• Journal of Distribution Science
• /
• v.12 no.2
• /
• pp.27-37
• /
• 2014

Purpose - As economic activities between different countries have rapidly spread in a world of free trade, it is inevitable that a large volume of cargo will be carried between countries. It is natural, then, that CO2 emissions and other environmental pollutions have followed, which exposes people and society to serious environmental problems and social costs, and so on. Therefore, the need to understand logistics is not only a matter of transportation but also an environmentally oriented matter. The purpose of this study is to look at some lessons and implications from the European case in terms of green logistics matters. Research design, data, and methodology - In order to look into this matter, first, it has to be established that some cargo transport volumes using different transportation modes have clearly declined because of previous economic recessions. Some transport policies produced by the European Union (EU) are based in a long history of struggling to cope with transport matters in European countries. In its recent transport policies, the EU has provided greener transportation alternatives, realizing that pollution matters affect the European transport market. This study tries to determine what policies the EU has implemented to deal with green logistics matters. This study concentrates in particular on the Marco Polo program in the EU. Results - This study found that the EU seems to consider these kinds of matters, that is, transport and the environment in the context of green logistics. The EU launched some policy instruments to solve this matter relatively earlier than other countries and reviewed them as necessary. In order to make these policy tools work, the EU provided PACT for combined transport, and then the Marco Polo I and II European transport white paper packages. These European policies deal with green logistics matters in two ways. First, some restrictions have been imposed, especially taxation, and so on. Transport subsidies are also powerful means of handling green logistics matters in Europe. Along with these two means of dealing with transport and the environment, the EU eventually targeted integration of different transport modes. Instead of employing only a single transport instrument mode to deliver the cargo to be carried, such as trucking, rail, ocean-going carrier, flight, or inland waterway transport, the EU has proposed that combining transport modes is the best alternative for transport and the environment. That is, the EU is pursuing the adoption of multimodalism as an answer to the green logistics challenge as it provides a more cost efficient and more productive means of transport. Conclusions - In conclusion, multimodal transport should be considered when applying green logistics, as it can provide an alternative way to achieve transport and environmental solutions together at the present time. Two methods can be used to encourage multimodal transport: restrictions and subsidies. These are the lessons and implications from European green logistics policies.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.3-26
• /
• 2010

The European Union(EU) has recently introduced its Directive 2008/101/EC to include aviation in the EU ETS(emissions trading system). As an amendment to Directive 2003/87/EC that regulates reduction of the green house gas(GHG) emissions in Europe in preparation for the Kyoto Protocol, 1997, it obliges both EU and non-EU airline operators to reduce the emission of the carbon dioxide(CO2) significantly in the year 2012 and thereafter from the level they made in 2004 to 2006. Emission allowances allowed free of charge for each airline operator is 97% in the first year 2012 and 95% from 2013 and thereafter from the average annual emissions during historical years 2004 to 2006. Taking into account the rapid growth of air traffic, i.e. 5% in recent years, airlines operating to EU have to reduce their emissions by about 30% in order to meet the requirements of the EU Directive, if not buy the emissions right in the emissions trading market. However, buying quantity is limited to 15% in the year 2012 subject to possible increase from the year 2013. Apart from the hard burden of the airline operators, in particular of those from non-European countries, which is not concern of this paper, the EU Directive has certain legal problems. First, while the Kyoto Protocol of universal application is binding on the Annex I countries of the Climate Change Convention, i.e. developed countries including all Member States of the European Union to reduce GHG at least by 5% in the implementation period from 2008 to 2012 over the 1990 level, non-Annex I countries which are not bound by the Kyoto Protocol see their airlines subjected to aircraft emissions reductions scheme of EU when operating to EU. This is against the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol dealing with the emissions of GHG including CO2, target of the EU Directive. While the Kyoto Protocol mandates ICAO to set up a worldwide scheme for aircraft emissions to contribute to stabilizing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system, the EU ETS was drawn up outside the framework of the international Civil Aviation Organization(ICAO). Second, EU Directive 2008/101 defines 'aviation activities' as covering 'flights which depart from or arrive in the territory of a Member State to which the [EU] Treaty applies'. While the EU airlines are certainly subject to the EU regulations, obliging non-EU airlines to reduce their emissions even if the emissions are produced during the flight over the high seas and the airspace of the third countries is problematic. The point is whether the EU Directive can be legally applied to extra-territorial behavior of non-EU entities. Third, the EU Directive prescribes 2012 as the first year for implementation. However, the year 2012 is the last year of implementation of the Kyoto Protocol for Annex I countries including members of EU to reduce GHG including the emissions of CO2 coming out from domestic airlines operation. Consequently, EU airlines were already on the reduction scheme of CO2 emissions as long as their domestic operations are concerned from 2008 until the year 2012. But with the implementation of Directive 2008/101 from 2012 for all the airlines, regardless of the status of the country Annex I or not where they are registered, the EU airlines are no longer at the disadvantage compared with the airlines of non-Annex I countries. This unexpected premium for the EU airlines may result in a derogation of the Kyoto Protocol at least for the year 2012. Lastly, as a conclusion, the author shed light briefly on how the Korean aviation authorities are dealing with the EU restrictive measures.