been properly addressed and provides an opportunity for stakeholders and EUROCONTORL to further clarify specific comments, the associated responses and proposed modifications to the draft Specification. The workshop was attended by 11 external participants from national regulatory authorities, ANSPs, Airport Operators, Aircraft Operator and Industry Associations either in person or by WebEx see participant list at ANNEX B. The meeting was chaired by Mr. Eivan Cerasi of the Standardisation Unit within the EUROCONTROL Pan-European Single Sky Directorate. 2. Agenda item 1 - Welcome and Introduction The Chairman opened the meeting by welcoming all the participants. The Chairman went on to stress that the purpose of this Workshop was not to take any new comments; it was to ensure that the comments received had been correctly understood and that EUROCONTROL s responses offered an acceptable solution - discussions would take place within this context. Any changes to the Statement of Responses (SOR) document would be agreed and done during the meeting. The Chairman then asked the participants to introduce themselves briefly before presenting the agenda and workshop objectives (see agenda at ANNEX A). The agenda was agreed without change. The Chairman then handed over to Andrew Watt Head of the Support to SES-related policies Unit within the Pan-European single Sky Directorate, who presented the drivers behind and key benefits to be gained from adoption of the CEM Specification. Andrew Watt (AW) opened his presentation by highlighting the many environmental challenges facing stakeholders that may impact on capacity and the sustainable development of the aviation sector, citing as examples delays in building infrastructure and in renewing environmental permits. He acknowledged the significant efforts in time, money and expertise that operational and regulatory stakeholders have already undertaken to tackle environmental impacts in and around airports notably with regard to noise issues. He also drew the participants attention to the fact that the Airport Operator had little or no influence over land-use planning issues. 1/11

2 Returning to the issue of noise; AW reminded the participants that the 2002/30/EC Noise Directive would be repealed by the new EU Noise Regulation that would come into force after mid AW then went on to outline the Environmental Risks in more detail including the issue of Particulate Matter (PM) that was rising on the agenda and the need to minimise GHG emissions which in turn could impact fuel burn (reduce) and thereby minimise costs. He emphasised the risk to Reputation and the sector s ability to deal with its impacts along with the potential for more regulation. The airport was a collaborative enterprise - the CEM Specification could help in tackling these risks and provide a buffer in time to more regulation whilst facilitating compliance to existing and future legislation (including SES). In addition, CEM working arrangements could support the SESAR ATM Master Plan and its deployment. Concluding his presentation AW spoke about the difficulty for any single operational stakeholder to tackle these issues in isolation; the lead could be operational, however, managers dealing with Environmental matters should be aware and involved as far as possible. The positive benefits from airports in generating both direct and indirect employment and economic prosperity for its surrounding region needed to be balanced with environmental protection, improved efficiency and reduced costs. The Chairman passed the floor to Sharon Mahony from DPS/POL in her capacity as Editor/Activity Manger to present a general overview of Stakeholder comments received and reflected in the Summary of Responses (SOR). 3. Agenda item 2 Results of the Consultation on the Draft CEM Specification Sharon Mahony (SM) presented a brief graphical overview of the Responses received sorted by Stakeholder Group and Category of Response. She highlighted the fact that the majority of stakeholders found the draft CEM Specification to be acceptable. Reconfirming the Chairman s opening comments; SM stated that no other new comments would be taken. Referring to the SOR document that had been circulated prior to the meeting, SM explained that the slides to be presented would capture the essential points for the purposes of efficiency. She expanded on the agenda point 3 saying that in the first instance the Key Issues reflected and consolidated from the SOR would be presented first. The Other Issues identified in the SOR would, if time allowed, also be presented during the Workshop. SM then went on to present the main comments made during the consultation and EUROCONTOL s proposed responses under the following Key Issues headings: 1. Support to Regulatory Compliance EUROCONTROL s Response and proposed Actions were accepted without comment. 2. ANNEX B Traceability to Regulation The Chairman in addition commented that in the context of the SES legislation, the Specification could also be used by ANSPs to outline to their national 2/11

3 supervisory authority (NSA) what actions they are undertaking as regulated parties. ANNEX B was very useful in that it gives direct links to regulatory requirement and technicality. It can save time and at the same time build confidence and trust amongst the parties involved. 3. Relationships with Competent Authorities EUROCONTROL s Response and proposed Actions were accepted without comment. 4. Impact on Airport Capacity Chrystelle Damar from ACI Europe remarked that it was more the contents of the Environmental Permits that could affect the way that capacity is used. It was not the renewal process itself that was a constraint on capacity (although it can and does take many years). She cited as an example limitations on runway use imposed within an airport s environmental permit this is what can impact capacity. She proposed to amend the SOR by revising the text in the specification to reflect this. It was agreed in the workshop that the SOR and ANNEX B would be amended accordingly and that Section of the draft Specification would be revised to read as follows: Many airports are also facing increasing social and regulatory pressure when renewing environmental permits, the contents of which may lead to further limitations on airport capacity. 5. Terms of Reference of the CEM Working Arrangements A lively discussion ensued on this Key Issue; Chrystelle Damar from ACI Europe commented that there was a very important distinction between what is under the control of CEM Stakeholders and what is not. CEM is there to enable mature discussion between stakeholders issues that were of importance at the local level needed inclusion under the Terms of Reference (TORs). Land Use Planning (LUP - in the area surrounding an airport and under approach and departure routes) is of importance but it was questioned whether it should it be included in this part of the CEM Specification as the CEM working arrangement cannot directly influence the outcome. Christian Röhrer from Vienna Airport also commented that Third Party Risk is also a similar topic and should form a separate requirement in the Specification. It was proposed to have a new requirement using a may. An agreement was then reached that a separate requirement would be included; the draft wording proposed by EUROCONTROL during the meeting was accepted as follows for Section of the draft Specification: Given their potential impacts on operational and environmental performance, the following topics may be part of the terms of reference of the CEM working arrangement where relevant: Land use in the vicinity of the airport Third party risk As a result of this additional requirement the current sections to will be renumbered and ANNEX B - Traceability to Regulation, will 3/11

4 be revised accordingly. Pages of the SOR document and its ANNEX B - Table of Received Comments, pages B16-21, will be revised to reflect the agreed changes. The Chairman confirmed that the attention of the UK s CAA and Germany s DFS would be drawn to these changes as a result of their pertinent comments and the subsequent changes made during the SOR Workshop. The decision-making aspect within the CEM working arrangement terms of reference as proposed in the draft Specification was also debated. The Chairman emphasised the need for legitimate representation in the CEM working arrangement for it to function. It was noted that section (in particular bullet 2) provides sufficient flexibility to address this aspect. 6. Relationship between CEM and Environmental Management Systems (EMS) EUROCONTROL s Response and proposed Actions were accepted without comment. SM highlighted the fact that the word Many and already would be deleted and replaced with may due to the legitimate concerns of several stakeholders in their response to the consultation. 7. Confidentiality of fuel burn data EUROCONTROL s Response and proposed Actions were accepted without comment. 8. Social and Operational constraints EUROCONTROL s Response and proposed Actions were accepted without comment. 9. ANNEX D Restructuring SM acknowledged the many concerns expressed by stakeholders on the structure and content of Annex D. In particular, she drew attention to the comment made on the use of local tools that should take preference if they were available. In response EUROCONTROL had underlined the benefits of using objective tools that had been validated at the European or even global level - in particular where this involved measurement or monitoring of performance. The Chairman also acknowledging the concerns expressed in the comments pointed out that ANNEX B was only an informative annex without requirements. He went on to say that once the Specification was published it would be under maintenance meaning that Annexes in particular could have their contents modified over time. AW, in response to a question raised by Anca Barca from ROMASTA on the EUROCONTROL tool set, gave a brief clarification on the status of each one. He emphasised, at the same time, the benefits of the tools being recognised and validated at the level of ICAO. This would in addition offer a harmonised approach to the monitoring and measurement of environmental impacts. IMPACT - is a new modelling platform combining enhanced versions of the STAPES regional noise model and the Advanced Emissions Model (AEM). It runs on EUROCONTROL servers and, through an interface, stakeholders can upload data sets for processing airport noise contours, fuel burn and greenhouse gas emissions results. Its development has been funded through SESAR and it is currently 4/11

5 undergoing stress testing within ICAO s Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection. By using the same data set for noise and fuel burn/emissions calculations, interdependencies can be better analysed. ALAQS was being updated into Open ALAQS and would no longer be linked to a proprietary Geographical Information System. It provided emissions inventories at airports, not a dispersion model. PM was not covered in this respect a Call for Tender for the modelling of PM had been issued by the European Commission in order to improve scientific knowledge in this area. V-PAT - a tool to monitor occurrence of level flight performance at approach and departure was under development. Aircraft Assignment Tool (AAT) is being developed through EUROCONTROL s Statistics and Forecasting Service in co-operation with EASA. It is undergoing stress testing within ICAO s Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection. Concluding the exchange of views, SM reconfirmed EUOCONTROL s response that the ANNEX B would be restructured to make it more focussed and improve the description of the tools. 10. Recognition of existing working arrangements and frequency of CEM-related meetings EUROCONTROL s Response and proposed Actions were accepted, SM reiterated the point that it was up to the CEM working arrangement at each airport to decide upon the frequency of the meetings. 11. Applicability and relations with external Stakeholders 12. Cost-benefit of CEM SM drew the participants attention to ANNEX C- CEM in Practice that would become a living document upon publication of the Specification. Information shared on good practice would be a cost efficient way of sharing information that tackles environmental impacts. New case studies would be added over time. 13. Clarification of Air Quality-related requirements 14. Clarification and the renaming of the Trade-offs section SM then announced that all the items on the Key Issues list had been addressed and proposed to open the Other Issues list and proceed in the same manner. The proposal was unanimously accepted by the Workshop participants. 1. Relationship between implementation of CEM and the ESSIP ENV 02 objective 5/11

6 There was, however, some discussion on the requirements of the ESSIP ENV02 objective and the mention of implementing CEM. SM clarified that the implementation of ESSIP ENV02 was voluntary and that there was a list of applicable airports in the ESSIP report. Continuing, SM informed the participants that in the ENV02 objective reference was made to CEM Guidance material published in It was not obligatory to use this material. The ENV02 objective calls for evidence of collaborative working arrangement amongst the operational stakeholders at airports. In future editions of the ESSIP Plan reference will be made to the CEM Specification upon publication, again, as guidance material. 2. Relationship between A-CDM and CEM SM reemphasized that A-CDM was more tactical, focused on the short term and that CEM was more focused on the long term. 3. Relationship between CEM and airport size Chrystelle Damar from ACI Europe asked clarified along which lines? in reference to the Action proposed by EUROCONTROL that the sizing issue will be clarified. A general discussion ensued during which it was agreed that any airport of any size could face environmental impacts and that it would be a pity to lose part of the target audience if the CEM Specification s applicability was restricted by airport size. In relation to the airport size, Anca Barca from ROMASTA also questioned the link between the applicability of the Specification and the ESSIP ENV 02. The risk is to overburden small airports with an extensive CEM Specification. Referring ESSIP Report available on-line, it was noted that the ESSIP ENV02 objective was targeting large airports. Irrespective of airport size, voluntary adoption of the CEM Specification could be beneficial even when no regulatory requests are required. The Specification s objective is to facilitate dialogue. In conclusion, the Chairman proposed to make use of the workshop to draft a sentence in the draft Specification to reflect this agreement. The workshop participants agreed to the following: Section 5 SCOPE the following sentence will be added to the end of the first paragraph: It is not bound to a specific airport size or number of movements. The SOR document and ANNEX B will be revised accordingly to reflect this. 4. Annex C Relevance of Case Studies 5. Structure and ordering of CEM requirements 6. Reference to future targets of the Performance Scheme (RP2) 6/11

7 7. Inaccuracies and up-to-date references 8. Consultation process Distribution list SM concluded that EUROCONTROL was keen to receive feedback and that processes could always be improved for the benefit of all stakeholders. SM concluded her presentation of the general overview of the Stakeholder comments that had been received and how they had been reflected in the Summary of Responses (SOR) by thanking the participants for their active and constructive contributions to the Workshop. SM reminded the participants that their comments were of vital importance to inform the content of the CEM Specification. This would ensure that it was fit for purpose and be of added value to stakeholders in their efforts to tackle - collaboratively - current and future environmental impacts at airports and arrive at commonly agreed solutions. The floor was then handed back to the Chairman for closing comments and next steps. Gérard Thibaut from ACNUSA requested that prior to the closing of the Workshop he make a brief statement. This was accepted. He informed the meeting that ACNUSA was active at the twelve most important airports in France that represented more than 20K movements a year of aircraft of more than 12t of MTOW. Fines for breach of noise rules could reach 40k especially when the aircraft deviates from the NADP (and during night-time); between ten to twenty thousand people could have their sleep disturbed at major airports. Membership of ACNUSA is irrevocable and non-renewable. Many airports were very afraid of texts such as the content of the CEM Specification. 4. Agenda item 4 - Closing Summary: The chairman summarised the outcome of the workshop with the following main points: a) Outcome of the Consultation was presented. b) Main issues were discussed. c) Common understanding was achieved. d) EUROCONTROL s responses and proposed actions were accepted; and in addition, e) Agreement was made to revise the SOR and ANNEX B on : a. Impact on Airport Capacity (Section 4.2.1: Airport Operators) b. Land Use Planning & Third party risk (Section 7: CEM Protocol section 7.2 General Requirements) c. Size of Airports (Section 5: Scope) f) Informative ANNEX B and D of the draft Specification will be revised in depth. g) The attention of DFS and the UK CAA will be directly drawn to the changes in the SOR relating to their comments. 7/11

8 Next Steps The Chairman proceeded to present the Next Steps as follows: Meeting minutes and workshop slides to be provided to the participants of the Workshop for comment; Revise and circulate the updated draft SOR for comment allowing 2 weeks for final comments; Publish the final SOR, minutes and slides on the EUROCONTROL website. Publication of the Specification In closing, the Chairman thanked the meeting participants for their constructive and comprehensive comments and extended a special thanks to the EUROCONTROL team for developing the document and for the input provided to reflect the modifications discussed in the workshop. 8/11

9 Annex A Stakeholder SOR Consultation Workshop on the EUROCONTROL Specification for Collaborative Environmental Management (CEM) 19 May 2014 NEPTUNE Conference Room =============================================== AGENDA ITEM TIME SUBJECT PRESENTED BY 1. 10h00 Welcome and Introduction: Presentation of the Workshop Objectives Eivan CERASI (pp Head of DPS/STAN) 2. 10h20 Need and benefits of the CEM Specification Andrew WATT (Head of DPS/POL) 3. 10h30 Results of the Consultation on the Draft CEM Spec Main Comments and Draft Responses Discussions Subject Matter Experts 11h30 Coffee Break 9/11

10 Stakeholder SOR Consultation Workshop on the EUROCONTROL Specification for Collaborative Environmental Management (CEM) 19 May 2014 NEPTUNE Conference Room =============================================== AGENDA ITEM TIME SUBJECT PRESENTED BY 3. (Cont d) 11h45 Continuation of the Results of the Consultation Subject Matter Experts 13h00 Lunch 3. (Cont d) 14h00 Continuation of the Results of the Consultation Subject Matter Experts 15h30 Coffee Break 4. 16h00 Summary Next Steps Closing Eivan CERASI (pp Head of DPS/STAN) 10/11

11 Annex B List of Participants Last name First name Title Gender Organisation Webex External RÖHRER Christian Vice-President Environmental Controlling Mr Vienna Airport c.roehrer@viennaairport.com No DAMAR Chrystelle Head of Environment and Intermodality Ms ACI Europe chrystelle.damar@aci-europe.org No FLOREA Adrian Operational Mr ROMATSA adrian.florea@romatsa.ro Yes ROUTAMA Satu Environmental Specialist Mr Finavia satu.routama@finavia.fi Yes VIINIKAINEN Mikko VP Sustainability and Environment Mr Finavia mikko.viinikainen@finavia.fi Yes Head of Environmental & Quality BARCA Anca Department Ms ROMATSA anca.barca@romatsa.ro No MIHAI Gabriel Safety & Quality Mr ROMATSA gabriel.mihai@romatsa.ro No THIBAUT Gérard Membre du collège Mr ACNUSA ge.thibaut@gmail.com No PREDA Dragos Flight Ops Support Mr TAROM dragos,preda@tarom.ro Yes Internal CERASI Eivan Chairman pp Head DPS/STAN Mr WATT Andrew Head of DPS/POL Mr MAHONY Sharon Activity Manager Editor DPS/POL Ms BALSERI GOÑI Javier DG/JUR Mr PINTO Jorge Graduate DPS/POL Mr EFTHYMIOU Marina Trainee DPS Ms BROWN Lindsay Trainee DPS Ms State Liaison VOLOV Anton State Liaison Officer Ukraine Mr Yes POPA Dumitru-Catalin State Liaison Officer Romania Mr 11/11