Sustainability in the Air: The Modernization of International Air Navigation

Introduction

Achieving a sustainable air transport system has become a well-accepted goal. How to achieve it is less clear. The challenge includes finding balance between the dimensions of sustainability (environmental, economic, social, and financial) and the objectives of transportation (enhanced mobility, accessibility, and safety). The two are often in conflict. Various solutions have been proposed to enhance sustainability in transportation including technology, policy, operations, taxes, and subsidies or a combination of these. Regardless of the approach, public administration practitioners play a vital role in the process. Leuenberger, Bartle, and Chen (2014) propose a framework to explore these new roles. The authors claim, “with these transformed roles, transportation practitioners can make great contributions to build a better future” (Leuenberger et al., 2014, p. 320). This article explores that claim.

The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), a specialized agency of the United Nations (UN), sets policy and establishes standards to fulfill the following vision, “to achieve the sustainable growth of the global aviation system” (ICAO, 2016, para. 1). The research explores the ICAO Aviation System Block Upgrades (ASBU) initiative. The ASBU plan is a road map for the modernization of global air navigation. It is designed to keep infrastructure needs and improvements in pace with air transport growth. We review the development of this initiative to determine whether the roles described by Leuenberger et al. (2014), were exhibited in this effort to modernize air navigation and whether the policy addressed the goals of sustainability. Evidence of achieving this change in global air transport policy can provide an example for other policies, moving us one step closer to achieving the balance between the functions of air transport and sustainability.

Sustainability in Air Transport

Drawing from the UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, Bartle (2006) articulated four dimensions of sustainability in transportation:

The different dimensions of sustainability will occasionally be in conflict. The “sustainability movement is a search for balance” (Wachs, 2004, p. 29). The goal of sustainability is not to achieve one dimension at the expense of others, rather to make orderly progress on all dimensions. Bartle (2006) determined that although progress has been made, aviation falls short of achieving a sustainable path of development.

Black (2010) defines a sustainable transport system as “one that provides transport and mobility with renewable fuels while minimizing emissions detrimental to the local and global environment and preventing needless fatalities, injuries, and congestion” (p. 10). Three key attributes of a sustainable system include, “(1) it must be environmentally sound; (2) it should be efficient and flexible; and (3) it must be safe and secure” (Dempsey, 2000, p. 692).

Sustainability in air transport falls prey to the classic dilemma of balancing business needs with sustainable development. The conflict is well summarized by Daley (2010):

It is not surprising that debates about air transport and the environment are so contentious: they relate to widespread attitudes about choice, freedom and individuality; they expose and critique dominant patterns of consumption; and they call into question widely-held notions of wellbeing and quality of life. (p. 212)

Air transport results in many benefits including freedom of movement, enhanced productivity, trade, and tourism.

Air transport has a long record of nearly continuous growth (Budd, Griggs, & Howarth, 2013; Daley, 2010). Air traffic growth has doubled every 15 years since 1970 (ICAO, 2013a). International air transport today accounts for the employment of 56.6 million people, a US$2.2 trillion contribution to the global gross domestic product (GDP), and carries 2.9 billion passengers and US$5.3 trillion in cargo each year (ICAO, 2013a).

The challenge lies in balancing growth with sustainable development. Airlines are capitalizing on opportunities, thus fulfilling their fundamental business responsibilities of economic growth and job creation. It is perceived by many that growth is at odds with sustainable development. Whitelegg and Cambridge (2004) argue, “The growth of aviation presents what is perhaps the severest challenge to all our basic notions around sustainable development” (p. 25). Some have argued for limiting air traffic growth but it is not a realistic option. Although raised as a potential solution in the sustainability literature (Daley, 2010; Upham, Maughan, & Raper, 2012), no government has sought to reduce traffic (Upham et al., 2012). Janic (2004) argues that constraining growth is not a viable option, as it requires sacrificing mobility and negatively affects economies.

Airports are also significantly affected by increased demand. Forecasted growth calls for an increase in airport capacity, no small task given the long lead time, costs, political conflict, and logistical challenges related to expansion options. Creating airport capacity to meet future demand has been cited as “the biggest challenge in the present decade for airports and airlines” (Upham et al., 2012, p. 218). It is not a matter of whether airport expansion will occur but where. The very nature of the hub and spoke system adds pressure for expansion at key hub airports. Expansion creates additional environmental concerns including impact on surface traffic, increased noise, disruption of habitats, ecological effects, and land contamination just to name a few. To take responsibility for addressing these concerns, airports are increasingly implementing efforts on both the airside and landside of operations including the use of more efficient lighting, solar panels, more efficient heating and cooling systems, wind turbines, and electrically powered vehicles (Budd et al., 2013).

Both airports and air carriers are focusing on communication efforts. Corporate environmental reporting is becoming more prevalent as a means to publicize efforts to enhance sustainable development. In the last 10 years, airlines have increased the use of corporate reporting as a tool to communicate plans and progress for environmental responsibility (Upham et al., 2012). The practice is less prevalent among international airports (Skouloudis, Evangelinos, & Moraitis, 2012).

A key characteristic of air transport is its international scope. As Dempsey (2000) writes, “Of all the modes of transport, aviation is uniquely global” (p. 643). Given the far reach of the problem of sustainability, local solutions alone will not solve what is a global issue. In an industry that is clearly connected across borders and relies increasingly on international operations, there is a need for international coordination to improve air transport sustainability. In the long term, sustainable aviation systems will increase access to trade and tourism on a global scale. As noted by Badger (2013), transportation “is more about connecting people to opportunity” (para. 5). However, Black (2010) argues that some countries will sacrifice sustainable methods in transportation to achieve greater mobility. This conflict is compounded when considering the projected growth of international air transport.

Although progress toward sustainability is especially difficult in international air transportation, some hopeful strategies have been suggested. Can solutions be developed that facilitate progress along the four dimensions of sustainability while protecting the values of mobility and economic growth? As Dempsey (2000) notes, “Sustainability does not require that all transportation come to a halt. It attempts to promote a transportation system that is least offensive in terms of consuming the earth’s resources and polluting the earth’s environment” (p. 658).

Proposed Solutions

Improvements in technology are often suggested as one possible strategy to improved transportation sustainability. Solutions include a wide range of options including aircraft design, engine design, use of alternative fuels, and enhanced air traffic management procedures through the use of modern navigational aids (navaids). The International Air Transport Association (IATA) places emphasis on technology as one of four pillars of the strategy toward reducing greenhouse emissions. The others include more efficient operations, improved use of infrastructure with emphasis on air traffic management and airport procedures, and developing a single, global, market-based measure to address greenhouse gas emissions (IATA, 2013). They argue that these pillars are the foundation for a global approach to aviation sustainability (Rotger, 2012). More efficient and flexible flight paths, for example, through the use of technology such as performance-based navigation (PBN) reduces fuel burn and, therefore, operating costs, emissions, congestion, delays, and travel time. Dempsey (2000) also sees an important role for technology:

New navigation technologies, such as global positioning satellite systems, may allow more efficient use of congested airspace, reducing fuel consumption and environmental degradation. Improvements in operational procedures and optimization of flight paths to reduce the noise footprints of aircraft on population centers will also reduce noise. (pp. 662-663)

Bartle (2006) also identifies two other strategies that have been suggested to improve sustainability: reduced use and tax policies that cause externally imposed costs (externalities) to be internalized by producers. Black (2010) writes that most solutions are policy oriented, technology oriented, or a combination of the two. He also criticizes the United States for its steadfast belief in technology as the “ultimate solution to the problem” (Black, 2010, p. 186). He argues that Americans tend to lean toward a technological solution whereas Europeans favor use of policy (Black & Nijkamp, 2002). This is evident through European efforts to address emissions through tax policies contrasted with the resistance to this approach in the United States. The battle that played out between U.S. airlines and the European Union (EU) over the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) serves as an example. The airline lobbying group Airlines for America (A4A) continuously worked to “stop the clock” on the EU efforts to extend the application of the ETS to international aviation. Highlighting U.S. airline efforts to improve fuel efficiency as a method to reduce greenhouse emissions, A4A argued against “unwarranted EU ETS tax hikes that drive up the cost of air travel” (A4A, 2014, para. 4). The battle resulted in President Obama signing into law the EU ETS Prohibition Act of 2011, providing authority for the Secretary of Transportation to prohibit U.S. aircraft operators from complying with the EU ETS. In 2013, ICAO proceeded to take the lead on this issue with a goal of developing a global market-based measure. As part of the overall ICAO strategy to guide environmental aviation policy at a global level, in February of 2016, the ICAO recommended the first binding limits for aircraft CO2 emissions, expected to be adopted later this year (Ball, 2016).

Technology cannot solve the problems of sustainability single handedly, but setting regulatory standards without actionable strategies to achieve them has also fallen short. “ICAO has tried harmonization of regulatory standards regarding noise and emissions. Intervention by local and regional groups has made this ineffective” (National Academy of Sciences, 2003, p. 12). It is clear that there is no single strategy to address sustainability issues. Leuenberger et al. (2014) would agree, “The potential is for new transportation to be not just an economic or technical response, but a planning approach that considers impacts on multiple systems” (p. 2). Dempsey (2000) also supports the idea that sustainability “contains three elements—technology, planning & policy, and ethics” (p. 692).

The Role of Public Administrators

In a recent article in Public Works Management & Policy, Leuenberger et al. (2014) write, “while sustainability started as an ideology and has had a normative influence on public administration, it can be a tool for improved decision-making” (p. 316). Leuenberger et al. call for a new role for public administrators in the effort to achieve sustainable transportation. This role includes four key tasks:

The utility of this perspective is that it moves sustainability from a normative goal to a planning tool. It defines the process of improving the sustainability of air transport and gives us a better sense of how to move forward in developing policy in this area. These four roles define tasks that can support the development of policies that can put us on the path to more sustainable international air transport.

This article applies the Leuenberger et al.’s (2014) approach to the development of the ICAO ASBU. This allows for an application of this approach to a specific case to examine its robustness, and it provides a case study of how we can make progress toward greater sustainability in international aviation. If this approach is feasible, it can be applied to other cases in aviation.

The Case of the ASBU

In his 2012, 5-year action agenda report, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon (2012) listed sustainable development in transportation as one of the key building blocks in the plan. In that plan, the Secretary General urged governments to “take action on recommendations for more sustainable transport systems that can address rising congestion and pollution worldwide” (Ki-moon, 2012, p. 5). The ASBU, a framework for global air navigation modernization developed by the ICAO, is a strategy that can move toward a more sustainable transport system. The ASBU provides a case to explore the call by Leuenberger et al. (2014) for the new role of public administrators.

At the ICAO 37th General Assembly, a concern over the ability of air navigation systems to meet system demands resulted in a directive to develop a global plan for air traffic management (ICAO, 2011b). The goal was to develop a plan that focuses on global interoperability. International aviation needs to address capacity demands of the projected doubling of global air transport by 2030 (ICAO, 2011b). As noted by the ICAO Secretary General in 2011,

Over the next ten years, some $120 billion will be spent worldwide on upgrading the global aviation system to enhance safety, efficiency and overall sustainability. We have to ensure that it is done in a timely, coordinated and harmonized manner around the world. (ICAO, 2011b, para. 3)

To achieve that goal, approximately 500 representatives from member states and the global aviation industry convened at the Global Air Navigation Industry Symposium (GANIS) in Montreal in 2011 to shape the plan for global air navigation (ICAO, 2011b). Collaborations with stakeholders were a high priority from the beginning as noted by the Director of ICAO Air Navigation Bureau, “Success ultimately depends on states, operators, air navigation service providers, manufacturers and airports working closely together to synchronize deployment of the future systems” (ICAO, 2011b, para. 4). Input from the GANIS event was incorporated into the design of the ASBU framework, which was presented at the 12th Air Navigation Conference in Montreal in November of 2012. Following the 2012 conference, the final draft of the ASBU improvement areas and timelines was prepared. The ICAO 38th Assembly endorsed the plan, and the ASBU framework was incorporated into the Global Air Navigation Plan (GANP; ICAO, 2013a).

The ASBU design provides a plan for the implementation of specific air transportation operational improvements. The operational improvements, referred to as modules, are grouped within series of blocks. The blocks represent a timeline for implementation with blocks of modules available for implementation every 5 years, starting with Block 0 in 2013 (see Figure 1). This initial block contains 18 modules (ICAO, 2013c). Each ICAO member state will review the modules and determine which modules to implement (or not) based on factors such as operational requirements and resources. The ICAO does not anticipate the need for each member state to implement all modules. The goal is to provide a flexible plan to meet the specific needs of each member state.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Aviation System Block Upgrades.

The modules are mapped to four key performance improvement areas (see Figure 1). The first is greener airports. Initial modules in this area include advanced wake turbulence separation and enhanced airport surface surveillance. Performance Improvement Area 2 is globally interoperable systems and data through System Wide Information Management (SWIM). Initial modules for Performance Improvement Area 2 include coordinating ground-to-ground data communication. Performance Improvement Area 3 is optimum capacity and flexible flights through global collaborative air traffic management. The initial focus of Area 3 is implementation of PBN for improved enroute trajectories. Performance Improvement Area 4 is efficient flight path through trajectory-based operations. Two key modules in this area are constant descent operations (CDOs) and constant climb operations (CCOs). CDOs allow operators to replace the step down, drop, and stop approaches to airports with an optimum, continuous descent profile. The profile results in minimum engine thrust settings, resulting in reduced fuel burn, reduced greenhouse emissions, and lower noise levels (ICAO, 2015a). Departures will also be better coordinated without interruption in the climb with similar benefits and smoother transition from takeoff throughout climb and to the final flight path. PBN is the cornerstone of the Block 0 modules. The goal of PBN is to achieve greater accuracy and precision primarily through the transition from ground-based to satellite-based navigation and the use of onboard aircraft navigation equipment. It remains the “highest air navigation priority” (ICAO, 2015a, p. 8).

The implementation details for the modules are provided in the ICAO ASBU working document (ICAO, 2013c). The document provides implementation guidance for air navigation service providers, aircraft operators, airport operators, and aviation regulators (ICAO, 2013c). It includes information on training standards, procedures, and regulatory requirements. Also included is the Intended Performance Operational Improvement/Metric to determine success (ICAO, 2013c). The performance metric addresses the modules benefits in areas such as (a) access and equity, (b) efficiency, (c) environment, (d) safety, and (e) cost-benefit analysis (ICAO, 2013c).

Meeting the Call

The ICAO ASBU policy is an illustration of how administrators can meet the call for the new role to achieve sustainable air transport. The strengths of the strategy lie in leadership and the focus on collaboration, the first and fourth tasks outlined by Leuenberger et al. (2014). The ICAO supported and led the ASBU initiative with support from the highest levels of ICAO, the Secretariat and the Assembly. Throughout the process of development, the member states and key stakeholders had a seat at the table for planning. Representatives from a wide variety of disciplines including civil aviation authority personnel from member states, airline representatives, academics, air navigation service providers, and key groups such as IATA and the International Federation of Air Line Pilots’ Association (IFALPA) attended the 12th Air Navigation Conference in Montreal. An attending representative from Russia referred to the conference as an “unprecedented global effort” to develop global air navigation solutions (Korsakov, 2012). The input received from the participants led to revisions of the plans and development of the final draft, which was approved by the Assembly in 2013. Not only did key stakeholders have the opportunity to collaborate on the ASBU design, the Assembly voted on final approval of the policy change. As Dempsey (2000) notes, “Because pollution is a global problem, traditional notions of national sovereignty must recede sufficiently to allow a multilateral effort to achieve global remedies” (p. 693).

The ASBU, developed as actionable strategies and incorporated into the mission of ICAO, meets the call for the second role for practitioners. The structure of the ASBU framework is designed as blocks of actionable operations improvements to be implemented over an established period of time. Each module has clearly defined implementation guidance in the ICAO ASBU working document (ICAO, 2013c). The document includes information such as procedures, reference to regulatory information, infrastructure needs, training and qualification requirements, and performance metrics. The collaborators knew one aspect was key to success: having a policy that is flexible enough for individual member states to implement the strategies of the plan that apply to the member state. Not all states will have the same path of implementation. This allows for customization to meet the needs of the transportation system based on such factors as resources, level of activity, and political support. The purpose was to design the ASBU framework to accommodate variations in needs while enhancing interoperability (ICAO, 2014). The plan is also incorporated into one of the essential ICAO planning documents, the GANP (ICAO, 2013a). The GANP incorporates the ICAO mission into actionable programs. The GANP is presented at the ICAO Assembly and is voted on by the members prior to adoption.

Performance measures have been developed for each of the modules in the ASBU. These measures are listed in the ASBU working document. Member states complete the Air Navigation Report Form (ICAO, 2013b) and report the results to ICAO. As a result, ICAO has the ability to document progress on implementation. The ICAO publishes the Air Navigation Report (ICAO, 2015a), an annual report that communicates progress on implementation of the goals laid out in the GANP, thus providing accountability and transparency. In addition, a publically available ICAO “performance dashboard” online tool provides a view of implementation targets for navigation objectives (ICAO, 2015b). The result, ICAO tracks and monitors progress and reports performance to the public, meeting the third role for practitioners as described by Leuenberger et al. (2014).

The ASBU initiative directly addresses many key elements of aviation sustainability as defined. The economic benefits include reducing fuel costs, increasing capacity, and ultimately increasing cross border harmonization, which has the potential to open up new markets. An increase in capacity and markets will also increase accessibility and mobility for member states populations with the potential benefit of enhanced access, trade, and tourism. The new route structures based on PBN and CDOs and CCOs will result in less fuel burn and reduced noise, an environmental benefit. According to ICAO, redesign of Canadian airspace and utilization of efficient flight paths in the Windsor–Toronto–Montreal corridor has resulted in reducing cumulative fight time by 10 hours daily and reducing greenhouse emissions by 15,000 tons annually (ICAO, 2015a). In Washington, D.C., airspace, satellite-based “highways in the sky” and three parallel continuous decent profiles to the three major airports will result in a predicted fuel burn savings of 2.5 million gallons annually with a reduction of 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide (ICAO, 2015a, p. 16). These improvements not only benefit the airline industry because of the cost savings due to reduced fuel burn but also provide an environmental benefit. As noted by one analyst, “in our industry, emissions are closely linked to fuel, and fuel is life. In other words, we are the best self-disciplining industry on the planet” (Stockton, 2015, para. 4). Therefore, this policy will advance both the economic and environmental dimensions of sustainability.

Challenges to Implementation

The challenges to successfully moving toward a sustainable air transport system oftentimes lie in the implementation of these actionable strategies developed by forward thinking leaders. Although the leadership among key stakeholders, and in particular ICAO, may have met the call for the new role of public administrators in developing sustainable solutions, the problems may lie with the frontline personnel for implementation. A lack of qualified personnel in aviation is a global concern (ICAO, 2011a). The existing demands for aviation personnel exceed capacity to train in some areas around the world (Lutte, 2013). Additional concerns have been raised about the need for training those responsible for safety oversight (Lutte, 2015).

Another challenge to successful implementation is related to technology. States must address the equipment paradox: Who pays first for technology upgrades? For example, PBN requires investment in infrastructure by the member states and investment in onboard equipment by the airlines. Who pays first? Will the first airline that pays reap the most rewards or simply pay the highest amount for the newest technology? As noted by an attendee of the Air Navigation Conference (Dow, 2012), the last airline to equip gets the biggest benefit whereas the first gets the least. He went on to note that the navigation service providers do not invest because the airlines do not have the equipment on board and vice versa. Who goes first? This is a market failure which causes an economic inefficiency. Addressing this inefficiency can make progress toward sustainability. The Airports Council International notes that encouraging or incentivizing aircraft operators to upgrade necessary equipment is an important issue for ICAO and may require further defining the benefits and exploring funding options (Airport Management, 2012-2013). Economic theory justifies such an incentive to address the market failure.

When it comes to achieving a sustainable plan for air navigation, regional issues related to harmonization exist. The ASBU is implemented by individual member states based on the states’ needs and resources, but the decisions made by an individual member state affect the region. Such decisions trickle down to issues such as mobility and accessibility. This is a manifestation of the “tragedy of the commons” which creates a market failure (Hardin, 1968). This problem provides an efficiency justification for either international regulations or subsidies to coordinate action. The ICAO Assembly Resolution A37-11 appropriately calls on member states to complete implementation of PBN “as a matter of urgency” and calls for full implementation by 2016 (ICAO, 2015a). Although 105 countries (out of 191 member states of ICAO) have committed to PBN by publishing a PBN implementation plan (ICAO, 2015a), it is not fully deployed in all regions. ICAO is addressing the issue through the Planning and Implementation Regional Groups (PIRGs) and Regional Aviation Safety Groups (RASGs). The goals of these groups include measurement of implementation, accountability, and transparency to motivate aviation groups and stakeholders within the region to implement programs and work cooperatively (ICAO, 2015a). This is an illustration of administrative action to enhance economic efficiency and sustainability.

Conclusion

The development of the ASBU framework provides an example of public administrators meeting the call to create solutions that will promote more sustainable transportation. It demonstrates that as difficult as it is to make progress toward sustainability that it can be done, and that the call by Leuenberger et al. (2014) provides practical steps for implementation. All four roles defined by Leuenberger et al. (2014), were manifested in this case: This collaborative effort resulted in actionable strategies, including performance measures, incorporated into the GANP. The leadership of ICAO has provided an example of collaboration on a global scale to develop a framework for air navigation modernization that will not only meet the needs of individual member states but will also assist in achieving global operational improvements. Two key features of the policy take sustainability from being a somewhat vague normative goal to an actionable plan: (a) the flexibility of the policy, so member nations can make progress in their own way, and (b) required filing and sharing of the Air Navigation Report form and the public posting of the ICAO Performance Dashboard help hold member nations accountable. With these features, the implementation of the policy is a required task for managers, and so is much more likely to get done. This provides an example of a specific change where sustainability is a helpful tool for planning and policy implementation, as Leuenberger et al. outlined. There are likely other potential changes in international aviation and in transportation more generally that could use this approach to implement sustainable development policy. Further research will provide more evidence on the applicability and robustness of this framework.

The case is also instructive for aviation policy, as it outlines an approach where practice can be more sustainable with changes in operations and administration rather than relying solely on improving technology or the rather impractical alternative of reduced use. Although improving operations can be challenging, it can be much less expensive than technological solutions. In the case of the ASBU, improved operations represent a win for industry in their pursuit of corporate responsibility and a win for the environment. The result is an important example of finding balance between these two often opposed goals. The ASBU is a work in progress, and it will need to be carefully monitored for successful implementation and to see how well it meets the goals of sustainability and compatibility with economic growth. It will likely be a “learning by doing” process, which will rely on the flexibility built into the implementation of the policy. As suggested by Leuenberger et al. (2014), strong leadership and effective collaboration will also continue to be necessary for successful implementation.

Another solution justified by economic theory in this case is re-engineering the process by use of incentives, regulations, and implementation of PBN. These solutions can jointly improve both the efficiency and sustainability of the international air transport system and so should be worth the cost and effort of implementation. Strategies to achieve sustainable development goals that provide a flexible plan for implementation can result in a workable and adaptable solution that system users can implement. In a field with as many challenges to sustainability as international air transport, this is both urgent and essential.

Moreover, it illustrates that the two goals of economic growth and sustainable development need not be in opposition, but can be balanced together. This synthesis of the two goals reframes the dilemma as an actionable challenge that can be addressed by careful planning and determined implementation. Corporate social responsibility is also better achieved not just as a concession to environmental demands, but as a more cost-efficient way to do business in cooperation with government. Sustainability need not inhibit the growth of international air travel. As this case indicates, appropriate policies can achieve balanced growth in both the economic and environmental dimensions of sustainability.