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
| 
