Volcanic ash: an act of God turns to man-made chaos

The Malta Independent - Monday, 10th May 2010

Now that some of the dust has partly settled, and most of the travellers caught in the chaotic effects of Ejjaffjallajokull are safe at home, it is essential for individual EU member states to engage in critical analysis over their response to the ash cloud crisis.

True, the eruption of Iceland’s volcano was truly an act of God. What followed afterwards in terms of financial and social costs was all man-made. The member states’ procrastination over legislation for an improved pan-European regulatory framework was purely the EU members’ state own making.

For years these same member states have shown reluctance to concede even a token degree of sovereignty in return for an integrated airspace managed by a single regulatory body. As a result, the European Commission was paralysed in the face of increasing disorder. A single regulator managing an integrated European airspace would have been able to mitigate risk in a more efficient manner.

The risk management aims to reduce uncertainty by translating it into quantifiable risks. It involves a complex regulatory system that requires the relegation of a degree of decision-making power from governments to experts.

These experts gather and process scientific information, for example: the risk posed by the ash; winds; temperature; viability of airplane engines, and subsequently process this information using sophisticated mathematical models. Decisions are based on the experts’ conclusion regarding the risk of closure versus the risk of operating as usual.

Of course this begs the question that has been on the minds of many. If the risk assessment process is scientific and standardised through quantification, how and why did it lead to different conclusions? Some airline companies argued that it was safe to fly, other disagreed. At the same time that member states across Europe erratically opened and closed their airspace.

Was it the red ink across their financial book which was triggering some airline’s decisions? No one party was right or wrong. Although risk management is a scientific process, the ultimate decision is a judgment call based on the evaluation of the information available.

The current patchwork of regulatory framework, with each member state using different methodologies for information gathering and evaluation, makes for a fragmented and dysfunctional style of regulation.

While it cannot be argued that a number of delays would not have occurred and some flights would not have been cancelled, a consolidated pan-European regulatory mechanism would have avoided the transformation of an inconvenient situation into a major crisis.

The inconvenient situation was exacerbated into a crisis because the closure and opening of airspace was the complete prerogative of the individual member states. But as in most interdependent networks, one airport’s decision affects many others. The decisions of member states were informed by the advice expressed by their respective national experts and regulators who had no incentive to heed the needs of other national regulators.

Without the regulatory mandate to merge national regulatory boards and sovereign airspace into one integrated framework, EU authorities were limited by their role as intermediaries.

Indeed, this saga serves as a stark reminder that it is in certain areas member states that still hold the strings of power in the European political arena – sometimes at the expense of the ordinary citizen.

At least, the aftermath of the volcano will see a fast-tracking of the pending SES II. The directive will come into effect by 2010 and EU citizens will benefit from an integrated air traffic management system that will ensure a safer and more efficient utilisation of airspace. Furthermore, the revised directive will cap the growth of emissions per flight and will save the taxpayer a potential €2 billion with the possibility for more savings in the long run.