tag:theconversation.com,2011:/id/topics/icao-26337/articlesICAO – The Conversation2022-03-15T06:19:41Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1792882022-03-15T06:19:41Z2022-03-15T06:19:41ZDoes the UN aviation body have the power to punish Russia for the MH17 downing? An aviation law expert explains<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/452038/original/file-20220314-15-mtxdln.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=225%2C23%2C4687%2C3422&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Peter Dejong/AP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Australia and the Netherlands <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-14/australia-netherlands-mh17-legal-proceedings-against-russia/100909240">have launched legal proceedings</a> against Russia over the downing of flight MH17, which killed 298 people in 2014.</p>
<p>What’s so unusual about this new legal action is that it’s being brought before the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). Australia, the Netherlands and Russia are all contracting parties to what is known as the <a href="https://www.icao.int/about-icao/history/pages/default.aspx">Chicago Convention of 1944</a>, which set up the ICAO to provide standards and recommended practices for international aviation.</p>
<p>Normally, proceedings like this would be brought in domestic courts like the <a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2021-12-21/suspects-in-dutch-trial-fully-responsible-for-mh17-downing-prosecution-says#:%7E:text=AMSTERDAM%20(Reuters)%20%2D%20Dutch%20prosecutors,be%20found%20guilty%20of%20murder.">existing prosecution</a> being mounted by the Dutch authorities against the four individuals they believe were responsible for the downing of MH17. </p>
<p>But the ICAO is a body responsible for setting standards for international aviation and doesn’t frequently settle disputes between nations. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1503365947691782149"}"></div></p>
<h2>ICAO doesn’t police the skies</h2>
<p>The ICAO has been quite successful in its role. There are 192 nations that are contracting members to the Chicago Convention and are obliged to comply with its various standards and recommended practices. </p>
<p>And we have a very harmonised international aviation sector as a result, with requirements for flight crew licensing, aircraft manufacturing and environmental regulations that are all routinely met by the member states.</p>
<p>The ICAO does have <a href="https://www.icao.int/about-icao/FAQ/Pages/icao-frequently-asked-questions-faq-3.aspx">provisions</a> for settling disputes between member countries under article 84 of the convention. This is where the Australian and Dutch authorities have brought their action.</p>
<p>Normally, if there’s a dispute brought before the organisation, it’s against a particular airline, not a country itself. So, if an airline has done something wrong, ICAO can impose restrictions on where it can fly. This can’t happen when you bring a case against another nation.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1503293335670206465"}"></div></p>
<p>In the 78 years of ICAO’s existence, <a href="https://www.icao.int/about-icao/FAQ/Pages/icao-frequently-asked-questions-faq-3.aspx">only five disputes</a> have been brought under this article. It’s not used that often because ICAO can’t really compel states to comply with it. It’s a bit of a toothless tiger when it comes to disputes of this nature.</p>
<p>Russia could also be held accountable under <a href="https://www.mcgill.ca/iasl/files/iasl/montreal1984.pdf">article 3bis of the Chicago Convention</a>, an amendment signed in 1984 after the Soviet military <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1983/09/17/by-26-2-vote-icao-deplores-soviets-shooting-of-plane/f3017e07-b009-4ff2-be03-272fd0dec561/">shot down</a> a South Korean airliner the previous year. </p>
<p>This article says member states “must refrain from resorting to the use of weapons against civil aircraft in flight”. A state can initiate proceedings to the ICAO Council, which could then be appealed to the International Court of Justice.</p>
<p>But the council has previously been <a href="https://utrechtjournal.org/articles/10.5334/ujiel.368/galley/165/download/">described</a> as “less as a court of law than as a facilitator for settlement”, limiting itself to technical issues and avoiding political matters. Only one council dispute has ever been referred to the ICJ.</p>
<h2>So what can ICAO do in this case?</h2>
<p>Australia and the Netherlands are using the legal action to try to force Russia back to the negotiating table to resolve the dispute over compensation for the families of the MH17 victims. Russia <a href="https://www.npr.org/2022/03/14/1086449199/australia-netherlands-malaysia-airlines-mh17-russia">unilaterally withdrew</a> from the talks in 2020. </p>
<p>Australian Attorney-General Michaelia Cash said the ICAO is “the sole body that has jurisdiction to deal with this matter”, <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-14/australia-netherlands-mh17-legal-proceedings-against-russia/100909240">asking the body to order</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>the parties immediately enter good faith negotiations to resolve expeditiously the matters of full reparation for the injury caused by Russia’s breach.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>ICAO can say to Russia that it must return to the negotiating table, but in terms of being able to enforce it, the most it can do is suspend Russia’s voting rights in the ICAO Council and ICAO Assembly. </p>
<p>Russian President Vladimir Putin is unlikely to care very much about that because Russia would still be part of the Chicago Convention. </p>
<p>And expelling a member from ICAO has never been tested to date. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Relatives of flight MH17 victims walking past memorial in the Netherlands." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/452049/original/file-20220315-130208-1jo8ve3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/452049/original/file-20220315-130208-1jo8ve3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/452049/original/file-20220315-130208-1jo8ve3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/452049/original/file-20220315-130208-1jo8ve3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/452049/original/file-20220315-130208-1jo8ve3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/452049/original/file-20220315-130208-1jo8ve3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/452049/original/file-20220315-130208-1jo8ve3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Relatives of the victims of flight MH17 walk along 298 empty chairs in a park opposite the Russian embassy in the Netherlands, each chair representing one of the 298 people killed.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Peter Dejong/AP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Other international treaties that could be relevant</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20974/volume-974-I-14118-english.pdf">1971 Convention for the Suppression of Acts Against the Safety of Civilian Aviation</a> (otherwise known as the Montreal Convention) deals with individual acts that endanger the safety of civilian aviation.</p>
<p>This convention imposes an obligation on states to provide for the safety of civilian flights and refrain from using weapons against civilian aircraft. It also has near-universal ratification, including Russia.</p>
<p>Article 14 of the Montreal Convention also allows disagreeing states to refer their dispute to the ICJ when negotiations fail. As Russia withdrew from negotiations with Australia and the Netherlands regarding the liability for the downing of MH17, this is an increasingly possible route.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/mh17-justice-takes-several-forms-none-simple-49221">MH17 ‘justice’ takes several forms, none simple</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Is there much hope for the ICAO case?</h2>
<p>The current case being brought before the ICAO demonstrates what the Chicago Convention was designed to do and what it wasn’t designed to do. </p>
<p>The fundamental objective is to increase cooperation and standardisation between states with respect to international aviation. We’re talking here about a specific dispute over compensation for an act of aggression – it’s outside the ambit or jurisdiction of what the ICAO was set up to do.</p>
<p>This is probably a last-ditch attempt by Australia and the Netherlands to get an outcome for the victims of the tragic MH17 crash.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/bellingcats-report-on-mh17-shows-citizens-can-and-will-do-intelligence-work-118836">Bellingcat's report on MH17 shows citizens can and will do intelligence work</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/179288/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ron Bartsch AM does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The ICAO is responsible for setting standards for international aviation and doesn’t frequently settle disputes between nations.Ron Bartsch AM, Lecturer in Aviation Law, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/667682016-10-10T19:00:55Z2016-10-10T19:00:55ZThe new UN deal on aviation emissions leaves much to be desired<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/141050/original/image-20161010-2635-1m4k1ke.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">It's not quite time for international airlines to fly off into the sunset</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Aviation image www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><a href="http://www.icao.int/Meetings/a39/Documents/WP/wp_462_en.pdf">Emissions from international flights</a> - a bugbear of efforts to combat climate change - will finally be regulated under a scheme agreed by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) on Thursday last week. </p>
<p>It’s a problem that had remained largely unaddressed by states – and airlines – since 1997, the year when essentially all nations, through the
<a href="http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf">Kyoto Protocol</a>, determined that ICAO – a United Nations agency – should deal with it.</p>
<p>Governments all took the view that, given jurisdictional and aircraft ownership and control issues, and the nature of the problem, ICAO was the appropriate forum to address the emissions problem. It was also a reflection of how difficult the problem was – and still is – to solve. </p>
<p>At the last ICAO Assembly, in 2013, states <a href="http://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/Pages/market-based-measures.aspx">agreed</a> that a market mechanism for international aviation was best, and that its form would be approved by the assembly this year. This 2013 agreement came just shy of 20 years since ICAO was tasked with addressing the problem. The 2016 meeting was the organisation’s 38th.</p>
<h2>What did the assembly agree?</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.icao.int/about-icao/Council/Pages/council-states-2016-2019.aspx">ICAO member states</a> chose a global carbon offset scheme before the start of the assembly to deal with international aviation emissions. The scheme is called the CORSIA , or the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation. </p>
<p>Other market-based options (more effective ones, according to general consensus) include an emissions trading scheme (ETS) – either a cap-and-trade or a baseline-and-credit scheme – or a carbon tax. </p>
<p>For some time it has been clear that offsetting was ICAO’s preferred mechanism. In part, it was chosen because it is less transparent and less onerous than either a carbon tax or an ETS. A tax would have been more straightforward and easier to implement. </p>
<p>An ETS would have made sense given that the European Union already has one in place for EU carriers. Moreover, an <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/aviation/index_en.htm">attempt</a> to include non-EU carriers in the EU ETS failed a few years ago. ICAO could have used blueprints for the attempt in the lead-up to the 2016 assembly and, arguably, a better, more effective result might have ensued.</p>
<p>Relatively few changes were made between the final draft text and the <a href="http://www.icao.int/Meetings/a39/Documents/WP/wp_462_en.pdf">final version</a> that resulted from the assembly’s deliberations and private discussions between the parties. </p>
<p>As a result, an ICAO press conference to announce the details – unusually for such conferences, held the day before the assembly concluded – was attended by fewer than 15 journalists, and questions lasted less than 15 minutes.</p>
<h2>How does the scheme work?</h2>
<p>As outlined in our <a href="http://theconversation.com/are-we-finally-about-to-get-a-global-agreement-on-aviation-emissions-65110">previous Conversation article</a>, there are three phases to the offset scheme: a pilot phase would operate from 2021 to 2023 for states that volunteer to participate in the scheme. Much about this phase remains unclear. </p>
<p>An initial phase from 2024 to 2026 would then operate for states that (as with the pilot phase) voluntarily participate, and would offset using options in the assembly resolution text. </p>
<p>Finally, a subsequent mandatory phase would operate from 2027 – fully a decade away to 2035 – and would exempt a fair number of states on various bases. And there are further exemptions.</p>
<p>None of this was changed in the final resolution text.</p>
<h2>Many weaknesses</h2>
<p>While an advanced previous draft of the resolution asked the aviation sector to assess its share of the global carbon budget for holding warming to 1.5-2°C, such assessment was deleted from the final draft. </p>
<p>Now the text simply requests that ICAO: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>…continue to explore the feasibility of a long term global aspirational goal for international aviation, through conducting detailed studies.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>What’s more, the CORSIA only <a href="http://bigstory.ap.org/article/6be5cb930f7b4ecbb24ec79219a74225/un-agreement-reached-aircraft-climate-change-emissions">applies</a> to international flights, which make up about 60% of aviation emissions.</p>
<p>Participation is also an issue. At this stage, for the first, voluntary period of the agreement, just 65 states will join. It appears that Russia and India, two of the world’s largest emitters, will not participate. Brazil’s <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-aviation-idUSKCN1261QR">participation</a> is unclear. </p>
<p>The director general of IATA, the organisation of the world’s airlines,
<a href="http://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/Pages/2016-10-06-02.aspx">said</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>This agreement ensures that the aviation industry’s economic and social contributions are matched with cutting-edge efforts on sustainability.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>We’re not sure this is the case. Perhaps more correct is a <a href="http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2016/10/draft-icao-deal/">statement</a> from Bill Hemmings, a director at campaign group Transport & Environment:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Airline claims that flying will now be green are a myth … This deal won’t reduce demand for jet fuel one drop. Instead offsetting aims to cut emissions in other industries… Today is not mission accomplished for ICAO, Europe or industry. The world needs more than voluntary agreements.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The world also needs more than carbon offsets to address the aviation emissions problem both domestically and internationally.</p>
<p><em>The authors attended the 39th ICAO Assembly held in Montreal from 27 September to 7 October. <a href="https://theconversation.com/are-we-finally-about-to-get-a-global-agreement-on-aviation-emissions-65110">Read their previous article here</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/66768/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A global deal on airline emissions leaves a number of loopholes.David Hodgkinson, Associate Professor, The University of Western AustraliaRebecca Johnston, Faculty of Law, The University of Western AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/651102016-09-26T02:21:22Z2016-09-26T02:21:22ZAre we finally about to get a global agreement on aviation emissions?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/139120/original/image-20160926-13529-ixfqdj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Aviation emissions are growing about 5% each year. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Flying image from www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Tomorrow, delegates from more than 190 nations will begin an 11-day meeting in Montreal to determine the final form of a scheme to reduce greenhouse emissions from the aviation industry. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.icao.int/Meetings/a39/Pages/default.aspx">meeting</a> – the latest in a series of three-yearly summits held by the <a href="http://www.icao.int/Pages/default.aspx">International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO)</a>, the United Nations agency tasked with reducing aviation emissions – is poised to decide on a scheme that would ultimately make it mandatory for most airlines from member countries to buy <a href="https://theconversation.com/airline-emissions-and-the-case-for-a-carbon-tax-on-flight-tickets-56598">carbon offsets for their flights</a>. </p>
<p>The resolution would fill a key gap in global climate policy. The <a href="https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf">Paris climate agreement</a>, brokered last December, makes no mention of aviation emissions, despite having featured these in earlier drafts.</p>
<p>Earlier this month, the ICAO Council issued the <a href="http://www.icao.int/Meetings/a39/Documents/WP/wp_052_en.pdf">final draft</a> of a resolution text to be considered – and, presumably, after some debate, approved – at the Montreal meeting. </p>
<p>In its current form, questions will be raised over the scheme’s effectiveness, not least because it won’t become mandatory until 2027 – and even then not for all carriers. But these loopholes make it more likely that the plan will be adopted.</p>
<h2>Mandatory offsetting (in the future)</h2>
<p>The planned carbon offsetting scheme set out in the <a href="http://www.icao.int/Meetings/a39/Documents/WP/wp_052_en.pdf">draft resolution</a> would begin with a pilot phase running from 2021 to 2023, involving states that have volunteered to participate. These states will have some flexibility in determining the basis of their aircraft operators’ offsets. </p>
<p>The purpose of this pilot phase is not really clear, and some aviation industry organisations, such as the <a href="http://www.atag.org/">Air Transport Action Group</a>, regard it as unnecessary.</p>
<p>A first “formal” phase from 2024 to 2026 would apply to states that voluntarily participate in the pilot phase, and again would offset with reference to options in the resolution text. The main difference between the pilot and first phases is that, for the pilot phase, states can determine the applicable baseline emissions year.</p>
<p>A second, mandatory phase would only operate from 2027 to 2035 and would exempt the least developed countries and those with the smallest proportion of international air travel.</p>
<p>There are also exemptions based on the routes themselves. While the rules would apply to all flights between countries covered by the offsetting requirements, they will not apply to flights that take off or land in a non-member state.</p>
<h2>Offsetting the issue</h2>
<p>Then there are the well-publicised problems with the whole concept of <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/carbon-offsets-347">carbon offsetting</a>. Most countries and groups of countries (and ICAO is a group of countries) have ignored offsets in favour of mechanisms such as emissions trading schemes or carbon taxation – and with good reason.</p>
<p>Offsets, which by definition simply move emissions from one source to another, have little net effect on emissions. As such, offsets could be viewed as a diversion from regulations that genuinely encourage emissions reduction, such as <a href="https://theconversation.com/airline-emissions-and-the-case-for-a-carbon-tax-on-flight-tickets-56598">carbon pricing</a>. The <a href="https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf">Paris Agreement</a> does not directly rely on offsets because all governments recognise that it’s collective, substantive action that counts. </p>
<p>What is really needed is a policy that motivates major industrial sectors – aviation included – to cut emissions and use resources more efficiently. Market-based mechanisms offer the best way to apply the price pressure needed to drive such a change. </p>
<p>The question in designing any market-based mechanism is whether to base it on quantity or price. A quantity-based instrument is an ETS, the most common example of which is a cap-and-trade system; a price-based instrument is a carbon tax. </p>
<p>ICAO has chosen neither of these options. Instead, it has <a href="http://www.icao.int/Meetings/a39/Documents/WP/wp_052_en.pdf">chosen</a> a system of voluntary and then mandatory carbon offsets, with all their attendant problems. </p>
<h2>Other issues</h2>
<p>An <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/aviation-consume-quarter-carbon-budget">analysis by Carbon Brief</a> has found that even if the aviation industry meets all of its emissions targets, by 2050 it will still have consumed 12% of the global carbon budget for keeping warming to 1.5°C. This could increase to as much as 27% if the industry misses its targets. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, airlines estimate that air travel will grow by an average of almost 5% each year until 2034, in an industry where low-carbon alternatives are <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/aviation-consume-quarter-carbon-budget">difficult to find</a>. </p>
<p>It is perhaps good news, then, that three weeks ago 49 states <a href="http://carbon-pulse.com/23898">indicated</a> they were willing to opt into the ICAO’s offsetting scheme in its earliest phase. The following week, in a <a href="http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/09/16/eu-mexico-marshall-islands-back-un-aviation-pact">joint statement</a>, the European Union, Mexico and the Marshall Islands said they would join the scheme. And at G20 talks earlier this month, China and the US <a href="http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/09/05/eu-us-china-confirm-support-for-aviation-climate-deal/">offered support</a>. </p>
<p>Brazil, one of the fastest-growing aviation markets, <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-15/brazil-will-wait-to-join-airline-emissions-deal-official-says">said</a>, however, that it will not join until the mandatory scheme begins in 2027.</p>
<p>Notwithstanding substantive draft texts prepared before the assembly, there is still plenty of negotiating to do before we know its final shape. And despite the pitfalls of carbon offsetting and some difficulty with integrating the scheme with the Paris process, a resolution at the meeting would be a step forward (to be followed by further steps and leaps) for an industry with emissions roughly equal to those of the entire nation of South Korea.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>The authors will be attending the 39th ICAO Assembly in Montreal.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/65110/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>An international meeting looks set to approve a mandatory system of carbon offsetting for international flights - a big step forward but one that might be hard to integrate with the Paris Agreement.David Hodgkinson, Associate Professor, The University of Western AustraliaRebecca Johnston, Faculty of Law, The University of Western AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/565982016-04-05T03:07:10Z2016-04-05T03:07:10ZAirline emissions and the case for a carbon tax on flight tickets<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/117408/original/image-20160405-27157-1vbab5e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Would you pay an extra couple of dollars for the climate?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Sorbis/shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>After years of delay, the international aviation industry is inching its way towards bringing its greenhouse emissions under some form of regulation. Last month the United Nations’ International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) released a <a href="http://www.icao.int/Meetings/GLADs-2016/Documents/Draft%20Assembly%20Resolution%20text%20on%20GMBM%20for%202016%20GLADs.pdf">draft resolution</a> that would, for the first time ever, regulate aviation emissions on a global basis. </p>
<p>This should be significant news. Aviation is the fastest-growing source of greenhouse emissions in the transport sector, it produces <a href="http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09554.pdf">between 3% and 8% of the world’s total emissions</a> (<a href="http://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publications/2013%2009%20Your%20Guide%20to%20ICAO_final.pdf">more than the whole of South Korea</a>), and air travel is <a href="http://web.mit.edu/airlines/analysis/analysis_airline_industry.html">growing at 4-5% per year</a>. Yet these emissions have never been regulated on any meaningful scale.</p>
<p>It’s not hard to see why. Jurisdictional issues have meant that aviation emissions are not dealt with by the UN’s <a href="http://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/background_publications_htmlpdf/application/pdf/conveng.pdf">Framework Convention on Climate Change</a>, which asks nations to do their fair share to cut emissions. </p>
<p>Say an aircraft is manufactured in country A, owned by a company in country B, leased to an airline in country C, takes off from country D, flies over country E, and lands at an airport in country F. Who is responsible for that aircraft’s emissions? </p>
<h2>Tricky problem</h2>
<p>Previous attempts by states (or groups of states, such as the European Union) to regulate these international emissions have ended in tears. As a result of the EU’s attempt to include non-EU airlines in its <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/index_en.htm">Emissions Trading Scheme</a>, the United States passed legislation – the pointedly titled <a href="https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s1956/text">European Union Emissions Trading Scheme Prohibition Act of 2011</a> – prohibiting its airlines from complying.</p>
<p>There are also reasons to believe that the ICAO’s latest effort is problematic too. It proposes <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/carbon-offsets">carbon offsetting</a> as the main mechanism through which aviation emissions should be regulated – a proposal that sits uneasily with the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-paris-climate-agreement-at-a-glance-50465">Paris climate agreement</a> struck late last year, which makes no mention of carbon offsetting. </p>
<p>There is, of course, another way to price carbon and thereby discourage emissions: a carbon tax. Adding such a tax to airline tickets might sound like a non-starter in terms of getting the industry to sign up, but it would actually be very similar to one that already exists.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.unitaid.eu/en/how/innovative-financing">UNITAID solidarity levy</a> is a supplementary charge on airline tickets, ranging from US$1 for economy class, up to a maximum of US$40 for business and first class. It is implemented by eight countries (with 15 states gearing up to implement it), the proceeds of which fund health initiatives in the developing world, including providing access to drugs for HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis.</p>
<p>This levy model would address the aviation emissions problem far more effectively than the proposed draft ICAO offsetting resolution. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/117409/original/image-20160405-27150-1yudni0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/117409/original/image-20160405-27150-1yudni0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/117409/original/image-20160405-27150-1yudni0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/117409/original/image-20160405-27150-1yudni0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/117409/original/image-20160405-27150-1yudni0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/117409/original/image-20160405-27150-1yudni0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/117409/original/image-20160405-27150-1yudni0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A few dollars extra on a ticket could help curb emissions.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Africa Studio/shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The tax route</h2>
<p>Taxes have several advantages over emissions trading schemes in addressing the emissions problem. Taxation is a proven instrument. Tax systems are mature and universally applied policy measures. Taxation is also more direct and more transparent than emissions trading, and captures revenue more easily with less regulatory cost.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.who.int/immunization/programmes_systems/financing/analyses/Brief_18_Airline_Ticket_Tax.pdf">UNITAID air ticket levy</a> is not strictly a tax and so avoids many of the problems (imagined and real) but bears all the (positive) characteristics of a tax. </p>
<p>Most passengers who pay the UNITAID levy are typically charged US$1 or US$2, on outbound air tickets using existing airport tax systems. It is applied to all airlines, both domestic and international, and airlines collect and declare the levy. Passengers in transit are exempt and countries themselves can decide what rate to charge and which ticket classes they would like to include. </p>
<p>Because passengers, rather than airlines, are charged, a similar levy could be a useful “bottom-up” model for reducing aviation emissions.</p>
<h2>Aviation nations</h2>
<p>This is a particularly useful idea in the wake of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-paris-climate-agreement-at-a-glance-50465">Paris climate agreement</a>, which is significant for aviation because it largely does away with the previous principle that only developed states should take the lead in addressing the climate change problem. </p>
<p>Now all states, both rich and poor, have put forward “<a href="http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/indc/Submission%20Pages/submissions.aspx">intended nationally determined contributions</a>” to address the climate change problem. </p>
<p>Yet another problem with the ICAO draft resolution is that, unlike the Paris deal, it still maintains the distinction between developed and developing states. Draft clause 6 <a href="http://www.icao.int/Meetings/GLADs-2016/Documents/Draft%20Assembly%20Resolution%20text%20on%20GMBM%20for%202016%20GLADs.pdf">acknowledges</a> the:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>…special circumstances and respective capabilities of States, in particular developing States, in terms of vulnerability to the impacts of climate change, economic development levels, and contributions to international aviation emissions, while minimizing market distortion.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Applying a point-of-purchase carbon tax on airline tickets would level the playing field because everyone who flies would pay – both those passengers in developing countries, and the far more numerous ones in the developed world – with states setting the tax at a level appropriate to their (developed or developing) circumstances.</p>
<h2>The problem with offsets</h2>
<p>Contrast that with the ICAO’s <a href="http://www.icao.int/Meetings/GLADs-2016/Documents/Draft%20Assembly%20Resolution%20text%20on%20GMBM%20for%202016%20GLADs.pdf">proposed approach</a>, which is to implement a “Global Market-based Measure” (its preferred term for its proposed offsetting scheme), alongside a range of other methods including improvements to aircraft technology and operations, alternative fuels, and other strategies.</p>
<p>The problem is that most countries have now either adopted emissions trading or carbon taxation as their preferred methods to drive down emissions. </p>
<p>In isolation, offsets have little effect. They are a <a href="http://gwagner.com/planetary-socialism/">diversion</a> from legislated mitigation; it is collective action that matters.</p>
<p>What is needed is policy that motivates major industrial sectors to reduce emissions and use resources more efficiently – taxation, in other words.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/56598/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A carbon tax on airline tickets might sound like a tricky sell, but many airlines already collect a similar levy to raise funds for developing world health initiatives.David Hodgkinson, Associate Professor, The University of Western AustraliaRebecca Johnston, Faculty of Law, The University of Western AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.