Tag: ICAO

Agreement needed in ICAO on global MBM for aviation

Submitted by rvoorhaar on October 4, 2013 - 5:28am

can_statement_for_38th_icao_assembly_final.pdf

On September 24^th in Montreal, the 38th Assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) will take place, and high on the agenda will be how to control fast-growing greenhouse gas emissions from international air travel.

After more than 15 years of discussions of market based measures (MBMs) to put a price on carbon pollution and ensure that emissions targets are met, countries have still not agreed to implement a global MBM. Agreement is now within reach but the draft agreement that recently emerged from ICAO Council, to be voted on at Assembly, would delay a decision to adopt a global MBM for another three years. The Climate Action Network (CAN) does not accept any further delay in agreeing an MBM and believe that the text currently on the table text must be improved in key respects:

· The agreement must commit to adopt (not just develop) a global MBM by the next ICAO Assembly, to take effect by 2016. Anything less will send the signal that the aviation sector is not serious about making significant progress to protect the global climate. Further delay could also result in a patchwork of regional and national schemes, and would justify decisions and direction on controlling aviation emissions from other bodies.

· The agreement must ensure the development of an ambitious MBM that reflects the latest science on the scale and urgency of emissions reductions required, and a full carbon pricing mechanism that reflects the polluter-pays principle. Full consideration should also be given to revenue generation for climate finance, especially for adaptation and mitigation efforts in developing countries, noting that any finance used towards developed country climate finance commitments must have no net incidence on developing countries. After all, it is business and relatively affluent travellers who make up the bulk of air passengers, and they can afford to pay for their pollution.

· Any global MBM must cover all emissions from flights on the routes covered under the mechanism, and not be restricted to the airspace of any particular country or region.

The final agreement must address the impacts on of those developing countries that could be particularly affected by an MBM, such as small island states and least developed countries. Route based approaches can be found to reflect special circumstances and respective capabilities, including the maturity of aviation in different countries, which maintain the environmental integrity of the MBM and ensure the vast majority of emissions from international aviation are covered. Differential use of revenue generated can also ensure an equitable outcome.

The time has come for a decisive outcome that leaves no doubt about ICAO’s ability and determination to control international aviation’s growing climate impact. The global aviation sector has an opportunity to show leadership and vision, rather than further attempts to delay progress.

Tags:

ICAO

Topics:

Bunkers

LCA’s final boarding call for international transport

Submitted by rvoorhaar on November 29, 2012 - 12:59am

Today parties have their last and best chance to make progress on addressing emissions from international shipping and aviation, already contributing to more than 5 percent of global emissions and growing faster than any other sector. More than 15 years of negotiations in three UN bodies, including the UNFCCC and the sectoral bodies IMO and ICAO, have produced very little, especially regarding progress on market-based measures (MBMs) that can incentivise emissions reductions while generating significant financing for mitigation and adaptation in developing countries, as well as for efficiency measures within these sectors.

The principal stumbling block has been disagreement on how to reconcile the UNFCCC’s principles of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDRRC) with the principles and approaches in the IMO and ICAO, based on global approaches with equivalent treatment on all ships and aircraft, anywhere in the world. Technical work on exploring options for putting a price on carbon in these sectors is well advanced, but lack of agreement on how to reconcile the different principles is blocking progress.

Today the LCA spin-off group on sectoral approaches will consider text that addresses exactly this issue, and one text option on the table could hold the key to breaking this long-standing deadlock. Singapore has proposed a short elegant text that can provide the basis for a useful guidance to IMO and ICAO. Parties should simply agree here under the UNFCCC that measures to tackle emissions in these sectors under IMO and ICAO should be pursued through global approaches based on the principles of those bodies, while also taking into account UNFCCC principles, including CBDRRC, with perhaps direction on how – e.g., through the use of finance. This might be a simple solution that could be a great leap forward for these crucial sectors. Think about it!

Tags:

ICAO

IMO

emissions from international shipping and aviation

Topics:

Mitigation

Related Event:

COP18/CMP8 Doha Climate Conference

rvoorhaar's blog

Flying blind?

Submitted by rvoorhaar on November 29, 2012 - 12:52am

The world is now watching whether the freshly re-elected Obama administration will take renewed interest in tackling climate change, and put some effort into bringing Congress along with him.

This week he signed a bill from Congress aimed at blocking US airlines from complying with EU emissions regulations for flights into and out of the EU. The bill amounts to chest thumping as it provides no new authority to the Administration to take any meaningful steps. In fact, if they did anything with the law it would likely lead to a trade war, a taxpayer funded bailout, or a screeching halt to efforts to secure a global agreement. The EU created the regulations only after its efforts to pursue emissions in ICAO, the UN organization responsible for the aviation sector, came up against "15 years of intransigence and doublespeak," as one informed observer put it.

But the signing of the bill could be water under the bridge if the US now throws its weight behind a strong agreement under ICAO to control emissions from the global aviation sector. There are some signs this could happen. The EU has agreed to suspend its regulations for one year, which should create a more constructive negotiating climate. Upon signing the bill the White House issued a statement that it: “remains focused on making progress in reducing aviation emissions through…the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)."

An aviation industry body said that Obama's signing expresses "a steadfast commitment to the right way — a global sectoral approach at the international level". That would indeed be good news, as a global agreement on strong measures to control aviation emissions, including to put a price on carbon emissions from the sector, is exactly what is needed. Such a measure can be designed to generate climate finance for developing countries, while addressing equity concerns and respecting the principles of the UNFCCC. Will the US announce support for such a proposal when Mr. Stern arrives?

Will the US declare their intention here in Doha, and then fight for such an agreement at ICAO next year? ECO certainly hopes so.

Tags:

Barack Obama

ICAO

Emissions from international aviation and shipping

Topics:

Region:

Related Event:

COP18/CMP8 Doha Climate Conference

rvoorhaar's blog

CAN Intervention on International Transport - LCA Sectoral approaches spinoff group, Bangkok Sept 4, 2012

Submitted by Secretariat on September 5, 2012 - 1:40am

Intervention_LCA_sect_approaches_final.pdf

Delivered by Mark Lutes

Thank you for this opportunity to speak. I am from WWF and speak here on behalf of the Climate Action Network.

We are seeing a rich and wide-ranging discussion in many areas here in Bangkok, in particular a very interesting discussion in the ADP round tables, with many thoughtful and creative interventions about the shape of long-term efforts to address climate change;

Would be good for some of that same spirit to filter through into this group on the way to Doha, and to see some new thinking on how to break out of the same pattern of the past 10 years. I’m sure many of you are tired of saying the same things year after year. - What we need from the LCA this year under sectoral approaches is some way to break the deadlock and polarization that currently exists in the IMO and ICAO on market based measures;

How to do this – a signal to these bodies, or to parties to these bodies (to use a potentially useful wording from Japan), on how to address convention principals in the context of their own established approaches and customary practices.

Singapore provided a useful compromise – take account of the principals and provisions of the UNFCCC in the context of global measures under the IMO and ICAO, but it would be useful to go beyond this and say how this might be done.

One way would be through the use of revenue generated by MBMs, that can be used to address any impacts on developing countries, to support technology transfer and cooperation and transfer for developing countries, especially the most vulnerable, in implementing these measures, and also to provide financing for developing countries, while making sure that only financing raised from developed countries counts towards the commitments of those countries.

We are pleased to see the EU submission introduces the issue of finance, and perhaps these two text can be combined in a way that gives appropriate guidance on how to address CBDR, in global measures under the sectoral bodies.

Doha is the last chance to produce some useful outcomes from your five years of deliberations, and we urge you not to waste that opportunity.

Thank you

Tags:

Organization:

Climate Action Network

Related Event:

Bangkok Climate Change Conference 2012

ICAO stuck in bunker

Submitted by MBrockley on May 24, 2012 - 4:00am

SBSTA missed yet another opportunity yesterday to take action on bunker fuels (i.e. fuels used for international transport). At 3.5 per cent per year, emissions from aviation constitute the fastest growing greenhouse gas emission sector worldwide. Yet they are not included in Climate Convention (CC) or Kyoto commitments, Parties do not have to report on them and they are tax-free. This clearly is an outrage.

After years of dithering, and a damning IPCC report on the harmful effects of air transport, the body nominally responsible for the regulation of international aviation, the International Civil Aviation Organistation (ICAO), announced yesterday it would be a good idea to have a cap and trade scheme for aviation emissions – provided it is “an open one across economic centres”.

What ICAO has overlooked is that advanced plans for such a scheme already exist. It is known as the Kyoto Protocol emissions trading scheme. It already has agreed on caps (obviating the need to negotiate new ones) and it enables participants to trade across all economic sectors except, at present, international aviation and marine transport.

A golden opportunity was thus missed. All that was needed yesterday was for SBSTA to have a short debate on the allocation of emissions from international transport to individual countries. (The debate could have been very short because there is only one practical option: allocation of emissions to the point of sale of the fuel.) ICAO could then have agreed to include aviation-related emissions under the Kyoto cap.

Seriously, ICAO just had its assembly and only meets every three years. Unless Parties to the CC decide the allocation and cap issues in the next SBSTA, we could wait long and hard for a solution to be found in ICAO. Even then, discussion in ICAO is likely to get bogged down in disputes amongst vested interests – those are much more entrenched than in SBSTA.

Tags:

Topics:

Related Event:

Bonn Climate Change Conference 2012

MBrockley's blog

Time to Rock the Boat

Submitted by MBrockley on May 22, 2012 - 7:25am

A long, awkward silence settled over the 100+ delegates and observers crammed into the tiny Koch meeting room. In the Cooperative Sectoral Approaches spin-off group, the chair had asked negotiators for ideas on how to get to a conclusion on bunkers by Doha. Delegates, some standing and others seated on the floor, didn’t seem to have an answer.

Thinking that the hot, crowded and uncomfortable room might be sucking the creative juices out of people, the chair arranged to move to the spacious and blissfully cool Saal Bonn. But when delegates arrived, they found the door locked.

An ironically fitting reboot to the decade-long search for a fair way to control the fast-growing emissions from international transport, and in the process generate billions in climate finance for the poorest and most vulnerable.

ECO is convinced that negotiators can do much better. To that end, ECO offers some suggestions in reaching agreement on giving a signal to the IMO and ICAO, the sectoral bodies that will negotiate and implement measures for shipping and aviation, respectively:

-Be prepared to compromise: developed countries need to signal they are prepared to address equity and different circumstances of developed and developing countries, while developing countries need to agree to global approaches that don’t violate the principles of the ICAO and IMO by differentiating between ships and aircraft

-Be practical: agree that differentiation must be addressed through the use of revenues to correct equity issues and impacts on developing countries, and in addition raise substantial and predictable climate finance for the Green Climate Fund

- Be ambitious: show that the LCA is capable of delivering ambitious outcomes by Doha, on both finance and mitigation

Here’s a chance to demonstrate how CBDRRC can be interpreted in global approaches in a balanced, practical way. It is no longer ahead of its time. In fact, now it can set useful and equitable precedents for the future global regime.

Tags:

Topics:

Equity/effort-sharing

Related Event:

Bonn Climate Change Conference 2012

MBrockley's blog

Climate Financing Finally Taking Off?

Submitted by Anonymous on June 7, 2011 - 3:11am

Would delegates complain if their ticket price to come to the Bonn session has a small surcharge to cover the allowances for the aviation emissions?How about if the money that is collected was destined for climate finance? Well, the inclusion of international aviation into the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) precisely does that. The aviation industry, at least in the US and China, is complaining to the Courts and lobbying their governments to use their influence to stop the EU’s leadership decision to include aviation emissions within their Emissions Trading Scheme.

Frustrated with endless delays in discussions on how to regulate aviation emissions at ICAO, the EU acted on its own, including airlines in their Emissions Trading Scheme beginning in 2012. All flights flying in and out of Europe will have to start paying emission allowances and be subject to a declining cap. But the EU gave an incentive to other countries: if they create “equivalent measures” to reduce airline emissions from international flights in their own countries, their airlines flying into Europe won’t be subject to the ETS.

Sadly, countries are not taking them up on their challenge. Instead, the US airline industry is suing to dispute the scheme. US airlines have also gone to their pals in the US Congress and are pleading with the Obama Administration to come to their rescue. NGOs in the US have called on the government to defend Europe’s right to reduce emissions and be on the side of environmental integrity, not pollution from aircraft.

In an unfortunate alignment of interests, Chinese airlines have now said they will challenge the scheme as well. The BASIC countries’ statement also indicated that they are uncomfortable with the EU action, on the grounds that it’s unilateral and does not adhere to the CBDR-principle as laid down in the Convention. However, the door is still open for the BASIC to deal with aviation and maritime emissions within the UNFCCC-framework. A global system is preferable, but the EU is on the right track and its actions illustrate how to make this work at a global level. The AGF report last year introduced the concept of “no net incidence” on developing countries that can ensure that a global system of international transportation emissions measures can fulfill the principle of CBDR.

ECO believes a multilateral approach would be the best approach to these inherently global sectors, is a global approach under a multilateral regime that reconciles the principles of non-discrimination that prevails in these sectors (IMO and ICAO) with the principles of the climate convention, including CBDR.

In the absence of a global regime, the EU should be congratulated on its efforts to fulfill its KP Article 2.2 responsibilities to regulate aviation emissions under its jurisdiction. However, this is only the second-best solution – the best approach would be global, while respecting CBDR.

The UNFCCC should support ways to control the rapidly growing emissions from these global sectors, respecting the principles of the various regimes, while ensuring they play a role in financing global climate action, and that there is no net incidence or burden on developing countries. Aviation emissions are projected to nearly triple in the next few decades. The EU is doing its part to address this rapidly growing problem. If Parties want a global solution, then they must start here in Bonn, placing bunkers squarely on the agenda, with a goal of arriving at a decision in Durban on international transportation emissions and finance.

All parties, particularly those expressing reservations about the approach taken by the EU, should work vigorously towards an agreed outcome in Durban that ensures these global sectors make the biggest possible contribution to emissions reductions and global climate resilient and low carbon development.

Tags:

EU Emission Trading System

Topics:

Region:

Related Event:

Anonymous's blog

Keys to the 2nd KP Commitment Period

Submitted by Anonymous on December 4, 2010 - 11:52am

It shouldn’t be too hard for Annex I countries to show needed leadership by actually agreeing emission reduction commitments in line with the top end of the IPCC 25-40% range. After all, many reputable studies show how to reach that achievable goal. But on the evidence thus far, those countries aren’t ready to embrace ambition yet.
Nevertheless, Annex I Parties can and should reach agreement in Cancun on a number of technical issues that lead toward commitments in 2011 to achieve the needed scale of emissions reductions, along with a shared understanding of the underlying rules and modalities that will influence the fair sharing out of their targets in 2013-2017.
This week’s launch of the UNEP Emissions Gap Report clearly demonstrates the massive and growing gap between the pledges now tabled and even a 2 ^oC pathway, much less one limiting global temperature rise to less than 1.5 ^oC. It is imperative to rapidly close the Gigatonne Gap and produce real emissions reductions, not fake accounting.
For these reasons, ECO reiterates the following points that need to be agreed here in Cancun:
* At least a 40% aggregate target for 2020 for developed countries from 1990 levels.
* LULUCF accounting that accurately tracks what the atmosphere sees rather than letting as much as 450 million tonnes of emissions vanish from the books.
* Address AAU banking (hot air) in a way that preserves environmental integrity. The UNEP report says that dealing with carry- overs from the first commitment period as well as new surpluses created in the second could reduce the gap by up to 2.3 Gt..
* Continuation of the 1990 base year will facilitate comparability of targets across the commitment periods. Other reference years are being advocated simply to hide the lack of effort by some Parties.
* A 5-year commitment period to synchronize science reviews with the IPCC reports, help align with political cycles in many countries, and to avoid complacency. (Take note, EU!)
* Strong domestic action to facilitate the transition to a zero carbon economy for developed countries by 2050. Strategic planning is required, not excessive offsetting.
* Fewer new dubious sources of credits (the never-ending cries for CCS and nuclear in the CDM), and more demand for projects that deliver sustainable development benefits.
* Use the most recent available science: that means IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report for global warming potential on the 100 year time horizon, not a political fudge. Is there a particular reason why Brazil does not support using the most recent science?
* Urge IMO and ICAO to take swift action to achieve a global approach, fully embracing the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, which means, for instance, that there is no net incidence on developing countries.
The KP modalities have the potential to lead to real emission reductions – or they can be a pretense that emissions are falling because of accounting tricks and self-serving rules to hide inaction. The clock is running down and the choice is clear.
And delegates, as always in a party-driven process, the choice is yours.

Tags:

Topics:

Related Event:

Anonymous's blog

Rocking the Boat, Flying to the Moon Palace

Submitted by Anonymous on December 2, 2010 - 10:09am

Delegates arrive by plane and eat food that’s been shipped by boat – international transport has been part of the COP since the beginning. And while there are 100% biodiesel buses bringing delegates from the Messe to the Moon Palace, we are a long way (whether by plane or boat) from having international transport running on clean fuel.
Even if the weak voluntary measures proposed by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) are implemented, emissions from transport, if kept unregulated, would amount to 30% of the annual global emissions budget by 2050 to be compatible with a 2° C objective. In the 1.5° C scenario the figure is even worse, it’s above 60%!
But there is some good news too. There are now ways for global regulation of emissions from international transport to cause no net incidence on developing countries. This guarantees consistency with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities without affecting economic efficiency – something that has been blocking a decision in this arena.
Even better, there are many options available to generate climate finance, some of which could yield upwards of $10 billion USD per year, while also generating funds for technology innovation in the international transport sectors. That’s another point that has been blocking progress. And better yet, you guessed it, some of these options can also achieve significant emissions reductions.
If given a clear signal at this COP, regulations under the International Maritime Organization (IMO) could be operationalized as early as 2013. Remember, the closure of the fast-start financing period will be upon us in two short years. A decision here at Cancun would allow FSF, much of it actually non-additional, to be replaced with real, new and additional finance. That would be something for delegates to be proud of as they taxi down the runway leaving the Cancun International Airport for well-deserved time off at the end of the year.
As the High-Level Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing (AGF) points out, no single source is going to reach the promised $100 billion USD level by 2020. ECO therefore reminds developed countries that substantial public financing from you will also be required. And it is easy to see that financing from international transport should be part of any package.
Sending a clear signal to IMO and ICAO at COP 16 will not only help prevent a finance gap but also take a big step to ensure environmental consistency and climate stabilization.

Tags:

Topics:

Related Event:

Anonymous's blog

Agree on finance from bunkers

Submitted by Anonymous on December 12, 2009 - 3:49am

ECO never tires of pointing out the obvious to delegates, but we promise we do it for your own benefit. So here we go again. What if you could find a way to control the fastest growing sources of emissions and generate billions of dollars of climate finance at the same time. You’d do it, wouldn’t you? ECO respectfully suggests you do just that for international aviation and shipping emissions, right here in Copenhagen.

Parties agree the emissions cannot be attributed to specific countries. The emissions are international, so the mitigation framework must be global. That’s okay, Article 4.1c of the Convention allows for this, but Article 4.3 lays down some conditions. To ensure the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities is respected, revenues created from bunker regulation — some estimates suggest US$25-37 billion per year — should be used to defray incremental costs and support climate action in developing countries. Analysis shows that the impacts on trade would be minimal. Special exceptions can and should be made to exclude routes to and from the SIDS and LDCs, this is fully in the power of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and International Maritime Organization (IMO) to do.

A key priority in the next seven days is ensuring that developing countries receive new, additional and stable finance to support their efforts. As many delegates have put it, no money, no deal! Bunkers can help bridge that gap by creating complementary money in addition to assessed contributions by Annex I countries. What a great double dividend: we achieve climate benefits while generating new climate money (through a levy or the auctioning of emission permits).

Now, consider the alternative. You keep on arguing in circles. Nothing gets decided. And bunker emissions keep on rising, making 2˚C impossible, let alone 1.5˚C. A recent study estimates that they would take up 92% of global emissions in 2050 if the rest of the world reduces emissions by the 80% we need. Further, unilateral approaches are springing up. The EU has already moved to bring aviation into its emissions trading system, and is likely to do the same for shipping in the absence of global action. In the US, bunker fuels are covered in the draft Congressional Bill. Such regional measures still cover developing country operators when they visit these major trading blocs but the money generated will not flow to developing countries. It goes to Annex I governments!

This is a huge missed opportunity. Don’t let it happen. Agree on something good: targets for the sectors, timelines for ICAO and IMO to deliver at COP 16, and the principle of a co-operative approach that generates revenue for developing countries.

Tags:

aviation

bunkers

Copenhagen

copenhagen climate talks

Anonymous's blog