Sustainable Development in a Changing Climate - International Development Committee Contents


4  Aviation emissions

68. Public-awareness has increased of the personal responsibility we all have to contribute to a reduction in global carbon emissions. Although this is a positive development, we were concerned that lifestyle decisions taken by individuals in rich countries with the aim of reducing their "carbon footprint" might have a detrimental impact on economic growth in some poor countries. We used aviation emissions as a case study to examine this issue.

69. According to the Stern Review, air transport is currently responsible for less than 2% of global emissions, shared roughly equally between domestic and international air transport. It notes that:

    By 2050, CO2 emissions from aviation are expected to account for 2.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions. However taking into account the non-CO2 effects of aviation would mean that it would account for around 5% of the total warming effect (radiative forcing) in 2050.[91]

Assuming EU projections that global emissions will have to be reduced to 50% below 1990 levels by 2050,[92] unrestricted international aviation emissions alone would make up 7% of the global permissible emissions cap in 2050 (before taking into account their warming effect on the global atmosphere which will require additional emissions reductions). It is therefore essential that aviation emissions are addressed in any new international agreement on climate change.

70. We recognise that measures to reduce aviation emissions—known as response measures—could have significant negative impacts on tourism and the export of horticultural produce which are vital sectors in many developing countries. The degree of impact very much depends on the sort of measures which are adopted to meet the need for mitigation.

Response measures

71. One way of reducing aviation emissions would of course be to reduce the number of flights. We explored the use of air transport duties to influence passenger decisions about whether or not to fly. The New Economics Foundation (NEF) argued that the UK's Airline Passenger Duty which is currently paid on all flights departing from the UK, is insufficient to act as a deterrent to flying and that the only realistic option is to set it at a sufficiently high level to reduce demand significantly.[93] The Ministry of Tourism in Tanzania told us it was alarmed by this prospect, warning that an increase in Airline Passenger Duty on long-haul flights from the UK would have a detrimental effect on its tourism industry. NEF told us that it was important, when setting air duty levels, to distinguish between short and long-haul flights mainly because there are less carbon-intensive alternatives to short-haul flights.[94]

72. The extent to which demand is reduced by increased taxes depends on the sensitivity of travellers to price—the elasticity of demand. An academic study found that there was a considerable variance in elasticities of air travel demand, with long-haul business travel highly inelastic, while short-haul leisure travel was quite sensitive to price.[95]

73. An air travel levy aimed at reducing aviation emissions is likely to have a greater impact on behaviour in relation to short-haul flights because travellers have more choice of alternative modes of transport for short journeys. Air passenger duty may influence a decision about whether to fly to Paris but not to Tanzania, for example. Taxation could therefore be a useful tool for changing behaviour and reducing emissions in relation to short-haul flights but is less likely to have a similar impact on long-haul journeys. We have particular concerns about the potential deterrent effect on travel to developing countries which we explore below.

THE POTENTIAL OF AVIATION TO CONTRIBUTE TO ADAPTATION FUNDS

74. As we have made clear, climate change finance needs to be genuinely additional. This will require innovative financial instruments. The Group of Least Developed Countries (LDCs) has proposed an International Air Passenger Adaptation Levy (IAPAL). It says this will enable international air passengers to comply with their individual responsibility and show solidarity with developing countries. The IAPAL proposal envisages a levy on international air travel of US$6 per economy trip, and US$62 per business/first class trip. It is estimated that this would generate around US$10 billion annually which would be used to help developing countries adapt to climate change impacts. The LDCs claim that this mechanism would provide predictable, timely and genuinely additional funding for adaptation in the most vulnerable countries and that:

    The proposed levy will have no significant effect on passenger numbers—less than a tenth of the expected annual growth rate—and hence minimal or no negative impact on tourism dependent economies. By contrast, it could have significant positive impacts on the development of the poorest and most vulnerable countries and communities, by avoiding climate change impacts through timely and adequate adaptation measures funded by the revenue raised through the levy.[96]

75. The recent submission by the European Union for the forthcoming UNFCCC negotiations suggests that an emissions trading regime for aviation should be agreed in the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) by 2010.[97] Such an agreement would generate a similar amount of funding for developing country adaptation, for example through the auctioning of emission permits to airlines. However the Kyoto Protocol invited developed countries to pursue the limitation or reduction of aviation emissions through the ICAO: to date there has been no progress.

76. We believe that an international aviation levy would be a welcome additional source of funds for adaptation. The International Civil Aviation Organisation may be successful in securing agreement for its proposed scheme, which it is estimated could raise up to $10 billion a year. However, if there seems to be insufficient progress in this forum, we recommend that the UK Government consider supporting the Group of Least Developed Countries' proposal for a similar scheme, as part of the measures to be discussed at the Copenhagen summit.

77. We are concerned about a possible decrease in the number of UK tourists visiting developing countries which an increase in air passenger duty might cause. We therefore also recommend that, for flights originating in the UK, compensation is given for any new Adaptation Levy on an economy fare by making an equivalent reduction in the UK air passenger duty for passengers travelling to long-haul destinations in developing countries. This could form part of any new financial commitment under the Copenhagen agreement.

Tourism

TOURISM AND CLIMATE CHANGE

78. Tourism is highly dependent on climate. People's choices about where to go on holiday and when depend to a large extent on climate. The impacts of climate change, such as increased frequency of storms or floods, are therefore likely to affect revenue from tourism. A key issue for tourism in developing countries is the extent to which it can adapt to changing climatic conditions and retain or increase visitor stays.

79. The tourism sector will also need to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions if overall targets are to be met. Tourism Concern told us that the tourism sector lags behind others in recognising its responsibilities in relation to climate change and the environment. It noted that tourism consumes large quantities of energy and water, for example through air conditioning. There is therefore significant scope for decreasing the environmental impact of the tourism sector if the private sector and governments in developing countries work together to develop alternative sustainable energy technologies.[98]

80. Dr Murray Simpson of Oxford University described plans for the Caribbean to become the world's first carbon neutral tourism region which he said would generate huge media attention and create a positive environmental image for the region. He believed that there was considerable potential to co-finance energy efficiency, renewable energy and adaptation measures from tourist revenue and donations.[99]

TOURISM AND DEVELOPMENT

81. The UN World Tourism Organisation has noted that tourism is a primary source of foreign exchange for 46 out of 50 Least Developed Countries and that tourism has the potential to lift people out of poverty through employment and entrepreneurial opportunities. ODI estimated that around 2-6% of jobs in Africa were dependent on tourism and noted that tourism was included in the Poverty Reduction Strategies of more than 80% of low income countries.[100]

82. We looked at different aspects of the tourism sector in Tanzania. We held discussions with tour operators, the Tanzania National Parks Agency (TANAPA) and visited a cultural tourism project. We also met officials from the Ministry of Tourism and Natural Resources. Tourism contributes 80% of Tanzania's foreign exchange earnings. We were told that the economic downturn had already begun to have an impact with 15% fewer visitors between June and December 2008. One result of this was that TANAPA's income had reduced and its ability to support local communities, conservation projects, training projects and tourist boards would be affected.

83. In Kenya tourism contributes 11.6% of GDP; in the Maldives it contributes 35% while in some Caribbean islands tourism can contribute up to 80% of GDP and account for 95% of jobs.[101] In addition, tourism is often labour intensive and employs significant numbers of women and unskilled and informal sector workers. The Dutch development organisation, SNV, told us that there were significant pro-poor benefits to be gained from encouraging small-scale entrepreneurs to become more involved in the sector, especially through the sale of handicrafts.

84. The Caribbean and Pacific Islands which depend heavily on tourism are also recognised as having fragile eco-systems—some are low lying and many have few other income-generating options.[102] Tourism Concern told us that, since the banana sector contracted in St Lucia as a result of the loss of preferential access to the EU market, tourism had become more important.[103]

85. The New Economics Foundation expressed concern that developing countries lost a significant amount of potential revenue from tourism through what is known as "leakage". Tourism revenue was expatriated to international hotel chains and suppliers of imported food and other goods which cater to tourists' preferences. While some leakage is inevitable, NEF believed that there was a need for more research into how the tourism sector could provide greater benefit to local economies.[104] However, ODI found that in The Gambia, despite tourism being largely run by seven European operators with most tourists on cheap package holidays, and even in a hostile business environment, 14% of spending on goods and services accrued to local non-managerial staff and entrepreneurs. This demonstrated that there could be significant local benefits to the economy from tourism and that these appeared to apply whether tourism was high-end or mass-market. [105]

86. IIED highlighted that DFID had taken the lead in pro-poor tourism up to the early part of this decade and that research it had commissioned had provided the "original thinking" for the pro-poor tourism work now undertaken by the UN World Tourism Organisation. DFID's Tourism Challenge Fund had "pioneered a private sector approach to the issue".[106] The UK had also contributed to the development of sustainable tourism in relation to the UK outbound tourism industry, particularly through its support to the UK Sustainable Tourism Initiative—now the Travel Foundation.[107]

87. DFID has now withdrawn from the tourism sector. But IIED believes it could "build on this track record, now encouraging attention to the public policy environment in its partner countries and within other development agencies." In particular greater attention to consumer awareness and tourism policies in destinations would be beneficial. The objective should be to scale up the current ethical and sustainable tourism movement "beyond the most responsible operators to the mainstream; beyond niche destinations to the mass tourism resorts; and complementing global standards with compatible local standards" that are appropriate for in-country sustainable development goals.[108]

88. We appreciate that the Paris Declaration on aid effectiveness encourages the division of labour amongst donors and the alignment of donor activities with the priorities of partner governments, as we discussed in our 2007 report on this subject.[109] It might not therefore be appropriate for tourism to be a focus for DFID's bilateral programmes but, given the growth potential of the sector, we believe it should re-engage in a targeted way. For example, in Arusha in Tanzania, we were told of the need for more training for guides, porters and other local staff who worked in national parks tourism. DFID could usefully support this type of capacity-building in the sector as part of its broader assistance to economic growth.

89. We understand that it is not possible for DFID to be involved in every sector in developing countries and appreciate that tourism may be an area where it feels it no longer has a comparative advantage. However, given the economic importance of the tourism industry to so many developing countries in which DFID has a programme, and its inclusion in many Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers, the Department cannot afford to ignore it. Capacity-building in the sector, including training and development for local employees, could form part of DFID's livelihoods and growth programmes in countries where tourism makes, or has the potential to make, a significant contribution to the economy.

90. There is also scope for DFID to engage in discussion on pro-poor tourism issues, as well as on mitigating the impact of tourism on climate change, in multilateral fora. We were therefore surprised to learn that, as of this year, the UK is withdrawing from membership of the UN World Tourism Organisation. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport told us it could no longer afford the membership of €320,000 a year.[110] Dr Murray Simpson explained the importance of membership of this body:

    It is the leading organisation dealing with tourism and climate change and it plays a similar role in relation to sustainable development and environmental improvement. […] UNWTO is the leading organisation promoting both corporate social responsibility and ethics and is heading a global campaign on protection of children in the sector [….] UNWTO is very active in supporting tourism activities in poor and emerging markets in keeping with the UK's international development agenda generally and its support for Africa specifically—including in response to the digital divide and tourism and sustainable development.[111]

91. We accept the argument that it is important for the UK to maintain its engagement with the UN World Tourism Organisation. If the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is not able to continue to find the membership fee, we believe that DFID should take this over. We believe that membership of the UN World Tourism Organisation would sit comfortably within DFID's remit and would enable it to influence wider debates on the contribution that tourism can make to poverty reduction and on the need for the tourism sector to address climate change.

Food and horticulture exports from developing countries

92. We also considered the complexities consumers face when making decisions about whether to buy produce which has been transported by air from developing countries. Although less that 1% of all food is carried by air, it accounts for 11% of total food transport CO2 emissions. However these figures need to be put in context. The Food Ethics Council pointed out that, compared to emissions from other aspects of farming and food, air-freighted food contributes only 0.3% to total UK emissions whereas refrigeration accounts for 3%, alcoholic drinks for 1.5% and meat and dairy for 8%.[112]

93. The Fresh Produce Consortium noted that 60% of air-freighted fresh produce is brought to the UK in passenger aircraft, and that there is no evidence to suggest that these aircraft would not fly if less fresh produce were imported. The remaining 40% of air-freighted goods carried on dedicated cargo planes accounted for only 0.12% of total UK greenhouse gas emissions. The Consortium maintained that switching to low-energy light bulbs in the UK could contribute more to emissions reductions than rejecting fresh fruit and vegetables from Africa.[113]

94. Over one million livelihoods in sub-Saharan Africa are supported by the export of fresh produce to the UK. The Kenyan horticultural industry supports around 135,000 Kenyans directly and many hundreds of thousands indirectly. Produce supplied to the UK generates at least £100 million a year for Kenya. [114]

REDUCING THE IMPACT OF RESPONSE MEASURES ON EXPORT HORTICULTURE

95. When we met Dr Maggie Opondo, from the University of Nairobi, she commented that Kenya had been successful in building up its exports of fresh produce but that negative publicity in developed countries about 'food miles' risked damaging this important industry. The Fresh Produce Consortium argued that focusing solely on the method of transport of imported food and the distance between consumer and producer as a basis for determining whether it is good or bad from an environmental perspective is both short-sighted and misleading for consumers. This is because transport accounts for only one element of the carbon emissions of a particular product. It would be better to look at the carbon footprint of the whole product supply chain. [115]

96. The emissions produced by flowers grown in Africa and flown to the EU can be less than a fifth of that for flowers grown in heated and lit greenhouses in the Netherlands.[116] Similarly, the production and air freighting of Kenyan flowers has been shown to emit significantly less greenhouse gases than the equivalent Dutch flowers: CO2 emissions from Dutch flower production were 5.9 times higher than Kenyan.[117] We saw an example of this on our visit to Kenya at the Oserian Flower Farm where flowers are produced using geothermal energy, hydroponics, drip irrigation and an integrated pest management system which reduce water, fertiliser and pesticide use.

97. Countries such as Kenya which have very low per capita emissions levels compared to industrial countries have what is known as 'ecological space' to increase their emissions within certain limits on the grounds of equity.[118] It is therefore argued that they "should not be discriminated against on carbon intensity grounds because they are within the boundaries of their ecological space."[119]

98. The ODI has suggested that the creation of a "good for development" label would indicate to consumers the positive developmental impact associated with purchasing developing country produce. Such a label would not create any new environmental or labour standards since there are already schemes which do this—for example the Fair Trade label—but would cover a greater proportion of developing country exports and include more producers than existing schemes.[120] Other labelling options have been proposed, for example carbon labelling by the UK Carbon Trust and a "grown under the sun" label by the Kenyan High Commission.[121] A recent report from our colleagues on the Environmental Audit Committee concluded that the Government needed "to put more resources into better environmental labelling".[122]

99. Another suggestion is for the Government to offset the air freight emissions from fresh produce imported to the UK. It has been estimated that it would cost between £2.8 million and £6.7 million to offset the air freight emissions of fresh fruit and vegetable imported from Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding South Africa).[123] The offsets could be considered as part of the UK's financial commitment to helping developing countries under any new global climate change agreement. It might also increase demand for such products from consumers concerned about food miles. We asked the Minister about labelling and about offsetting the emissions from air freighted produce from developing countries. He agreed that it was important for consumers to know about carbon emissions of produce but believed that there was no public demand for labelling to indicate this. The Government had not considered buying carbon offsets. [124]

100. There is a danger that steps taken by consumers in the UK to reduce their contribution to carbon emissions may lead them to avoid buying produce from developing countries in the mistaken belief that air-freighted food and flowers necessarily have a higher carbon footprint. We believe that consumers need accurate information about the way products have been grown as well as transported. Labelling imported fresh produce to show total carbon emissions for the whole production cycle would be a useful tool to enable consumers to make informed choices about the goods that they buy. We believe the UK Government should conduct research on how such a scheme might be introduced and carry out an assessment of the potential benefits to producers in developing countries.

101. The Government could also consider paying to offset the air freight emissions of horticultural products from developing countries. Ideally this would be done through funding sustainable mitigation projects in the exporting countries, which would provide poor countries with a double dividend of supporting their export earnings and contributing to their domestic low-carbon development. This proposal could be a worthwhile use of funds, particularly if it could be counted against compliance with any financial commitment made as part of a new global agreement reached at the Copenhagen summit. We therefore recommend that the Government explore its feasibility prior to the Copenhagen conference and report back to us on its conclusions.


91   Stern Review, The Economics of Climate Change, 2006, Annex 7c Emissions from the transport sector Back

92   European Commission, Towards a comprehensive climate change agreement in Copenhagen, COM(2009) 39 final, Brussels: 28.1.2009 Back

93   NEF, Plane Truths: Do the economic arguments for aviation growth really fly? 2008 Back

94   Q 81 Back

95   Benito Müller and Cameron Hepburn, IATAL: An outline proposal for an International Air Travel Adaptation Levy, Oxford: Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, October 2006, p 36 Back

96   International Air Passenger Adaptation Levy, a proposal by the Maldives on behalf of the Group of LDCs within the framework of the Bali Action Plan, 12 December 2008. Back

97   A negotiation text for consideration at AWG-LCA, Submission by the Czech Republic on behalf of the European Community and its Member States, Prague, 28 April 2009 Back

98   Ev 164 Back

99   Qq 86, 101 Back

100   ODI, Can tourism offer pro-poor pathways to prosperity?, Briefing Paper 22, June 2007 Back

101   Ev 164 Back

102   Ev 164 Back

103   Q 93 Back

104   Q 83; Ev 185 Back

105   ODI, Can tourism offer pro-poor pathways to prosperity?, Briefing Paper 22, June 2007 Back

106   Ev 122; Q 18 Back

107   Ev 122 Back

108   Ev 122 Back

109   Ninth Report of Session 2007-08, Working Together to Make Aid More Effective, HC 520-I Back

110   Ev 107 Back

111   Ev 155 Back

112   Food Ethics Council, Flying Food: Responsible retail in the face of uncertainty, May 2008, p 9 Back

113   Ev 113 Back

114   Benito Müller, Food Miles or Poverty Eradication? The moral duty to eat African strawberries at Christmas, Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, Energy and Environment Comment, October 2007. Back

115   Ev 112 Back

116   Haug et al, Trade, Environment and development: import of flowers from Africa to Norway, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, May 2008. Back

117   Cranfield University, Comparative study of cut roses for the British market produced in Kenya and the Netherlands, 7 February 2007. Back

118   Q 132 Back

119   Müller, Food miles or poverty eradication? Back

120   Overseas Development Institute, A review of ethical standards and labels: Is there a gap in the market for a new "Good for Development" label?, ODI Working Paper 297, 2008. See also Q119. Back

121   Benito Müller, Food Miles or Poverty Eradication? The moral duty to eat African strawberries at Christmas, Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, Energy and Environment Comment, October 2007 Back

122   Environmental Audit Committee, Second Report of Session 2008-09, Environmental Labelling, HC 243, para 10 Back

123   Müller, Food miles or poverty eradication? Back

124   Qq 275-277 Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2009
Prepared 3 June 2009