Climate Change and International Civil Aviation Negotiations

Abstract

Abstract:The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) has discussed ways of regulating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by civil aircraft for almost 20 years. Over the past four years, a consensus has developed about a market-based mechanism in the form of a carbon offset system. This article describes the route to the agreement reached by ICAO's 39 th Assembly, in order to contextualise the results and point out some of its limitations. It points to two main factors that contributed to the consensus: the role of the European Union, which sought to lead the negotiations, and the choice of a flexible and ultimately weak mechanism that received support from the international airlines.

Climate governance and International Civil Aviation: Brazil's policy profile

“…It may be argued, thus, that a division based on market interest was created at the ICAO and a deadlock hindered any substantive agreement to curb CO 2 emissions from civil aviation. Under this scenario, the European countries played an important and decisive role as normative leaders (Gonçalves 2016). Responding to the European Commission Directive that included regional civil aviation in the European Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS), 1 non-European states and the industry rejected any unilateral actions from states or grouping of states (International Civil Aviation Organization 2007).…”

“…The main governor (Avant et al 2010) in defining CORSIA's scope were airline companies (Gonçalves 2016), which are extremely efficient in lobbying and orienting states' positions at ICAO so that the results of negotiations are not too harmful to their business. After articulating a very hard opposition to the EU ETS, and since airline companies realized that some kind of regulation involving carbon emissions were hard to avoid, they clearly indicated a preference for an offsetting mechanism and played an important role on designing the scheme (International Air Transport Association 2016).…”

“…This excerpt illustrates some of the hidden impacts of a climate policy centered only on the global scale (Gonçalves 2017). The politic of scales (Gupta 2008) can be used by actors in order to present one solution to the detriment of others.…”

REDD+: la transformación - Lecciones y nuevas direcciones

“…Los nuevos enfoques de mercado, de compensaciones para los bosques tropicales en mercados de cumplimiento regulados, podrían ayudar a cerrar la brecha entre el financiamiento disponible para REDD+ y el que se necesita para cumplir con los objetivos del Acuerdo de París (EDF y Forest Trends 2018). Dos ejemplos de ello son la propuesta de Norma de Bosques Tropicales del Sistema de Comercio de Emisiones (cap-and-trade) de California (capítulo 12), y la medida basada en el mercado de la Organización de Aviación Civil Internacional (OACI) (Gonçalves 2017), que se encuentra en proceso de negociación. Además, el potencial de los Resultados de Mitigación Transferidos Internacionalmente, relacionados con el artículo 6 del Acuerdo de París, podría proporcionar un importante flujo de financiamiento futuro para REDD+ .…”

German Environmental Concerns on Carbon Offsetting and Reduction: How it Deals with European and International Rules?

“…12 Efthymiou (2021) views emissions trading as a market-based policy tool that combines interests of economic efficiency and environmental issues. 13 Regarding CORSIA, Gonçalves (2017) suggests that this international agreement does not promote the direct reduction of GHG 11 German Emissions Trading Authority, "Structure of the EU ETS," https://www.dehst.de/EN/european-emissions-trading/understanding-emissionstrading/structure/structure_node.html. Regarding EUA and EUAA, see Janina Scheelhaase, Sven Maertens, and Wolfgang Grimme, "Options for Improving the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) for Aviation," Transportation Research Procedia 59 (2021): 195-196. 12 Niall Buissing, "EU Air Transport and the EU's Environmental Agenda Struggle: A Leap of Faith or Can a CBAM Level the Playing Field?," Air and Space Law 47, no.…”