Alliance Online - September 2007

Flying in the face of disaster?

Andrew Milner and Caroline Hartnell

The evidence of climate change now appears overwhelming and the role of carbon emissions in contributing to it equally so. One of the biggest culprits in this regard is aviation fuel, yet many people in the philanthropy sector continue to clock up thousands of air miles a year going to meetings and conferences. How much of this is necessary? Are we being irresponsible and hypocritical, talking about environmental sustainability with, so to speak, one hand, while boarding yet another flight with the other? Alliance asked a number of key people in the sector how they felt about these issues. They were also asked about the technological alternatives to flying and the value of carbon offsets.

‘Calculatingly hypocritical but not irresponsible’

Most feel, like Marissa Camacho-Reyes of WINGS or Akwasi Aidoo of TrustAfrica, that a certain amount of flying is a necessity ‘in our line of work’ – even if they aren’t happy about it. Gerry Salole of the European Foundation Centre, for one, isn’t, climate change apart: ‘I hate airports and airplanes,’ he says. Nevertheless, he agrees that ‘travel is a necessary part of business, especially in a global industry such as philanthropy.’ It could and should be ‘better managed’ but he accepts that ‘it cannot be eradicated completely’. Akwasi Aidoo echoes this: ‘So the real question is not whether or not we “continue flying”, but how much of it we must do.’

For Marcos Kisil of IDIS in Brazil, if you want to be aware of and involved in the development of a particular field, attendance at selected conferences ‘is a must. And the same reason can be applied to travelling in my country to promote philanthropy and civil society engagement.’ He concludes, ‘I cannot feel hypocritical or irresponsible for travelling for a cause that is so important for society.’

Daniel Ben-Horin of technology organization CompuMentor, who, as he says, is approaching the question from the NGO side, puts his finger on many people’s instinctive reaction: ‘The kneejerk response to this is, “but what I do is so beneficial that the benefit outweighs my personal carbon burn.”’ This is a powerful point. Should we all stay at home and leave flying to politicians, businesspeople and tourists?

Chet Tchozewski, as Executive Director of the Global Greengrants Fund, has a special relationship with all this. His judgement: flying in the knowledge that it is adding to global warming is ‘calculatingly hypocritical but not irresponsible’. He believes that ‘the outcomes from attending global philanthropy conferences, which include networking, collaboration, and idea sharing, provide both short-term and long-term value to the environmental grantmaking sector. The increase in strategic grantmaking, another viable outcome, is a responsible use of expended carbon.’

‘But,’ he adds, ‘we are all well served to continue to pursue other ways in which to make these kinds of connections happen.’

Making annual meetings every 18 months

What might Gerry Salole’s better management consist of? ‘Everyone,’ he feels, ‘should start to question whether certain travel arrangements are necessary.’ Monica Patten of Community Foundations of Canada wonders: ‘How many people have to go to a conference from one organization? Can we combine, build on each other’s events so the actual number of events is reduced? That would take a new spirit of collaboration and a shedding of the belief that “ours is unique”.’

Akwasi Aidoo thinks that ‘we could cut back flying by at least 70 per cent and make up the difference via electronic communications, with no loss in value to our work.’ He calculates that ‘a good half of the meetings I’m invited to either could do very well without my presence or are not central to the mandate of my organization.’

‘It is important for people to have regular face-to-face meetings, but maybe some annual meetings can move to an 18-month cycle,’ suggests Adele Simmons of the Global Philanthropy Partnership.

Many already limit the amount of flying they do, though there are more than environmental reasons for this. At WINGS, says Marissa Reyes, ‘we fly only when necessary for several reasons, including budget constraints.’ For Marcos Kisil, too, there are financial considerations involved: ‘Travelling by air is still very expensive… especially transatlantic flights between South and North. Increasingly expensive air tickets are the real reason that we are cutting down the amount of flying.’

Akwasi Aidoo admits that, while he is attempting to cut down his travel by at least half, it is more because of the incursions travelling makes on his time than out of concern for the environment: ‘I must confess … that the main reason is the toll frequent travel takes on my social life as well as on my oversight role as an Executive Director.’

More bang for burn

Like Chet Tchozewski, Jane Wales of the Global Philanthropy Forum also believes that conferences can be carbon well spent because in the long run they can actually lead to reduced carbon dioxide emissions: ‘Attending a conference like the Global Philanthropy Forum reduces rather than increases the amount of travel required of participants. It allows them to efficiently and effectively meet and learn from a variety of colleagues, potential grantees and other experts ... Eighty per cent of GPF donor participants reported this year that they rely upon one another and the change agents they met as an ongoing braintrust as they develop their strategies for giving. Meeting once a year in person allows them to interact for the remainder of the year in ways that not only reduce their carbon footprint, but also enhance the efficacy of their giving.’  

For Daniel Ben-Horin, working at a relatively cash-strapped NGO has meant that ‘pressing the flesh and sharing a meal’ has in the past been prohibitively expensive. However, he adds, as CompuMentor’s international project gathers momentum, ‘what I’ve learned is that it is absolutely essential to press that flesh and have that meal. Human bonds constructed face to face can be strengthened virtually, but without that bond it is very hard to get things done, even with videoconferencing … and certainly not just by phone or email. So we’re travelling more, absorbing the financial cost, in denial about the carbon cost, putting in place the relationships we need, and getting stuff done. Unless we run out of money, we’re inclined to do more of this, not less.’

Taking the train: ‘when a chunnel crosses the ocean …’

As to using alternative sources of transport, the possibility of doing this depends on where you live and work. For those based in Europe, it is a much simpler matter. ‘From Brussels,’ says Gerry Salole (whose views on air travel we have already heard), ‘there are numerous trains to locations in France, the Netherlands, Germany and the UK that I use frequently rather than travelling by air.’

But the size of the beat of many respondents and/or the problems involving other means of transport often means that some air travel is inevitable: ‘Train travel for shorter distances is a fabulous option,’ says Adele Simmons, ‘though not available in lots of parts of the US.’ ‘For a country like Brazil,’ says Marcos Kisil, ‘without a rail system or a major highway system, flying is the only way to reach certain geographical areas.’ ‘Canada is a huge country,’ Monica Patten points out, ‘and there is almost no way for someone in my organization to do their work effectively without being in an airplane from time to time.’

Interestingly, flying, though necessary, is definitely an evil for a number of our respondents for personal as well as environmental reasons. They show, by contrast, a predilection for trains. ‘I fly less,’ said Adele Simmons, ‘but increased delays and cancellations on US airlines these days are part of the reason for the change. I am a great fan of train travel and work on policy to improve the train choices in the US.’ In spite of the fact that he expects to do more flying, Daniel Ben-Horin admits: ‘I love trains and when a chunnel crosses the ocean(s), we’re on it.’

The technological alternatives

‘I truly think,’ said Akwasi Aidoo, ‘that we do not use these alternative forms of virtual meetings enough. If we made a commitment to using them, most of our concerns and problems with flying would be halved.’ This is in answer to a question about whether organizations make use of alternatives to travel such as video-conferencing; teleconferencing and internet-based calls; web-based training sessions; discussion forums and/or electronic mailing lists for specific topics or groups; and blogs.

Almost everyone we talked does use such alternatives as much as they can. ‘Yes, we do use email, teleconferencing, collaborative work spaces more than a few years ago,’ says Monica Patten, while WINGS ‘has more meetings by conference call than face-to-face meetings’. Global Philanthropy Forum, too, ‘has replaced many of its in-person gatherings with conference calls for this reason. In fact, we use all of these alternatives.’

Web conferencing, in particular, feels Chet Tchozewski, ‘enables us to show images and presentations which improve communications while furthering the relationship, all without increasing our carbon footprint.’ Video conferencing, too, he suggests, ‘has great potential for our organization for many of our domestic meetings. We frequently use online discussion forums for our grantmaking and SKYPE for most of our international communications. Even some of our local meetings have been replaced with online meeting tools.’

Even extensive use of such means, though, hasn’t necessarily made a dent in the amount of flying organizations do. ‘Although we haven’t cut back per se,’ says Tchozewski, ‘we continue to invest in new technologies to hopefully reduce travel in the future.’ In other words, at the moment, new technology tends to be an ‘and’ rather than an ‘or’. 

Gerry Salole also feels that the EFC will ‘certainly be looking at video conferencing as an option’ – especially since it has just been given some video conferencing equipment. EFC is also ‘moving in the direction of interactive discussion forums to engage with our members and partners online. They are being developed and will be a key component of the new EFC website to be launched in 2008. We already use, and rely heavily upon, electronic mailing lists for our funder networks.’

However, he draws the line at blogs: ‘I don’t consider blogs to be a substitute for meetings.’ For too much of the time, he feels, they are ‘quite static … and function more as an online diary than anything else’.

But the real virtue of all of these depends on some form of initial face-to-face contact. They might, as Marissa Reyes remarks, ‘minimize air travel but they will not eliminate flying completely.’

Daniel Ben-Horin explains: ‘All of these [video conferencing, teleconferencing, internet calls, blogs, etc] are what we did a terrific amount of. And we hit a kind of wall. We finally realized that one face-to-face meeting could do more than a hundred emails, and then the emails after that meeting were super-charged and stuff really happened.’

Monica Patten agrees that meeting face to face creates a relationship that can then be developed through virtual means. You have to recognize the ‘terrific learning and exchange and connections that comes from being face to face’. Says Jane Wales: ‘Everyone involved in overseas giving … will need site visits and first-hand exposure.’ She tries to maximize the value of the flights she takes by meeting ‘as many people as possible on each trip to limit my carbon footprint as best I can. But, I admit I simply tend to increase the amount I accomplish on each trip rather than significantly reduce the amount of travel.’

Helping to produce a sustainable environment by other means

In other ways, too, our respondents’ organizations are taking steps to reduce their harmful impact on the environment. The EFC, for instance, ‘uses only 100 per cent recyclable paper; reimburses staff and interns for monthly public transport tickets so that they are discouraged from taking their cars to work; ensure computers and other appliances are turned off when not in use; etc.’ GPF, says Jane Wales, has ‘insisted on a paperless conference, and we are moving to recycled paper and soy-based ink for our publications.’  

‘When you get to the meeting,’ suggests Adele Simmons, ‘raise issues about the extent to which the meeting planners considered the environment in choosing a hotel and making arrangements. I now regularly speak to the management of any hotel that insists on changing sheets and towels daily and leaves bottled water in the room when tap water is fine. I have been to meetings organized by environmental groups where bottled water imported from across the ocean is on the table. The organizers justified this by saying they were buying offsets – a great example of the misuse of offsets.’ 

Carbon offsetting: a sham or a – halting - step in the right direction?

Only one of the respondents – Global Philanthropy Forum – has used carbon offsetting. ‘We have used offsets for our speakers,’ says Jane Wales. ‘Going forward we will offer to offset our participants’ carbon footprint by partnering with Carbonfund.org to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Carbonfund.org will allow us to not only figure in the flights of the participants, but also the emissions factors of other forms of transit, meals, meeting spaces and hotel rooms. We’ll put aside approximately $3 per participant for the three-day conference.’ 

None of the other organizations we spoke to practise carbon offsetting – though some said they were exploring the possibility. This is either because they don’t know how it works, or because they feel too small for it to be significant or, in one or two cases, because they are dubious about its benefits. ‘We offset our travel through our grantmaking, and while we have discussed using specific carbon offset organizations these remain relatively new and unregulated,’ says Chet Tchozewski. ‘There are unintended consequences associated with monoculture tree planting and other offset schemes which in the end could be harmful to the environment.’

Gerry Salole is more forthright in his criticism: ‘I think this so-called solution for offsetting greenhouse emissions is a bit of a farce. It just allows people to consume without the guilt but does not facilitate a change in mindset.’ He adds: ‘As far as I know, there are no standards set yet for companies that offer carbon offsetting and we have no way to prove that our money would actually go to something worthwhile until this becomes a standard practice with tried and trusted companies.’ Jane Wales agrees on the need to set standards. ‘Standards have not been set and need to be. The world of carbon trading is an unregulated market.’

Adele Simmons, however, feels that carbon offsets can provide a partial solution to flying: ‘First figure out if you have to fly, and if the answer is yes, then use offsets.’ And even though Global Greengrants Fund remains dubious about offsetting, Chet Tchozewski feels that the idea ‘has some potential, especially when we create some global standards about how to accurately calculate meaningful and sustainable offsets. Also we want to see some regulation in the industry to ensure that offset organizations are doing the work they claim for the good of the environment not just monoculture crop planting.’ Even in advance of this, he feels, ‘purchasing carbon offsets is a good thing because it pushes us in the direction of a double or triple bottom line, asking people to rethink the real costs of their actions, and to pay for them. The willingness we see from people to pay that bit extra for the environment is a definite sign of progress in the right direction.’

This is a sentiment echoed by Jane Wales: ‘Recent innovations for mitigating climate change may be imperfect, but they are a move in the right direction, and they force a normative shift that is essential to systemic change.’ 

‘When I don’t fly, the plane still goes’

But choosing not to fly in any case has a limited impact, suggests Adele Simmons. ‘When I don’t drink a bottle of water, I have helped the environment. When I don’t fly, the plane still goes.’

There is another way of looking at this, however. When an airline experiences enough of a decline in seat bookings on a flight, they will drop it and integrate it with another flight. So if enough people decide not to fly, there will surely be a cumulative effect. This can be seen as a choice as to whether one leads the charge with social change or hangs back and waits till it becomes mainstream.

Adele Simmons believes there is a more important role for the sector than simply cutting down the number of flights its members take. ‘I think that the NGO community (and donors who support them) should raise broader questions about air travel, including the extensive use of private planes and business travel. We need to think about the behaviour patterns of large numbers of people, and understand the source of the greatest emissions. She concludes that ‘the key role of philanthropy can be to be sure that the analysis is right and raise public awareness.’

Akwasi Aidoo and others also point to the role the sector can play in advocacy and in setting an example: ‘I think it’s very important for those of us who work on justice and sustainability issues (including environmental justice and sustainability) to set an example on this challenge. And, beyond our example, we could do more by way of concerted advocacy.’

Network organizations have a special role here. As Gerry Salole explains, ‘the EFC is committed to bringing this issue to the forefront, for example through focusing this year’s special plenary at our AGA and Conference on the topic of climate change. We purposely made the issue a priority in the programme, brought in expert speakers, and instigated serious discussion around it.’

Monica Patten speaks of ‘being advocates for more and better public transportation’, and Daniel Ben-Horin believes that ‘when foundations set an example – with their practice as distinct from their rhetoric – NGOs pay attention.’ He adds, however: ‘I want the funders I admire to do whatever they consider necessary to make their work interesting and to share ideas, because we all benefit from that.’

Can we go on this way?

‘No, we cannot continue and yes we have to change,’ says Monica Patten, speaking for most of our respondents. ‘I think technology is one answer; learning about new ways to be a network is another (which we at Community Foundations of Canada are trying to do) ... putting this issue on the agenda at board meetings; seeking the advice of experts and others who have begun to tackle this issue are all approaches we are taking.’

This view was not quite unanimous, however. For the reasons outlined above, Marcos Kisil does ‘not foresee any major change in the way that our organization does business, and our people attend conferences or any other kind of meetings.’ Daniel Ben-Horin, as we have seen, thinks his staff are likely to clock up more rather than fewer air miles.

To a certain extent, though, the question is academic, as Chet Tchozewski acknowledges: ‘We must change our ways of living and travelling. The real costs of air travel are bound to limit us in the not so distant future, at which time we will have to embrace these new technologies.’ Some might feel that, if the only change we’re forced into is the embracing of new technology, we will have got off lightly.

Alliance would like to thank the following for contributing to this article:
Akwasi Aidoo, Executive Director, TrustAfrica
Daniel Ben-Horin, President, CompuMentor
Marissa Camacho-Reyes, Executive Director, WINGS
Marcos Kisil, President, IDIS
Monica Patten, President, Community Foundations of Canada
Gerry Salole, CEO, The European Foundation Centre
Adele Simmons, President, Global Philanthropy Partnership
Chet Tchozewski, Executive Director, Global Greengrants Fund
Jane Wales, President, Global Philanthropy Forum

Caroline Hartnell would also like to thank Dagne Forrest of WINGS and her daughter Anna Hartnell for pushing her to do this article.

For more information
See Alliance Online article High touch or high tech? Getting the balance right in which Gavin Clabaugh of the Mott Foundation assesses the technological alternatives to travel.

How to Host a Sustainable, Carbon Neutral Conference or other Event www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/What_You_Can_Do/carbon_neutral_events.asp

Bridging the Distance: An Instructional Guide to Teleconferencing www1.worldbank.org/disted/Teaching/Instruction/aud-01.html

Maureen James and Liz Rykert, FROM WORKPLACE TO WORKSPACE: Using Email Lists to Work Together, International Development Research Centre www.idrc.ca/en/ev-9369-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html

Click here to send this article to a friend

Back to top

Why should I subscribe to Alliance?

Subscribe now to Alliance magazine and receive: 4 issues of Alliance to your door 8 issues of Alliance Bulletin to your inbox Access to all back issues (since 1998) in PDF format Click here for more information or call +44 20 7239 1405.

Back to top