To
Jose Manuel Barroso
President of the European Commission
Siim Kallas
Commissioner for Transport
Connie Hedegaard
Commissioner for Climate Action
European Commission
200 Rue de la Loi
Berlaymont
B-1049 Brussels
- via E-Mail -
10.10.2013
Dear President, Vice-President, Commissioner,
The recent ICAO-Assembly has agreed to develop by 2016 a global market
based mechanism to tackle aviation emissions, which can come into force in
2020.
While we would have liked a more ambitious outcome, we welcome this
Decision. In light of this Decision, the EU now has to decide on the way
forward with the EU ETS. In this context, we, the undersigned, would like to
convey the European Parliament's position.
As you recall the "stop-the-clock" derogation decision anticipates further
amendments in the EU ETS in the event of a successful ICAO Assembly
outcome. The parameters identified for measuring the results were agreement
on a timetable for a global MBM and an agreement on the framework for
interim regional MBMs.
Whilst we recognise the efforts of the Commission and the EU Member States
in trying to secure delivery on both these points, it is clear that as regards an
agreement on the framework our expectations have not been met. In fact the
outcome has been further watered down from the draft which was put forward
by the ICAO Council of 4 September. The Assembly resolution language on
the framework as expressed in paragraphs 16 a) appears to imply a condition
of mutual consent as a precondition for the implementation of measures within
states' airspace. This is in contradiction with the provisions of the Chicago
Convention and the very same principles that govern the ICAO process. While
1
we agree with the importance of consultative processes and international
engagement, mutual consent surely is not something the EU should accept.
We are clearly in a difficult situation. On one hand the EU must be considered
as a credible and serious partner, and on the other we must live up to our
reputation as a proponent of multilateralism. In this context, the result under
the global MBM and the strong commitment expressed by the industry provide
us the possibility to consider a more permanent amendment. The EU ETS
must be seen as a positive contribution to the process – a pilot that will build
readiness for the up-take of the global Measure.
We accept that the EU should not play into the hands of our adversaries by
provoking a negative reaction and re-setting the clock. At the same time
simply continuing the permanent derogation is not a politically viable option
and the EP would therefore not be able to accept it. The EU needs more to
show progress, and it needs more to show that international dialogue is not
about pushing the EU to the barest minimum but rather about finding
acceptable compromises that build from two way dialogue and mutual
accommodation.
In this situation it would seem advisable to base future EU-action on the
ICAO-Council outcome, which met the conditions of being both an acceptable
and a pragmatic compromise. Domestic air traffic should continue to be
covered as with "stop-the-clock" on the basis of distance travelled between
EEA airports, while the so called third country traffic should be covered on the
basis of distance travelled within EU's regional airspace.
As regards the time-frame of the proposal, considering the ICAO cycles and
anticipated decision on implementation in 2016, this should be set up to 2016
subject to further revision.
Finally, given the limited amount of time available to find an agreement on an
upcoming legislative proposal before the European Parliament's election
recess, we would urge the Commission to come forward with its proposal
without delay.
Kind regards,
Matthias Groote,
Chairman of the Environment Committee
Brian Simpson,
Chairman of the Transport Committee
2
Peter Liese,
Rapporteur on the inclusion of aviation in the EU-ETS
(Environment Committee)
Mathieu Grosch
Rapporteur of the Opinion on Stop the Clock of the
Transport Committee
3