Are We Finally Nearing a Global Agreement on Aviation Emissions?

This moment requires binding amendments now to determine outcomes in this area, hold a july deadline, and raise capacity across markets.

Within a constrained time frame, the mean target path should be applied across major routes, because coordination within markets will yield clearer light on outcomes. When compared with current baselines, models project greenhouse-gas outputs down 10-25% by 2030 under phased amendments, with further reductions possible if adoption is rapid. Источник: industry brief, data expected by july.

Litigation risk exists if benchmarks are not credible; a good plan holds transparent, verifiable metrics and a phased path with country-level steps, reducing the chance of costly disputes.

To move from talk to action, deliver three concrete steps: 1) define amendments that cap greenhouse-gas outputs within the air-transport sector; 2) coordinate rules across markets by july, requiring cross-border cooperation; 3) monitor results and adjust within a two-year cycle, ensuring good overall outcomes.

Aviation Emissions Policy and Innovation Fund

Recommendation: Establish a standing Innovation Fund with a source-of-funds plan that maintains a surplus for long-tail pilots, financing applied R&D and initial deployments in aeroplane propulsion, energy storage, and digital control. Revenues should be domestically sourced where possible and linked to pricing mechanisms that reward efficiency and low-carbon options. Within the first year, set targets for CO2 intensity reductions and capacity expansion, and require a planned revision cycle to reallocate resources based on demonstrated results, including the ability to emit less. The program should take a cross-sector approach covering sectors such as propulsion, materials, and data analytics, and include partnerships with chinese institutions to accelerate uptake. The fund should cover islands and other hard-to-reach routes, with a community-focused outreach plan to secure broad buy-in and ensure mechanisms that support local operators.

Implementation will rely on mechanisms that tie milestones to disbursement, provide transparent source tracking, and enable rapid scale-up. Establish a multi-stakeholder council within 60 days, with representatives from civil authorities, industry, academia, and affected communities; require independent verification and regular revision cycles. Within 12 months, publish an investment plan detailing pilots in applied technologies for aeroplane systems, including propulsion, energy storage, and digital control, and set KPIs on capacity gains in community corridors and islands. brookings notes that such a design can unlock catalytic leverage by pairing grants with market signals, reducing opposition and accelerating adoption across sectors.

Funding architecture should cover the global supply chain while prioritizing domestic uptake; source revenue from pricing schemes that adjust with market conditions and maintain a surplus for future rounds. Use a phased approach: initial grants to pilot aeroplane tech, then scale via procurement and debt instruments as projects demonstrate emission reductions. The approach increasingly relies on collaboration with chinese manufacturers and research centers to expand capacity and build resilient communities near hubs, including islands, with ongoing revision schedules and a year-by-year plan to avoid drift and address budget pressures.

Concrete milestones needed in the next 12-18 months to advance a global deal

Adopt a 12- to 18-month roadmap with three thresholds and an explicitly stated goal for the international accord process; begin by clarifying what success looks like and which entities carry momentum.

Define thresholds across three levels of ambition: level 1 targets MRV accuracy and fuel efficiency; level 2 accelerates SAF adoption and fleet modernization; level 3 guarantees high mitigation performance and resilience; explicitly tie each level to compliance obligations and to performance metrics, aiming for targets that are bolder than today.

Establish a world-wide council to carry decisions, with seats for major economies and regional blocs; Norway adopted a similar model in prior rounds and the process was held twice in the last year; ensure transparent governance and clear timelines.

Design an exemptions mechanism that protects the most vulnerable actors while preventing loopholes; include a three-step review and an ongoing, transparent rubric; ensure some free entry to pilot early movers to test the system.

Agree on mitigation pathways aligned with ecology: set a best-practice baseline for propulsion and energy use; codify the properties of credits and how they mitigate lifecycle impacts; require explicit documentation to avoid double counting.

Establish a common data framework: specify what data to collect, who retains it, and how verification occurs; adopt a common format and standards to improve compliance and reduce disputes; they will also enable independent auditing.

Link finance and technology transfer through a compact that includes kets and the ataa initiative to support implementation: create dedicated funding channels and a mechanism for rapid capacity-building; this also ensures broader participation and accelerates adoption.

Roll out monitoring across the entire air-transport sector with a second assessment at six to nine months, then a comprehensive review at the 12-month mark; demand a continuous improvement loop and a final report with recommendations for the next phase; end each session with agreed actions and responsible actors in the three other key bodies.

The Innovation Fund’s role in SAF, electric propulsion, and hydrogen in aviation

Recommendation: implement a phased strategy that channels the Innovation Fund toward SAF scaling, electric propulsion pilots, and hydrogen readiness, with milestone reviews, transparent unit quotas, and non-discriminatory access.

A governance framework features a committee with European authority and council representation; decisions rely on agreed standards, and an annex lists eligible projects, includes reporting cadence and eligible units, and defines the entire scope from SAF supply to hydrogen infrastructure, enabling further efficiency gains.

Compliance criteria tie funding to verifiable carbon reductions; allowances guide project incentives; covid-19 related disruptions receive exempt or exempted status on eligibility timelines, while those with robust plans may gain accelerated approvals, maintaining non-discriminatory checks.

Remote networks and island routes receive targeted support to avoid stranded assets; the strategy includes dedicated budgets for island hubs, modules, and flight operations, with attention to parts and units for the ground side and for linkages to storage and fueling infrastructure.

To deliver tangible outcomes, the council should publish a quarterly annex update, addressing those lessons taken from previous cycles, and ensure the strategy aligns with national action plans; arriving stakeholders from member states can use a summit as a milestone for addressing standards and compliance checks across units and sectors.

Funding criteria: eligibility, matching funds, and project scale for aviation tech

Adopt a phased, tiered funding model with strict entry criteria and 1:1 matching for early-stage work to attract capable partners and ensure accountable use of funds.

Eligibility and access

• Entry requirements include a signed commitment, a concise description of the entire project lifecycle, and a plan to cover associated overheads; focus is on a level playing field for all eligible applicants.
• Partnerships must include at least two members from distinct sectors; part of the consortium should be a research or operations unit with demonstrated capabilities to begin and sustain activity.
• Cross-border collaboration is encouraged; iceland and chinese participants are specifically welcomed to carry knowledge and resources, while ensuring compliance with rules and IP properties.
• Pre-screening identifies concerns early; actions taken during this step determine eligibility, and revision rounds may adjust scope to improve project outcome.
• Applicants must demonstrate equal access to facilities and data, and a clear commitment to dissemination and open assistance where appropriate.
• The program does does require careful risk controls to mitigate litigation exposure and ensure that no party bears disproportionate risk.
• Entry criteria require a concrete plan to emit minimal pollutants and to report progress with verifiable milestones.

Matching funds and assistance

• Recommended funding ratios: 1:1 for concept and development; 2:1 for pilot demonstrations; fonds can be augmented by institutional assistance to strengthen long-term commitment.
• Contributions may be cash or in-kind support; chinese și iceland partners can provide facilities, data access, and personnel time to accelerate progress; all actions must be comply with declared budgets and reporting.
• Costs covering testing, validation, safety reviews, and regulatory readiness are eligible; overhead caps and cost caps prevent disproportionate claims and keep the level of support equal across participants.
• Applicants must outline the step workflow to ensure entry into later stages; the plan should specify how assistance is delivered, tracked, and audited, and what revision cycles are anticipated.
• Projects must document the concerns of stakeholders and how those concerns are addressed, including gender and regional equity considerations to reinforce a broader outcome.

Project scale, governance, and risk management

• Scale bands include Level 1 (concept), Level 2 (demonstrator), and Level 3 (field deployment); each level has predefined deliverables and a clear route to carry progress into real-world operations.
• Consortia should be focused on safety, efficiency, and environmental impact, with a robust plan to minimize emit of pollutants and to verify performance through independent testing.
• IP and properties rights must be defined early; mechanisms for licensing or open access should be described to protect the equal interests of all members.
• Independent review committees will assess demonstration results; revision rounds refine scope, budget, and milestones before advancing to the next step.
• Budget tracking includes explicit allocation for assistance to smaller partners to ensure equal opportunity and prevent competing bids from overpowering merit.
• Final outcome must show a credible path to scale, including a plan to carry lessons learned into subsequent deployments and a strategy for regulatory alignment.

Steps for applicants: airlines, airports, researchers, and suppliers to apply

Recommendation: provide a complete application with a basic baseline data package, a two-year revision plan, and an instrument list, submitted under the american organization guidelines. Overall alignment with guidelines is required.

Baseline data should cover fuel burn, distance flown, sector breakdown, average load factor, and time-at-weighted metrics, with year-by-year projections. Deliver data in CSV and a concise narrative; include timestamps, source identifiers, and a clearly defined quality control process. The second year should reflect a 2–5% efficiency improvement target.

Contributions: describe data sources, hosting, and quality controls; specify needed resources (servers, data licenses); designate part of the package for unions and sector stakeholders to comment; ensure balance across participants and time windows.

Measures and schemes: enumerate concrete actions with baseline vs planned outcomes; include fuel-saving maneuvers, route optimization, scheduling tweaks, ground handling improvements; attach concrete metrics and the instrument used to monitor progress (telemetry, activity logs).

Submission structure: provide an article-style summary plus a data appendix; follow a common schema used by the american organization; include a revision history and a clear level of detail; each item should show what has been taken and what remains to be done.

Time planning and resources: allocate dedicated resources across departments; set a 6–8 week window for initial reviews; ensure union and partner involvement; define roles, responsibilities, and decision gates; plan for ongoing maintenance after approval.

Verification and risk management: require third-party verification for critical figures; provide proofs and contactable references; maintain an audit trail; establish a basic level of assurance and remediation plan.

Best practices and second-level review: adopt published guidelines; enable a second-level assessment by an independent american organization; incorporate sector contributions; publish revision notes; ensure ongoing alignment with the program’s guidelines and data standards.

Measuring impact: monitoring, reporting, and verification of emissions reductions

Recommendation: Establish a domestically administered MRV framework for aeroplane operations, aligned with a national environmental strategy, with independent verification and a cap-and-trade scheme to price reductions, supported by transparent, standardized data flows across the sector. The state hold responsibility for defining rules and ensuring compliance, taking step-by-step actions to implement the system.

Monitoring establishes a baseline by measuring fuel burn, flight distance, passenger load factor, and aeroplane type, drawing data from operators, airports, and engine controllers. Use a common metric set to enable cross-country comparisons, such as grams CO2 per passenger-kilometre and aeroplane-kilometre; set a monthly data cadence and process controls to achieve a certain level of accuracy. Calibrate against fuel-supply records and weather-adjusted factors; domestically publish non-sensitive information to support understanding and policy development; provide exemptions only where strictly necessary, under a signed policy that clarifies criteria and limits problems. Taking a structured approach helps make the environmental strategy actionable for the sector.

Reporting describes methodology, data sources, and the timeline; operators submit quarterly reports to a central registry; a public dashboard presents progress toward defined goals, measures, and pricing signals. The methodology and data sources appear in the report; data are confirmed by independent auditors prior to publication; data may be aggregated or route-specific, with privacy protections and legitimate access to information. A signed contract governs data sharing and information use, and publishing standards support informed decision making across the sector.

Verification ensures credibility via independent verification by accredited firms. On-site checks cover a representative sample (for example 10% of aeroplane-kilometre data) annually; remaining data are validated using remote methods and cross-checks with fuel, flight, and registry records. Public verification reports feed into annual reviews of the environmental strategy and pricing schemes; when problems surface, corrective actions are taken promptly to maintain confidence and reliability. This process reinforces the integrity of domestically developed pricing signals and sector-wide progress.

Step-by-step implementation: Step 1: Define the scope for the sector and map all sources; Step 2: Adopt standardized reporting formats and a central registry; Step 3: Set up robust data-sharing arrangements domestically (signed contracts) with clear exemptions and guardrails; Step 4: Link MRV outcomes to pricing schemes with a cap-and-trade instrument; kets interact with other policy tools; Step 5: Review progress annually to adjust goals and measures; Taking stock informs the next cycle of policy development within the state strategy.