T: 020 7248 2227 E: info@airportwatch.org.uk
What are we left with on aviation after Copenhagen?
From the Transport & Environment Copenhagen analysis:
There is also a lot more about the process of the bunkers negotiations
4.1.2010
What are we left with after Copenhagen?
Firstly, a heightened profile for bunkers and the potential for revenues from
global measures to play a major role in climate finance at some stage in the future.
But set against this is a sense of renewed unclarity and uncertainty re bunker
fuels. They were not even mentioned in the Copenhagen Agreement save indirectly
in the reference to alternative sources of finance.
ICAO and IMO will proceed to discuss further the issues at their upcoming meetings in 2010 but without any formal guidance or timelines on the key issues from Copenhagen that they claimed was needed to enable them to progress bunker issues. Bunkers also remains in the LCA track of the UNFCCC presumably to be discussed further in Bonn in May 2010.
Important questions remain.
The last draft on bunkers which did not gain a consensus at Copenhagen, referred to all Parties addressing bunkers through global measures. Will this formulation take precedence over Article 2.2 of Kyoto?
Will ICAO and IMO seriously address the question of targets? Target setting is not on the IMO agenda. ICAO made clear at its Copenhagen side event that it believes the 2% fleet efficiency improvement aspirational goal is a target in itself – possibly to be supplemented by some version of IATA's carbon neutral growth in 2020 concept.
Copenhagen made no progress on the question of global measures versus CBDR. Norway tried to spin the issue by saying that the question was soluble but only in IMO (and ICAO) not Copenhagen. On the contrary, Copenhagen represents a failed opportunity to use the wider negotiations to resolve the issue and interpret CBDR in the bunkers context as applying to the disbursement of revenues not the global application of measures.
Developed countries did not press the issue because they were divided: Norway, USA, Japan, Canada versus the EU, with Australia lost somewhere in the middle.
Developing countries were equally divided: China, India, Brazil, Saudi Arabia and South Africa et al versus a good number of Least Developed Countries (LDCs) mainly in Africa (notably Malawi) and Small Island States – though some in this latter group were not vocal because of concerns – justified or otherwise – that they would ever see the money. Singapore played a spoiling role on bunkers in the Small Island Developing States (SIDS).
IATA is trumpeting the Copenhagen Accord as an endorsement of global measures and a vindication of its own position on emission reductions. It is neither.
Parties remain just as divided on equal treatment of operators and the divisions within ICAO on this issue run deep. On the eve of the High Level Summit at Copenhagen the aviation industry came out with a flurry of statements professing support for global measures but warning that environmental taxes could destroy the industry. And the US industry body ATA, announced that it was suing the EU over its inclusion of foreign carriers in the EU ETS.
Such scare tactics, equating taxes with emissions reductions make clear IATA's true intentions. We may well see a coalition of the willing on aviation now emerging out of the Copenhagen aftermath. The only problem is that some are more willing than others and, as with Norway, any attempt to gain wider support comes with a price: ambition and environmental integrity.
Meanwhile, aviation emissions continue to grow and the industry's reputation continues to decline. No amount of double page colour ads in the International Herald Tribue on the eve of climate summits will stop that.
The shipping industry's call for global measures and even target setting at Copenhagen was more genuine. But even though there are clear proposals before the IMO for a global levy or emissions trading, the chances of early progress in the light of Copenhagen do not look promising. The new European Commission and Parliament must be looking seriously now at introducing unilateral legislation to control emissions from ships calling at EU ports.
ICAO and IMO will proceed to discuss further the issues at their upcoming meetings in 2010 but without any formal guidance or timelines on the key issues from Copenhagen that they claimed was needed to enable them to progress bunker issues. Bunkers also remains in the LCA track of the UNFCCC presumably to be discussed further in Bonn in May 2010.
Important questions remain.
The last draft on bunkers which did not gain a consensus at Copenhagen, referred to all Parties addressing bunkers through global measures. Will this formulation take precedence over Article 2.2 of Kyoto?
Will ICAO and IMO seriously address the question of targets? Target setting is not on the IMO agenda. ICAO made clear at its Copenhagen side event that it believes the 2% fleet efficiency improvement aspirational goal is a target in itself – possibly to be supplemented by some version of IATA's carbon neutral growth in 2020 concept.
Copenhagen made no progress on the question of global measures versus CBDR. Norway tried to spin the issue by saying that the question was soluble but only in IMO (and ICAO) not Copenhagen. On the contrary, Copenhagen represents a failed opportunity to use the wider negotiations to resolve the issue and interpret CBDR in the bunkers context as applying to the disbursement of revenues not the global application of measures.
Developed countries did not press the issue because they were divided: Norway, USA, Japan, Canada versus the EU, with Australia lost somewhere in the middle.
Developing countries were equally divided: China, India, Brazil, Saudi Arabia and South Africa et al versus a good number of Least Developed Countries (LDCs) mainly in Africa (notably Malawi) and Small Island States – though some in this latter group were not vocal because of concerns – justified or otherwise – that they would ever see the money. Singapore played a spoiling role on bunkers in the Small Island Developing States (SIDS).
IATA is trumpeting the Copenhagen Accord as an endorsement of global measures and a vindication of its own position on emission reductions. It is neither.
Parties remain just as divided on equal treatment of operators and the divisions within ICAO on this issue run deep. On the eve of the High Level Summit at Copenhagen the aviation industry came out with a flurry of statements professing support for global measures but warning that environmental taxes could destroy the industry. And the US industry body ATA, announced that it was suing the EU over its inclusion of foreign carriers in the EU ETS.
Such scare tactics, equating taxes with emissions reductions make clear IATA's true intentions. We may well see a coalition of the willing on aviation now emerging out of the Copenhagen aftermath. The only problem is that some are more willing than others and, as with Norway, any attempt to gain wider support comes with a price: ambition and environmental integrity.
Meanwhile, aviation emissions continue to grow and the industry's reputation continues to decline. No amount of double page colour ads in the International Herald Tribue on the eve of climate summits will stop that.
The shipping industry's call for global measures and even target setting at Copenhagen was more genuine. But even though there are clear proposals before the IMO for a global levy or emissions trading, the chances of early progress in the light of Copenhagen do not look promising. The new European Commission and Parliament must be looking seriously now at introducing unilateral legislation to control emissions from ships calling at EU ports.
see also
AEF's comment is:
Copenhagen ends with no progress on aviation emissions
Dec 23 2009
The UNFCCC Copenhagen conference ended on 18th December, having made no progress on how to treat emissions from international aviation. The Copenhagen Accord, which was agreed by several states but not unanimously approved, included a commitment to combat climate change, “recognizing the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be below 2 degrees Celsius”, and committed developed countries to “mobilizing jointly USD 100 billion dollars a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries.” But it contained very little detail on how these targets could be achieved, and there was no agreement on how to treat emissions from international aviation and shipping (known as bunker fuel emissions), which had been left out of the targets agreed in the Kyoto Protocol.
AEF supported the NGO coalition that had been campaigning throughout the conference for the UNFCCC to set a cap for aviation emissions and introduce charges on aviation pollution to generate funding for climate change adaptation in developing countries. But tensions between developing and developed countries over financing, combined with deliberate attempts by some countries to stall discussions on aviation and shipping emissions, meant that agreement was always going to be hard to achieve. In the end, bunker fuel emissions were among many topics that were unresolved.
In the absence of new measures from UNFCCC, the very weak deal from ICAO, a ‘sister’ UN agency, is the best agreement we now have from the United Nations process. In October 2009 states representing 93% of global commercial air traffic agreed to a 2% per annum fuel efficiency target to 2020, with an aspiration to continue a similar rate of improvement out to 2050, but with no overall cap on emissions from the sector and no means of enforcing the 2% target.
AEF will in 2010 continue to work with ICAO with the aim of strengthening its policy on emissions, but in the post-Copenhagen world it seems to us that agreements among small groups of nations may be more likely to succeed than global measures on aviation emissions. In the mean time, national policy measures such as emissions targets, appropriate fiscal measures and far-sighted planning policy will be crucial in tackling aviation’s growing impact on climate change.
see also
Copenhagen's failure to deliver an aviation emissions deal leaves sector facing
uncertain future
This article from GreenAir online very much gives the industry point of view,
with useful comment towards the end from Bill Hemmings, of Transport & Environment.
22.12.2009 (GreenAir online)
Following earlier hopes that an agreement on international aviation emissions
might be reached during the first week of the Copenhagen climate change summit,
negotiations unravelled during the final chaotic days as procedural wrangles put
paid to any progress. Despite the largely disappointing outcome, the International
Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and industry bodies representing airlines and
airports were publicly upbeat as no deal was better than a bad one from their point of view.
ICAO talked of “forging ahead” with its own “aggressive” plan of action on combating
climate change and IATA called the eventual agreement, the Copenhagen Accord,
“an important step in the right direction”. NGOs, on the other hand, said the
outcome was missed opportunity and a great loss for the sector.
It is currently unclear on which particular points the negotiations within the
bunkers (international aviation and shipping fuel emissions) working group remained
unresolved at the end but the Accord makes no mention of bunkers.
In the view of The Climate Group’s Damian Ryan, who has followed the UNFCCC bunkers
process closely, “this is a reflection of the very difficult negotiations that
took place and the strong positions of certain countries who did not want either
the issue to be dealt within the UNFCCC or for it to encompass both developed
and developing countries.”
This is a reference to the Common But Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR) principle that underpins the Kyoto Protocol in which developed countries have binding
emissions reductions targets that don’t apply to developing nations, a key stumbling
block that pervaded the Copenhagen talks. An agreement on reducing bunker fuel
emissions would by necessity have required action by all States.
“Given that nothing concrete has come out of Copenhagen for either aviation or
maritime, these two sectors could well be the biggest losers from the conference,”
believes Ryan. “Without a clear steer to ICAO or IMO [the UN maritime agency], the bunkers issue
could remain in policy limbo for the foreseeable future. This is obviously to
the detriment of both the atmosphere and business certainty.
“From an industry perspective, there may now be an increased risk of the ‘patchwork
quilt’ of policies that airlines have been so keen to avoid, as individual countries
or regions implement their own measures to deal with emissions.”
IATA Director-General Giovanni Bisignani said his organization would work closely
with ICAO to prepare a global framework for managing aviation emissions for consideration
at next September’s ICAO Assembly and presented to the UNFCCC COP 16 scheduled
for December 2010 in Mexico.
“In the meantime,” he said, “we continue to urge governments to avoid creating
a patchwork of national and regional solutions and to ensure aviation’s emissions
are dealt with as a sector and across the world. A global sectoral approach supported
by tough targets is the only sensible way forward for a global industry.”
Bisignani said the industry’s proposals on a global sectoral approach and emissions targets that were presented in Copenhagen had received encouraging support amongst the
delegations and IATA would continue to press States to include the targets in
any future deal.
The Climate Group’s Damian Ryan said the need for active industry engagement
was now more important than ever. “Ideally, this needs to be lead by an ambitious
IATA position with the backing of the whole sector as this delivers a powerful
message to governments of global industry unity. If IATA is unable to forge anything less ambitious than absolute emissions reductions
over the coming decade then I think you will see the EU and possibly other regions
and countries implement various policies and measures that may not align with
industry needs.”
The Director General of Airports Council International (ACI), Angela Gittens,
called for renewed engagement across the aviation sector for managing environmental
commitment.
“During the COP 15 meeting, we have heard scientific, economic and political
views – some in agreement and some holding divergent opinions – on the ‘why, what,
and how’ of tackling climate change. All, however, seem to agree on one point:
now is the time to act,” she said. “Finding the best long-term solutions will
remain an evolving process that picks up steam over the next several months and
even years. ACI pledges to continue to pursue industry collaboration through ICAO
and with our aviation partners in promoting sensible governmental action as well
as achieving reductions in emissions. But we need not wait for a top-down agenda
that will take time to agree by all parties. Already today, aviation partners
have many tools in hand, and I call on them to keep up the momentum.
“I encourage airports to continue their commitment to a step-by-step approach
of investing in and implementing known strategies that produce results.
“When COP 15 got underway, ACI confirmed our conviction that ‘green growth’ lies at the core of a sustainable vision for the future. I am convinced that today we can combine steady step-by-step progress, at which
individual airports excel, with industry and government commitment to invest in
the development of breakthrough technologies, and in doing so we will set an achievable course to carbon neutrality.”
Responding to the Copenhagen outcome, ICAO Council President Roberto Kobeh González
said States remained committed, through the Convention on International Civil
Aviation, to keep working through ICAO in managing emissions from international
civil aviation in order to achieve an environmentally sustainable air transport
industry.
“The time-tested ICAO process of consensus-building and cooperation among the
190 Member States of ICAO, coupled with sustained efforts of the air transport
industry, has been very effective through the years in minimizing the impact of
aviation on the environment. It has recently led to the first, and to date,
only globally-harmonized agreement designed to address climate change from a specific
sector,” he said.
“As an active and long-time participant in UNFCCC deliberations, we fully recognize
the complexity of the climate change challenge. We are convinced that the current
ICAO process is best suited to achieving the goals we have set for ourselves.”
Further deliberations on the measures and initiatives agreed at last October’s
High-Level Meeting, the centrepiece being a 2% annual global improvement in fuel
efficiency goal until 2050, will take place at the eighth meeting of ICAO’s Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP)
in February.
Other discussions are likely to take place within the ICAO Council and a full
review of environmental policies and programmes taken at the decision-making Assembly
next September.
However, Bill Hemmings of NGO Transport & Environment believes the lack of any agreement
in Copenhagen will slow down progress within ICAO.
“We are left with another year of tortuous proceedings on the environment in
ICAO,” he said. “NGOs remain hopeful that CAEP 8 will approve work to begin
on developing a fuel efficiency standard for new aircraft. But without any call
from Copenhagen for ICAO to accelerate its work, there is a danger that ICAO’s
business-as usual approach to environmental issues will mean several years at
least to complete the work and then more to have it sent to Council for approval.
“And despite all the hype at Copenhagen surrounding the decisions at the ICAO
High-Level Meeting, ICAO members there were completely divided on the question
of global measures and their non-discriminatory application. The Copenhagen outcome
indicates that this situation has not changed. ICAO (and UNFCCC) Member States
remain as divided as ever on the question of real emission reduction targets for
aviation and a global measure to implement involving all operators.
“ICAO’s position that an annual 2% fleet fuel efficiency metric amounts to an
emissions reduction target is a sham. It is a measure of business as usual fleet
renewal. It cannot be enforced and provides no economic incentive for emissions
reductions.
“ICAO and the aviation industry’s environmental reputations stand to decline
even further. Copenhagen was a lost opportunity to resolve the big issues preventing
progress.”
Further progress on bunker fuel emissions with the UNFCCC process may hinge on
the key but divisive issue of finance. To make good on the promise made by developed
countries to help developing countries with climate change mitigation and adaptation
through a $100 billion a year long-term fund by 2020, “innovative sources of finance”
will have to be tapped.
“The argument for sourcing climate revenue from the bunkers sector is quite compelling,
especially from a political and equity perspective,” says Damian Ryan. “NGOs, think tanks, academics (including Stern) and developing
countries have all argued that if you impose an economic instrument on a global
sector to reduce emissions – and this instrument generates an independent source
of funds – then it makes sense to use this global revenue for global-good activities.”
He said there was a risk to the aviation industry that it could be hit twice
by separate international and national/regional climate policy, firstly through
a global levy and then again through incorporation into other mitigation measures
such as the EU Emissions Trading Scheme.
“I wouldn’t want to overplay this risk as some of the big players are against
one or both measures,” he said. “However, I think it’s a scenario that the industry
needs to be aware of – and ready for – especially if developed countries become
more anxious to find climate finance that does not affect national treasuries.”
Links:
(5th January 2010)
Copyright AirportWatch, 2004