Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2005)602-2 - Establishment of a Joint Undertaking to develop the new generation European air traffic management system (SESAR) - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2005)602-2 - Establishment of a Joint Undertaking to develop the new generation European air traffic management system (SESAR). |
|---|---|
| source | COM(2005)602  |
| date | 25-11-2005 |
Projections for the development of air traffic in Europe show that it should more than double in the next 20 years, or even triple in some regions, particularly central Europe.
Developing air transport infrastructure is therefore becoming a priority for European growth. Moreover, this growth relies on the operation of major industrial programmes with high technological value such as GALILEO (satellite radionavigation) or ITER (nuclear fusion).
SESAR falls into this category. This programme aims to develop the new generation European air traffic management system. The challenge is to develop technologies, methods of organisation and industrial components that are capable of ensuring the safety and fluidity of air transport in the next 20 years in Europe and in the world.
The purpose of the proposal is to create a SESAR Joint Undertaking to ensure the coherence and consistency of the programme, whilst promoting partnership between the Community and other institutions and bodies, both public and private.
As current air traffic control systems are obsolescent and have an excessive amount of specific local features, they are ill-suited for the rapid, economic and reliable development of aviation in Europe. At the same time, however, needs in this sector are changing rapidly:
- passengers want efficient, affordable and safe transport;
- respect for the environment is becoming a major constraint for the harmonious development of mobility;
- 11 September 2001 showed that planes can be a threat to the safety of the population.
The developments required to take account of this new approach to air transport cannot be based on the current system:
- The ageing techniques, some of which based on a architecture several decades old, are reaching their maximum capacity to evolve in order to make full use of new technologies, for example satellite navigation technologies.
- The lack of technical adaptability means that aircraft must follow predefined and strict flight paths, which are not optimal in terms of the consumption of energy or noise emissions.
- The over-adaptation of different systems to specific local features, even if this has enabled operators to respond to the pressure of traffic, makes the whole system weaker by making both technical and operational interoperability more difficult. It also raises the question of the overall capacity of the system to adapt to new functions.
- There are huge disparities between the standards of equipment and the current performance of the different countries of the European Union in terms of air traffic control, which harms its overall performance.
Developments in this sector are not necessarily going in the right direction:
- Increases in the cost of the European air traffic control system (currently about €7 billion per year) are currently generally in proportion to the increase in traffic. Thus, if no proactive steps are taken, under a simple trend-based scenario air traffic control will cost between €14 and 18 billion per year in 2020.
- While, at global level, air transport has progressively achieved a very high level of safety, the analysis of safety data in Europe shows that, during the last five years, there have been three major accidents that have been directly linked to air traffic control problems. The analysis of trends in terms of air traffic incidents is worrying. Even if the Community has adopted a proactive approach, particularly by creating the European Aviation Safety Agency, the role of which must develop in order to become central to all issues of air safety, it is feared that, with traffic becoming significantly more dense, the risk of air accidents is reaching a level which is completely unacceptable to Europeans.
The uncoordinated development of systems which we are currently seeing creates significant additional costs and delays in the introduction of new equipment, penalising users twice in terms of cost and performance, but also penalising controllers who are given tools which are not very flexible or high-performance.
There are no existing provisions in the area of the proposal.
The ‘single European sky’ adopted in March 2004, the implementation of which is already well-advanced, radically reforms the organisation of air navigation services. It clearly defines the roles and responsibilities of supervisory authorities and service providers, and establishes crossborder blocks of airspace. With these blocks, routes (and airspace structures) are no longer defined in accordance with borders but in accordance with the operational reality of traffic. SESAR is the technological element of the single European sky.
The proposal also fits in with the Lisbon Strategy by integrating and speeding up European research and technological innovation in order to stimulate growth and the creation of jobs in Europe.
Finally, SESAR is one of the “projects of common interest” for infrastructure identified by the European Council. Council resolutions of 24 October 1994 (94/C 309/02), of 17 November 1995 (95/C 317/01) and of 19 July 1999 (1999/C 222/01). Decision 1692/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996. Commission proposal COM(2004) 475 of 14 July 2004.
The industry consultation body set up by the framework Regulation for the single European sky (Regulation (EC) No 549/2004) and composed of representatives from throughout the civil aviation industry (including the social partners) created a specific subgroup to be responsible for the economic impact study and the assessment of the different possible forms of governance for SESAR.
The results of this study have also been the subject of a joint presentation to the members of the industry consultation body and the single sky committee, composed of representatives from the states of the European Union.
The continuous involvement of the players in the economic impact and governance assessment meant that the specimen quotations could be validated and comments and suggestions could be gathered along the way.
In addition, when drawing up its proposal, the Commission took account of the comments made during the final presentation of the study.
The use of external expertise, apart from in the economic impact and mode of governance study, was not necessary.
As an option, “not doing anything” will mean activities relating to the research, development and implementation of new air traffic control equipment continue to be carried out in a dispersed and fragmented way in Europe. The role of the Commission will be limited to setting standards for the interoperability of systems, the existence of which will not give any boost to innovation: standards are set de facto to maintain innovation rather than speed it up. In this scenario, there will continue to be a high degree of fragmentation within the European air traffic control infrastructure and the lack of consolidation of research will risk not generating enough technological innovation to renew systems. Furthermore, the decision-making processes will continue to be inefficient, owing to the gap between technological action and the legal provisions for implementing it. This option would therefore mean that the air traffic control infrastructure is not able to accommodate the desired growth in traffic, which will result in poor operational and financial performance. The cost of congestion has been estimated at €20 billion and the risk in terms of safety is real, with the air traffic control system operating at full capacity and using obsolete equipment.
A second option was analysed, aimed at setting up a central European body which would replace national and local bodies. The latter would then be responsible only for putting the products developed by the central body into operational service. This option has, however, met with considerable opposition from all players consulted.
Thus, the suppliers of air navigation services consider that, in an area which is becoming increasingly competitive particularly as a result of the single sky, equipment is an essential component of their production plant and it is therefore important to keep a minimum amount of strategic control. The social partners, whilst recognising that standardisation “from above” was desirable, have suggested that the transition between the current patchwork of local equipment and such a situation would require a local or regional component, at least in the beginning. The air operators, although wanting a standard system in Europe, recognised the value of a gradual transition. The Member States wanted a certain level of competition to be maintained in Europe, and wanted the transition to be organised to take account of local constraints.
The planned option of creating a joint undertaking to manage SESAR’s activity is a middle way between the two previous options, centralising what it is expedient to centralise, whilst leaving enough flexibility for local implementation and adaptation. The joint undertaking, which provides for significant industry participation, also allows the long-term institutional investment capacity to be combined with sharing the risk with industry. This option seems to be extremely positive from an economic point of view in comparison with the option of “not doing anything” because the financial analysis gives acompared incremental net present value of about 20 billion €. This option means that a high-performance and cutting-edge system can be put in place, which will increase the environmental efficiency of each flight, whilst maximising safety. In addition, the rationalisation of the research and development programme and the partnership between public authorities and private undertakings envisaged by the joint undertaking will enable European industry to achieve a high degree of competitiveness on the market for the sale of equipment and aircraft.
Contents
- LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL
- BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS
- 1.1. Grounds for and objectives of the proposal
- 1.2. General context
- 1.2.1. Existing provisions in the area of the proposal
- 1.2.2. Consistency with the other policies and objectives of the Union
- 2. CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT
- 2.1. Consultation of interested parties
- 2.1.1. Consultation methods, main sectors targeted and general profile of respondents
- 2.1.2. Summary of responses and how they have been taken into account
- 2.2. Collection and use of expertise
- 2.3. Impact assessment
- 3.1. Summary of the proposed action
- 3.2. Legal basis
- 3.3. Subsidiarity principle
- 3.4. Proportionality principle
- 3.5. Choice of instruments
- 5. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
- 5.1. Simulation, pilot phase and transitory period
- 5.2. Review/revision/sunset clause
The proposal consists of a Council regulation on the establishment of the SESAR Joint Undertaking.
The legal basis of the proposal is Article 171 of the Treaty establishing the European Community.
The principle of subsidiarity applies in so far as the proposal does not affect an area where the Community has exclusive competence.
The objectives of the proposal may not be achieved to a sufficient extent by the action of Member States for the following reasons:
- The single European sky is, by nature, supranational. It establishes, in particular, the formation of functional crossborder blocks of airspace. With these blocks, routes and airspace structures are no longer defined in accordance with national borders but in accordance with the reality of traffic flows. The new air traffic control systems, intended in particular to equip these functional blocks of airspace, cannot be limited to a national dimension. In addition, the new technologies implemented will require equipment for aircraft, for which there is little point in being limited to a purely national technological choice. Finally, the disparities between the equipment and performance of the Member States’ air traffic control systems are such that harmonisation at European level is necessary: the overall performance of the European air traffic control infrastructure, particularly in terms of safety, depends above all on the performance of its “weakest” links.
- The Member States have adopted a declaration on military issues related to the single European sky i according to which a close European cooperation between civil and military users, on all issues relating to air traffic management, is necessary.
- The European air traffic control equipment industry is working in a “niche” market, in which there are hardly any off-the-shelf product lines, given that each control system installed is specific to local constraints. This therefore generates a high unit cost of production and affects the industry’s capacity for investment in technological innovation, which is a weakness in comparison to the American competition which benefits from a large single market in the United States.
The pooling of research and development efforts at EU level is therefore necessary, given the transnational nature of the equipment and technologies to be developed, and also the need to achieve a sufficient mass of resources to permit innovation.
The aims of the proposal may be better achieved through Community action for the following reasons:
- The research and development efforts must be carried out at European level. The effective implementation of technological innovations must be synchronised within the Union in order to ensure the homogenous nature of the quality and safety of the air traffic control service within the European area. This synchronisation can only be carried out by using the Community’s legal provisions resulting from the single sky.
In addition, the public-private partnership which is necessary to maximum the synergies necessary for innovation, as well as the participation of third countries, are conceivable only at European level.
Community intervention will allow the rationalisation of development programmes and significant interoperability of systems installed which will result in substantial economies of scale. The standardisation of systems in Europe and the replacement of obsolete technologies will also lead to a significant improvement in the level of safety of European air traffic control.
The economic assessment shows that SESAR will contribute substantially to European growth and the creation of new jobs in Europe by improving the performance of air transport activities and increasing the competitiveness of the European aeronautical sector.
The option chosen to make this proposal is a combination of pooling, at European level, what must be pooled (research programmes, planning), what it is expedient to pool (development of joint components), whilst leaving local flexibility for implementation.
The proposal therefore complies with the subsidiarity principle.
The proposal complies with the proportionality principle for the following reasons.
SESAR coordinates and integrates the research and development activities in the field of air traffic control in Europe; uniform management of this programme is necessary in order to ensure consistency. The option of a joint undertaking seemed to all players to be the simplest way of managing SESAR, as it allows public authorities (Community, Eurocontrol) to be associated with the private sector. It also enables third countries that have concluded at least one agreement with the European Community in the field of air transport to be associated with SESAR. The joint undertaking will operate at project supervision level. However it will have to be given enough technical capability to enable it to ensure that the decisions it will have to take are well-founded. It will rely to a large extent on external technical efforts, in particular on the part of its members.
The overall financial burden required for SESAR has been estimated at €300 million per year. This amount must however be seen in the context of the €200 million currently spent in Europe on research alone, or the €1 billion of annual investment at European level in air traffic control. SESAR will rationalise this expenditure by coordinating it and avoiding the duplication of efforts.
Proposed instrument(s): regulation.
Other means would not have been adequate for the following reason(s):
- The creation of an undertaking in which the Community participates requires a Council regulation.
The preliminary budgetary assessment, which must however be fine-tuned during the definition phase which is under way, indicates Community expenditure of €3 million in 2007 and €100 million per year between 2008 and 2013.
The proposal is subject to a definition phase which has already been launched.
The proposal includes a review clause.
The proposal includes a sunset clause of all or part of the legislative act if predefined conditions are met.