(MONTREAL, CANADA) The 36th Assembly of the International
Civil Aviation Organization ends in disarray and conflicts over action to
reduce aviation emissions. The assembly passed a resolution that
would only allow for new rules on greenhouse gas emissions controls by
host countries if the non-domestic airlines agreed.
"After ten years of posturing, this assembly's clear failure sounds
the death knell for any ICAO role in environmental protection," says
Dr. Werner Reh, aviation expert for Friends of the Earth Germany.
"ICAO chooses to ignore the very significant growth in greenhouse
gas emissions by airlines and the clear need for taxes, emission charges
or emission trading schemes."
Aviation greenhouse gas emissions have doubled since 1990 and will
further grow by 3.5% annually. The UN's IPCC report assesses the
climate impact of aviation from 2-8% of global warming. Under the
terms of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, ICAO, a UN body, was tasked with
responsibility for reducing emissions from international aviation.
The 36th Assembly was faced with a dynamite agenda item presented by the
European Union which proposed to integrate aviation into its existing
emission trading system. Friends of the Earth supported the EU
plan. The "Coalition of the Unwilling" was led by the
United States, which has never agreed to Kyoto, joined by Canada which is
not complying with its own domestic law for Kyoto. China, Saudi
Arabia and Brazil joined in blocking the EU efforts.
"ICAO's buckling to the US insistence on 'mutual agreement by third
parties' before the EU emissions trading scheme can be applied is the
latest in a decade of stalling and denial," says Dr. Reh.
"The EU has taken a leadership stance in pressing ahead to integrate
aviation into its emission trading system. Its decision to make a
"reservation" against the ICAO resolution signals the end for
ICAO role on the environment. Effectively, the EU will ignore the
resolution on 'market-based measures' on legal grounds that it undercuts
the effectiveness of the EU battle against aviation effects on climate
change."
"We can no longer tolerate ICAO's position that aviation is a sacred
cow allowing it to ignore climate impacts," says Beatrice Olivastri,
CEO, Friends of the Earth Canada. "Canada's alignment with the
US on voluntary measures for aviation is yet more evidence of Canada's
'made-in-the-USA' game plan for climate inaction. Just like every
other enterprise in the world, airlines must make significant reductions
of greenhouse gas emissions. If their own governance agency fails
to lead in this respect, it's time to find other mandatory
means."
ICAOs FAILURES: A DECADE OF DENIAL
Failure to act on climate is nothing new for ICAO. Over the
last ten years, ICAO has failed to deliver or support any mandatory
policies regarding emissions stabilisation or reduction. Instead the
organisation has attempted to close the doors, one by one, on almost
every conceivable mandatory policy measure for reducing greenhouse gas
emissions from the air traffic sector:
1996
ICAO resolution, reconfirmed in 2001, called on states to refuse
application of fuel taxes as environmental measures.
2001
ICAO reaffirmed opposition to fuel taxes, showing preference for the
use of charges. (However, in 2004 ICAO asked member states not to apply
charges until at least 2007.)
ICAO rejected GHG emission standards for aircraft.
ICAO opposed the application of closed emission trading schemes for
aviation.
2004
ICAO dismissed any possibility of establishing a global emission
trading scheme for aviation, instead endorsing the inclusion of aviation
in existing emission trading schemes (e.g. the EU ETS).
ICAO imposes a three-year moratorium on GHG emission charges.
2007
ICAO Assembly passes a resolution that says members should sign
separate agreements with all third countries operating in its airspace
before applying emissions trading to their carriers. The EU says it
will press ahead with its plans to integrate aviation into its emissions
trading system and made a "reservation" against the ICAO
resolution signalling that they would ignore it on legal
grounds.
Writings 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
