DfT home About DfT Transport strategy White Papers The Future of Air Transport - White Paper and the Civil Aviation Bill

Chapter 3 - Environmental impacts

Objectives

3.1 The balanced strategy set out in the previous chapter requires that we do more to reduce and mitigate the environmental impacts of air transport and of airport development.

3.2 One of the features of air travel is that while many of the benefits are spread across society as a whole, many of the adverse impacts are distributed unevenly. People living near airports have to live with the immediate effects of aircraft noise, air quality problems and increased congestion on local roads. Urbanisation sometimes associated with airport development can also have adverse impacts on landscape and habitats. Action can be taken to mitigate these adverse effects, but it is seldom possible to eliminate them altogether.

3.3 At the global level, the greenhouse gases emitted from aircraft engines into the atmosphere make a significant, and growing, contribution to climate change.

3.4 In many respects, the international nature of the aviation industry means that action to tackle these problems must be taken in collaboration with governments and institutions world-wide. The Government will ensure that we meet our international commitments and obligations; and we will continue to play a major role in seeking to develop new solutions and stronger actions by the appropriate international bodies.

3.5 At the local level, decisions about the amount and location of future airport capacity must properly reflect environmental concerns. Adverse impacts should be controlled, mitigated and, where relevant, made the subject of suitable compensation. The following basic principles are fundamental to achieving these objectives. They provide an essential framework within which additional local controls should operate to manage the local environmental impact of aviation and airport development:

• we will respect targets on air and water quality which have been agreed to protect human health and the wider environment;
• we will require that airport developments are consistent with existing arrangements for the control of the noise impacts of aviation;
• we will work constructively with our European and, where appropriate, international colleagues to develop further procedures and regimes for managing noise, including night noise.

3.6 Local controls should operate within these principles to manage the environmental impact of aviation and airport development so that:

• noise impacts are limited, and where possible reduced over time;
• local air quality is maintained within legal limits across all relevant pollutants in order to protect human health and the wider environment;
• loss of landscape and built heritage is avoided wherever possible, and otherwise minimised and mitigated to the greatest extent possible;
• all relevant water quality and other mandatory environmental standards are met;
• surface access to airports is designed to help limit local environmental impacts (see also Chapter 4); and
• impacts on biodiversity, such as disturbance of habitats and species, are minimised.

3.7 A wide-ranging and balanced approach will be needed to deliver these objectives, including:

• applying increasingly stringent technical standards to limit emissions and noise at source;
• encouraging airport operators, airlines and air traffic managers to adopt the cleanest and quietest operational practices;
• the withdrawal of the noisiest and dirtiest aircraft, and replacing them with aircraft capable of better environmental performance;
• using economic incentives to encourage noise and emissions reductions, and the use of best available technology (see box);
• working with industry and universities to research, develop and introduce cleaner and quieter technology; and
• using land-use planning and management measures at and around airports, including avoiding new housing development in areas exposed to high levels of noise.

These measures will be applied with full regard for safety considerations, international obligations, technical feasibility, and economic reasonableness, including international equity.

3.8 Finally, we will work to ensure that aviation meets its external costs, including its environmental and health costs. The aviation industry has a responsibility to reduce its impacts under the 'polluter pays' principle. The biggest impact in monetary terms is aviation's contribution to climate change, and a longer term solution is set out in paragraphs 3.35 to 3.40 and Annex B. In the meantime we expect the aviation industry and international bodies to address the 'polluter pays' problem seriously, responding creatively to the common challenge of global warming.

3.9 The rest of this chapter sets out in more detail our policies to address noise, local air quality and climate change. They will be supplemented by specific, and in many cases locally determined, environmental controls at individual airports. And they will be accompanied by stronger mitigation and compensation measures.

Developing Economic Instruments

Well-designed economic incentives offer an important mechanism for delivering the Government's environmental objectives, including those for aviation. Potential economic instruments include environmental charges, taxes and trading schemes. Such measures use price signals to drive improvements, and can help to encourage the development and use of environmentally friendly technology. Economic instruments can help ensure that aviation bears the external costs it imposes on society.

In March 2003, the Department for Transport and HM Treasury published a report 'Aviation and the Environment: Using Economic Instruments', which provided estimates of monetary values of external costs relating to climate change, local air quality and noise. The report estimated the climate change costs associated with aviation, using an illustrative value for the cost of carbon of £70 per tonne (rising by £1 per year in real terms). The cost of carbon emissions associated with UK passenger aircraft was estimated at £1.4 billion in 2000, rising to over £4 billion in 2030. Local air quality costs for all passengers at UK airports in 2000 were estimated in the range £119 - £236 million a year, while noise costs at all UK airports in 2000 were estimated at £25 million a year. These costs have been taken into account in assessing future demand for air travel. There is a range of other environmental factors associated with aviation which are more difficult to quantify in monetary terms. These factors have been taken into account in assessing additional airport capacity.

Specific proposals for the development of new economic instruments are set out in the sections below and in Annex B. Specific measures available include noise and emissions-related landing charges, en route charges to address specific pollutants, and emissions trading - the last two best delivered on a multilateral basis.Noise

3.10 Today's aircraft are typically 75 per cent quieter than jets in the 1960s. Despite that, action is needed to prevent a deterioration in the noise climate as growth in air traffic overtakes the rate of technological advance. The increases in airport capacity envisaged by this White Paper need to be matched by stringent measures to control noise - mostly delivered locally, but within an overall national and international framework.

3.11 Our basic aim is to limit and, where possible, reduce the number of people in the UK significantly affected by aircraft noise. This is a challenging objective, and meeting it will require a combination of measures, including:

• promoting research and development into new low noise engine and airframe technologies. We support the research target set by the Advisory Council for Aeronautics Research in Europe ¹ that perceived noise should be reduced to one half of current average levels by 2020;
• implementing the regulatory framework agreed by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) - see box. The key elements of this framework have now been incorporated into UK law by the Aerodromes (Noise Restrictions) (Rules and Procedures) Regulations 2003. These regulations currently apply at ten UK airports, but we expect the underpinning principles to be applied at all significant UK airports;
• implementing EU Directive 2002/49/EC, which requires periodic noise mapping at many airports from 2007 to identify day and night noise problems and, from 2008, action plans to deal with them;
• retaining and, where necessary, strengthening the current regulation by central Government of noise at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports. We will also consider exercising similar powers at other airports if there is evidence that a major noise problem is not being dealt with adequately through local controls. However, the Government's preference remains that local solutions should be devised for local problems wherever possible, and we expect that airport master plans (see Chapter 12) will describe the package of measures that an airport operator intends to apply to deal with local noise (and air quality) problems;
• widening the use of economic instruments, including the use of differential landing charges according to noise levels - for which powers already exist - at all airports where a significant local noise problem exists. Funds from a noise-related element in user charges could be used to finance local mitigation and compensation schemes.

ICAO Agreement On Controlling Noise

The ICAO Assembly agreed in 2001 that states should pursue a balanced approach to controlling noise at airports. This has four elements:

• reducing noise at source - to be regulated through ICAO, by means of progressive tightening of noise certification standards. The latest 'Chapter 4' standard for new aircraft takes effect in 2006, but many modern aircraft are already comfortably beating this standard and we will continue to press for even better performance;
• land-use planning and management - to ensure that inappropriate development is discouraged or prohibited around airports. We have consulted separately on planning for major projects, and will update the relevant planning policy statements for England, including Planning Policy Guidance Note 24 (Planning and Noise).
• noise abatement operational procedures - steps taken by pilots and air traffic controllers to minimise the noise nuisance from overflights, for example the use where feasible of continuous descent approach; and
• operating restrictions - measures that limit the access of aircraft to airports, such as night restrictions or the phased withdrawal of the noisiest aircraft types. 3.12 The Government recognises that noise from aircraft operations at night is widely regarded as the least acceptable aspect of aircraft operations. We will bear down on night noise accordingly, but we must strike a fair balance between local disturbance, the limits of social acceptability and the economic benefits of night flights. This should be done on a case-by-case basis.

3.13 We will start consultations in 2004 on a new night noise regime for Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted.

3.14 The Government intends that new legislation should be introduced, when Parliamentary time allows, to strengthen and clarify noise control powers both at larger commercial airports and at smaller aerodromes. There are two main measures:

• an amendment to section 78 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 so that controls such as night restrictions could, subject to public consultation, be set on the basis of noise quotas alone, without a separate movements limit. This would mean that the primary control at an airport regulated by the Government could be related more directly to the noise nuisance, providing a more effective incentive for airlines to acquire, use and develop quieter aircraft. This amendment does not signal any intention to make the controls any less stringent than they are currently; and
• new powers to extend these controls so that they can relate to overall use of the airport, thereby enabling clearer environmental objectives to be set. At present, overall contour or similar controls may only be set voluntarily or through the planning system, which means that generally they must be directly related to a specific development, such as in recent years for the Manchester second runway and the Heathrow fifth terminal. ²

Aircraft Noise Measurement and Mapping

Noise is measured using the standard decibel scale (dBA). A series of aircraft noise events can be averaged over any given period of time using the equivalent continuous sound level (Leq). Leq is the method of averaging recommended in the Government's planning guidance on noise and in guidelines issued by, for example, the World Health Organisation.

Noise maps depict contours which connect points having the same average noise exposure. The contours are generated using computer models, based upon the known characteristics of aircraft noise generation and attenuation and, for the major airports, calibrated from noise measurement monitors on the ground.

Both in the consultation documents and in the White Paper, the dBA values used relate to the Leq 16 hour daytime period from 7am to 11pm. This is because daytime rather than night movements are the relevant factor in considering capacity issues in nearly all cases. Projected future noise contours rely on assumptions about future fleet composition. Inevitably this introduces an element of uncertainty, which becomes greater as we look further ahead.

Based on research the Government has used 57dBA Leq as the level of daytime noise marking the approximate onset of significant community annoyance. The relationship between noise and annoyance is of course not an exact one, and varies according to individuals and locations. In the consultation document for the South East, the 54dBA Leq contours were also shown as a sensitivity indicator.

From 2007, EU Member States will be required (by Directive 2002/49/EC) to collate noise maps using a variant of Leq which incorporates weightings on events in the evening and night, the Lden index.

Noise mitigation and compensation

3.15 Our approach to noise impacts is first, to seek to control the scale of impacts; second, to mitigate remaining impacts; and third, to compensate for those impacts which cannot be mitigated. A variety of measures is available to help reduce noise impacts at source, as described earlier in this chapter, but there is a limit to how far noise nuisance near airports can be reduced.

3.16 The consultation responses underlined the significance of aircraft noise as a key environmental impact in the public mind, and we particularly recognise the concerns of those living near airports where expansion may occur. We believe, therefore, that in addition to controlling and reducing aircraft noise impacts, a proportion of the large economic benefits provided by airport development should be used to mitigate their local impacts.

3.17 The principal mitigation measure for aircraft noise impacts is the provision of acoustic insulation. This can be required on a statutory basis under section 79 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 at Heathrow and Gatwick. In practice, however, all current noise insulation schemes are provided on a voluntary basis by airport operators, often supported by local planning agreements.

3.18 Under the Land Compensation Act 1973, those affected by future airport development can claim compensation for loss in the value of their property directly attributable to the operation of the development. But this does not apply until twelve months after a new runway is in operation.

3.19 We believe people are entitled to know what steps will be taken to help protect them against aircraft noise or, in the more severe cases, to help them move house. We set out below the measures we expect airport operators to adopt in order to help those impacted when new development takes place. These will be complemented by voluntary proposals to address blight (see Chapter 12).

3.20 Airport operators currently operate voluntary schemes to mitigate the impact of aircraft noise, as well as other community projects, and we wish to see a continuation of this voluntary approach. In addition, at the larger UK airports (those with more than 50,000 movements ³ a year), we wish to see the measures outlined below applied as a benchmark for mitigating aircraft noise, and adopted either as an adaptation of existing schemes or when new mitigation schemes are brought forward.

3.21 Accordingly, with immediate effect, we expect the relevant airport operators to:

• offer households subject to high levels of noise (69dBA L_eq or more) assistance with the costs of relocating; and
• offer acoustic insulation (applied to residential properties) to other noise-sensitive buildings, such as schools and hospitals, exposed to medium to high levels of noise (63dBA L_eq or more).

3.22 To facilitate the application of this new benchmark, operators of airports where these criteria might be triggered may wish to institute noise contouring programmes to verify current noise levels, where they do not already do so.

3.23 We recognise the difficulties associated with insulating some noise-sensitive buildings. Where acoustic insulation cannot provide an appropriate or cost-effective solution, airport operators should endeavour to provide alternative mitigation measures such as environmental grants, the provision of quiet rooms for reading or music, or funding for school trips away from the noisy environment - especially where the loss of amenity outdoors may be severe. The priority of need and the level of any contribution would be assessed on a case-by-case basis by the airport operator and relevant stakeholders. We commend the Birmingham Schools Environment Improvement Programme ⁴ as an example of a successful scheme.

3.24 To address the impacts of future airport growth we expect the relevant airport operators to:

• offer to purchase those properties suffering from both a high level of noise (69dBA L_eq or more) and a large increase in noise (3dBA L_eq or more); ⁵ and
• offer acoustic insulation to any residential property which suffers from both a medium to high level of noise (63dBA L_eq or more) and a large increase in noise (3dBA L_eq or more).

3.25 Relevant airports should use 2002 noise contours as the base year when applying these measures related to further growth. Noise contours should be produced in 2007 for 2006 and at five yearly intervals thereafter as a minimum. Smaller airports, currently with less than 50,000 movements a year, should use noise contours for the year when the movement threshold is first passed as the base year when applying these measures. Similarly, at these airports, noise contours should be produced five years after this date and at five yearly intervals thereafter. Airport operators should continue to work closely with local stakeholders and offer to incorporate these arrangements within local planning agreements. If necessary, the Government would give statutory force to these acoustic insulation arrangements under sections 79-80 of the 1982 Act.

3.26 These arrangements are more generous towards people who suffer a large increase in noise, for example due to the developments supported in this White Paper, as these people are likely to have moved to the affected areas without the expectation of major airport development. In respect of current noise levels, many people will have chosen to live in these areas with knowledge of the existing noise climate, and many of these properties will have benefited from previous insulation when noise levels were higher than they are today.

3.27 In our consultation on the South East, we asked whether those entitled to insulation should be offered equivalent cash payment as an alternative. There was little support for this; many consultees felt it was important to secure lasting improvements, and compensation is already payable under the Land Compensation Act 1973 in appropriate cases. We are not therefore proceeding with that option.

Local air quality

3.28 Aircraft engines contribute, along with airport traffic on local roads and surface vehicles at the airport, to the totality of emissions of air pollutants in the vicinity of airports. The most important emissions are of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and particulates (PM10). On a national scale the contribution of air transport and associated activities to these impacts is small, but locally their effect can be significant.

3.29 There are mandatory EU limits for levels of these pollutants in the air, irrespective of the source of the emissions. These limits come into effect in 2005 for particulates and 2010 for NO2. We are committed to meeting these standards, and it is clear that major new airport development could not proceed if there was evidence that this would likely result in breaches of the air quality limits. The Government has also set national objectives in the Air Quality Strategy. These targets have a different legal status from the EU limit values, but they form part of a joint DfT/Defra Public Service Agreement target and they will help underpin decisions on the future development of aviation in the UK.

3.30 Compliance with mandatory air quality standards is an issue that extends beyond the air transport sector. But we must make significant progress in reducing the expected impacts of airports on local air quality over the next six years and beyond if the mandatory EU limits are to be fully met. This will be particularly challenging at very busy airports served and surrounded by high levels of road traffic. (Clearly measures will also be required to reduce emissions from vehicles.)

3.31 Achieving it will again require a combination of measures, including:

• the use of economic instruments to incentivise improvements. The Government intends to bring forward legislation, enabling the Secretary of State to require an emissions-related element to be included in landing charges at airports where there are local air quality problems. In the meantime, the Government sees merit in individual airport operators modifying their charges to take account of local air quality impacts. There may also be scope, subject to compliance with international laws and obligations in relation to slot allocation, for other instruments such as permit trading schemes for NO2 at individual airports;
• reducing airport 'airside' emissions substantially, through technological and operational improvements by both airports and airlines;
• local authorities and transport bodies working with airports to limit road traffic emissions associated with air passengers and employees, including through increased use of public transport;
• securing improvements in motor vehicle technology and reductions in background levels of pollution from other sources;
• pressing through ICAO for more stringent international standards to limit emissions from aircraft engines; and
• promoting research in industry and universities aimed at better understanding the problem and how it can be controlled.

Other local impacts

3.32 The public health impacts of aviation are a matter which the Government takes very seriously. As noted earlier, we must ensure air quality standards around airports are met. Research continues on the effects of noise on human health, and the Government will take account of existing guidelines from the World Health Organisation. We are also supporting research to obtain better evidence on this and, through the European Commission, on whether, for example, aircraft noise exposure in schools can interfere with children's cognitive performance.

3.33 Urbanisation emerged as a focus of concern in the responses to the national consultation. New development to serve airports should be consistent with the broad framework of planning policy which includes the protection of green belt. It may be appropriate to designate green belts around substantial new airport developments to safeguard the countryside from further encroachment (see also Chapter 12).

3.34 In assessing options for airport development, we have taken into account a wide range of other environmental impacts. We are clear that loss of habitats, species, landscape and built heritage should be minimised where any new development takes place, including relocation of historic buildings, replanting of woodland, creation of new recreation sites, and other measures to preserve and restore as much of the UK's heritage as is compatible with airport safety and feasible within reasonable costs. All relevant water quality and other mandatory environmental standards must be met.

Climate change

3.35 Attention has become increasingly focused on the growing contribution of air transport to climate change (see box). Forecasts have suggested that by 2030 CO2 emissions from UK aviation ⁶ will amount to some sixteen to eighteen million tonnes of carbon, of which some 97 per cent would be from international flights. This could amount to about a quarter of the UK's total contribution to global warming by that date.

3.36 The Government is committed to taking a lead in tackling the problem of climate change, and to putting the UK on a path to a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by some 60 per cent from current levels by 2050. International flights from the UK do not currently count in the national inventories of greenhouse gas emissions as there is no international agreement yet on ways of allocating such emissions. However, the Government's Energy White Paper ⁷ makes it clear that we should ensure that the aviation industry is encouraged to take account of, and where appropriate reduce, its contribution to global warming. The aviation sector needs to take its share of responsibility for tackling this problem.

How does aviation contribute to climate change?

Aviation emissions arising from the combustion of kerosene include:

• carbon dioxide;
• water vapour (which leads to the formation of contrails and cirrus clouds at altitude);
• nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide, together termed NOx (which forms ozone, a greenhouse gas, at altitude);
• particulates (soot and sulphate particles);
• other compounds including sulphur oxides, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and radicals such as hydroxyl.

The impact of aviation on climate change is increased over that of direct CO2 emissions alone by some of the other emissions released and their specific effects at altitude. These effects include increased tropospheric ozone, contrail formation and a small amount of methane destruction. The environmental impacts of aircraft have been assessed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (1999) and more recently by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (2002), and they are thought to be 2-4 times greater than that from CO2 alone. While further research is needed on these issues, the broad conclusion that emissions are significantly more damaging at altitude is clear.

3.37 Reduction in greenhouse gas emissions across the economy does not, however, mean that every sector is expected to follow the same path. The Government is committed to a comprehensive approach, using economic instruments to ensure that growing industries are catered for within a reducing total. The use of emissions trading allows coverage of environmental costs through a mixture of emissions reduction within the sector and purchase of reductions that can be produced more cheaply by other sectors.

3.38 There are reductions that can be made by the aviation industry. Fuel efficiency gains arising from fleet replacement and technology improvements will make a contribution to reducing CO2 emissions. Research targets agreed by the Advisory Council for Aeronautical Research in Europe suggest that a 50 per cent reduction in CO2 production by 2020 can be achieved, which compares well with other sectors. However there is no viable alternative currently visible to kerosene as an aviation fuel. We have long recognised that the global exemption of aviation kerosene from fuel tax is anomalous, but a unilateral approach to aviation fuel tax would not be effective in the light of international legal constraints.

3.39 The Government therefore believes that the best way of ensuring that aviation contributes towards the goal of climate stabilisation would be through a well-designed emissions trading regime. For an international industry, an international trading regime is the best solution. We are pressing for the development and implementation through ICAO of such a regime, consistent with the request to ICAO from the UN Climate Change Convention for action on aviation emissions. The ICAO Assembly has already endorsed the development of an open emissions trading system for international aviation.

3.40 A greenhouse gas trading scheme is fast developing in Europe. We intend to press for the inclusion of intra-EU air services in the forthcoming EU emissions trading scheme, and to make this a priority for the UK Presidency of the EU in 2005, with a view to aviation joining the scheme from 2008, or as soon as possible thereafter. The possible elements of such a scheme are described in Annex B to this White Paper.

3.41 Such an economic instrument would give added weight to other emissions-reducing actions for which the Government will press, including:

• adoption by airports, airlines and air traffic controllers - including EUROCONTROL - of working practices that minimise the impact of their activities on climate change;
• research and development by aerospace manufacturers of new technologies to reduce the climate change impact of future fleets; and
• voluntary action by airlines, airports and aerospace companies to control greenhouse gas emissions and develop sustainability strategies. Such action should include emissions reporting and targets at a company level.

3.42 All these measures provide a solid foundation for action in tackling aviation's global impacts. However, the Government recognises that they may not provide a total solution. In view of this, the Government will continue to explore and discuss options for the use of other economic instruments for tackling aviation's greenhouse gas emissions, building on the work in the March 2003 report 'Aviation and the Environment: Using Economic Instruments' (see box on page 39). We reserve the right to act alone or bilaterally with like-minded partners if progress towards agreements at an international level proves too slow.

3.43 As a matter of principle, any additional action to tackle the environmental impacts of aviation will take full account of the effects on the competitiveness of UK aviation and the impact on consumers. The Government recognises that because of its blunt nature, Air Passenger Duty is not the ideal measure for tackling the environmental impacts of aviation.

¹ Strategic Research Agenda, Volume 2, October 2002.

² Further details about these proposals, and other issues raised by the consultation paper Control of noise from civil aircraft (DETR, July 2000) are available on the DfT web site.

³ A movement being a take off or landing but excluding those solely for training purposes in light aircraft.

⁴ This has resulted in over £500,000 being invested in schemes to improve the noise climate in five schools located close to flight paths.

⁵ An increase of 3dBA Leq is approximately equivalent to a doubling of noise energy.

⁶ In this context UK aviation is defined as all domestic services plus all international departures from the UK.

⁷ Our energy, our future - creating a low carbon economy, Cm 5761, February 2003.