New homes are more important to Dutch society than planes full of transfer passengers.
At the end of her first plea, lawyer Channa Samkalden succinctly summarizes why the Aalsmeer foundation Right to Protection against Aircraft Nuisance (RBV), which she represents, is litigating against the Dutch state.
For too long, she argued in the court in The Hague on Tuesday morning, aviation policy in the Netherlands mainly benefited the airlines and the airport. And KLM and Schiphol in particular still benefit fully from the passengers who transfer in Amsterdam.
WHO standards
All those transfers cause much more air traffic than is good for Dutch society, according to Samkalden. And that has consequences ‘on the ground’. If the airport is not curtailed, the space for building around Schiphol will remain limited by strict building regulations. That does not help in the fight against the housing shortage. “The economic importance of Schiphol is overestimated, the nuisance is underestimated,” says Samkalden.
That has to change, says the RBV foundation from Aalsmeer. Carefree and safe living in the region should be more important than a carefree holiday to the Mediterranean. Sleeping soundly at night – and not being woken up by planes passing over – should take precedence over a permanent job in aviation.
The foundation demands that the Dutch government finally tackle noise pollution from air traffic to and from Schiphol. The state has been seriously failing to do this for years, according to RBV, and is violating, among other things, Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This protects personal privacy.
RBV wants the state to better fulfill its duty of care for residents around Schiphol. The government should follow the noise standards of the World Health Organization (WHO). These are stricter than what the Dutch government currently applies.
Complex calculations
In 2022 the joint GGDs argued already for these WHO standards. A resident survey at the time showed that aircraft noise causes annoyance and sleep deprivation, which can lead to serious health effects.
According to RBV, hundreds of thousands of residents in at least sixteen municipalities around Amsterdam airport experience serious inconvenience and sleep deprivation due to air traffic. Not only in places close to Schiphol such as Aalsmeer (where 40 percent of residents experience a lot of nuisance) and Uithoorn (34 percent), but also in more distant places such as Heiloo, Castricum and Weesp. “You often hear: then those people should not have lived there,” says Samkalden. “But you certainly cannot blame the residents of Heiloo and Castricum for that.”
RBV states that the government bases the noise limits for air traffic on the lower number of inconvenienced people who live close to Schiphol, several tens of thousands of people.
In any case, it turned out again on Tuesday that aviation policy in the Netherlands excels in complex calculations, juggling with decibels and ‘noise enforcement points’. Calculations are often based on averages (over a year, over a large area) and this does not do justice to the peaks of nuisance, for example in the early evening and during the school holidays. Lawyer Samkalden: “The Schiphol policy has become so technical that only a few people in the Netherlands understand how it works.”
Adequate
RBV’s lawsuit against the Dutch state is a new example of the legalization of the struggle for a better living environment. Once again, it is a matter of health and economy. In recent years, citizens and social organizations have increasingly turned to the courts to enforce a more active climate policy from government and business.
In 2015, climate organization Urgenda won the high-profile lawsuit that determined that the Netherlands must emit significantly fewer greenhouse gases. In 2021, Milieudefensie negotiated in court that Shell retain its CO2emissions must be reduced by almost half. And Milieudefensie recently announced that it wants to take action against ING because the bank is said to be doing too little against climate change.
Victims of Schiphol hope that the RBV case will have the same impact on Schiphol as the ‘Urgenda’ case and the case against Shell. They have lost confidence that the government will adequately protect them against the nuisance caused by aircraft.
Switchers
For everyone affected by Schiphol, the RBV case is all the more important now that government policy to limit noise from the airport is in danger of failing.
Also read
The shrinkage of Schiphol has failed for the time being
Nature permit
State Attorney Edward Brans (Pels Rijcken) stated that the government is indeed taking various initiatives to limit noise pollution at Schiphol. In addition to the (delayed) plans to reduce the number of flight movements (takeoffs and landings), the government also finances sound insulation of homes, for example. Moreover, since November, Schiphol has been able to keep out the noisiest (cargo) planes.
On Tuesday, Brans particularly emphasized the employment opportunities that Schiphol offers, the importance of the airport for the national business climate and the so-called network quality of the airport for the Netherlands. It would be important for (international) business that you can fly directly from Schiphol to many (intercontinental) destinations.
The legal battle over Schiphol is far from over. Firstly, the European Commission will soon issue its advice on Minister Harbers’ shrinkage plans. This spring, the Supreme Court will also rule in the case brought by KLM, the international aviation organization IATA and other airlines and organizations against the government’s downsizing plans.
Climate organization Mobilization for the Environment has also started legal proceedings against the nature permit that Schiphol received last year. The RBV case will (presumably) continue on March 20. It is still unclear whether the Hague court will issue an interim judgment or a final judgment.