Reducing emissions from aviation

The science on non-CO₂ impacts is progressing thanks to numerous research projects, and the MRV would contribute to this.

Establishing the non-CO₂ MRV will offer precious data for scientific research, enhancing our understanding and ensuring openness to contributions from the scientific community.

Despite inherent uncertainties in the science around non-CO₂ aviation effects, the net contribution to global warming is well known. Studies have shown that the uncertainty in these effects is not a sufficient reason to avoid action.

The precautionary principle supports taking measures against these effects to mitigate their impact on climate. As the MRV is a first of its kind, it is designed to be a tool that will evolve as the science progresses.

Examples of research projects: Teoh, R., et al, 2023, Global aviation contrail climate effects from 2019 to 2021, EGUsphere [preprint]; Joe Yue-Hei Ng et al, 2024, Contrail Detection on GOES-16 ABI With the OpenContrails Dataset; R Sausen et al, 2023, Can we successfully avoid persistent contrails by small altitude adjustments of flights in the real world?, Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR), Institut für Physik der Atmosphäre, Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany, and EUROCONTROL Maastricht Upper Area Control MUAC Maastricht, The Netherlands; Contrail Mitigation: A Milestone Year for Advancing Industry Understanding and Experience - RMI.

Airline operators would start monitoring the non-CO₂ aviation effects from 1 January 2025, and reporting once a year. The monitoring and reporting of non-CO₂ aviation emissions and their possible impact would cover all flight activities involving an airport located in the European Economic Area, in a phased approach.

From January 2025, monitoring and reporting would be required for all routes involving two aerodromes located in the EEA, and routes from an aerodrome located in the EEA departing to Switzerland or to the United Kingdom.

For flights to non-EEA airports, the Implementing Act foresees a time limited deferral of two years for the mandatory monitoring and reporting requirement. Voluntarily reporting on these flights would however be possible during this time.

After this period, from January 2027, the monitoring and reporting requirement will be mandatory for all inbound and outbound flights to the EEA. The reason for this phased approach is to facilitate the smooth launch of the new MRV system for all stakeholders, gradually increasing transparency on the emissions and possible climate impact of the sector and ensuring that the MRV is an effective and reliable tool to increase transparency.

The two guiding principles of the MRV system are flexibility and data precision. These principles ensure a balanced approach that minimises administrative effort while enhancing understanding of non-CO₂ effects.

1. Flexibility:
    
   1. The system will use available data provided by third-party sources and/or estimates where relevant, rather than requiring data measured in-flight.
   2. The entire MRV process will be automatised thanks to an IT tool. Other than the fuel properties (such as aromatic content), only aircraft properties (aircraft type, engine identifier and aircraft mass) are to be provided by the aircraft operators.
   3. Where no data is provided, default values will be used, so that the MRV system can remain fully automatic.
   4. The IT tool has different modules allowing aircraft operators to select the data they require: For instance, operators can either use the module that displays NOx, particulate emission volumesor the module that translates these emissions into CO₂ equivalent. Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO_2e) is a unit of measurement that is used to standardise the various climate effects. It expresses the impact of different greenhouse gases or climate effects using the equivalent amount of CO₂.
   5. The system will assess Global Warming Potential (GWP) metric over multiple time horizons (20, 50, and 100 years). This avoids addressing impacts only from one temporal perspective and so eliminates technology lock-in effects for the sector.
   6. The system accommodates small emitters with a simplified climatological location-based model approach.
       
2. Data precision: 
   
   The MRV includes climate models like CoCiP and aCCF to calculate the CO_2e for non-CO₂ effects under the weather-based approach that is the default approach for the MRV. For small emitters, an open-source version of AirClim is used for calculations based on a simplified climatological location-based model. These climate models have been extensively tested and are internationally recognised and peer- reviewed. If all the necessary data for the use of the weather-based approach is not available for certain flights, a simplified climatological approach can be used. In addition, fuel burn and emissions will be calculated using the Base of Aircraft Data (BADA) and Boeing Fuel Flow method modules. For more, see A Step-By-Step Guide For Airlines.

The MRV system reduces administrative burden by using available third-party data, estimating data where necessary, and employing a customizable IT tool (currently being developed by the Commission) to automate the MRV process.

In line with its principles of flexibility and data precision, aircraft operators can also choose to implement their own models and data. These alternatives must first be approved by the Commission services, and their technical specifications, workflows, and monitoring procedures must be detailed in the monitoring plan before use.

Weather forecasts or hindcasts generated by numerical weather prediction models map the background atmospheric conditions that influence the persistence of contrails, which are a key component of non-CO₂ effects. The weather forecast will be based on data provided by national weather authorities, ensuring a high level of transparency, and avoiding administrative burden for airlines.

No. The aircraft operator is required to undertake the Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) procedure as of 1 January 2025. NEATS will perform the CO₂(e) calculation per flight retroactively for the period of its unavailability. Three versions of NEATS are foreseen in 2025, a V1 in July 2025 allowing to upload Primary data, a V2 in October with non-CO₂ computation included, a V3 in December with filling of Annual Emissions Report Template with non-CO₂ data.

The Monitoring Plan template covering both CO₂ and non-CO₂ is available on the European Commission’s Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification page under Documentation > Monitoring and Reporting Regulation (MRR): Guidance and templates). The relevant timelines for submission of the Monitoring Plan to Competent Authorities are those in the Article 52(1) of the MRR. 

Yes. The current exemption in Article 3c(8) EU ETS Directive exempts domestic flights to and from OMR from the obligation of surrender (Article 12(3)), CO₂ reporting (Article 14(3)) and penalties (Article 16) until 31 December 2030, but not from non-CO₂ reporting (Article 14(5)).

Article 2 of the Monitoring and Reporting Regulation (MRR), that allows for a deviation from the non-CO₂ geographical scope for 2025 and 2026, does not make a reference to the ETS surrendering (reduced) scope, but explicitly mentions that “reporting shall only be required in respect of routes involving two aerodromes located in the EEA, and routes from an aerodrome located in the EEA departing to Switzerland or to the United Kingdom.” Please note that all OMR are part of the EEA. The OMR are Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Réunion, Martinique, Mayotte and Saint-Martin (France), the Azores and Madeira (Portugal), and the Canary Islands (Spain).

As result, domestic flights that depart and/or arrive in an OMR are covered by the non-CO₂ MRV.

According to the Monitoring and Reporting Regulation (MRR), "aircraft performance" is based on data provided by the aircraft operator (Primary data), in terms of fuel flow and aircraft engine efficiency (originally also denoted “overall propulsion efficiency”). If Primary data is not available, Secondary data can be used instead to determine the performance In such cases it is typically estimated through aircraft properties (defined in the MRR as encompassing the aircraft type, the engine(s) identifier(s) and the aircraft mass along the flight trajectory). More details on aircraft performance are outlined in the February 2025 edition of the “MRV non-CO₂ data collection Guidance for Aircraft Operators”.

No. The BADA model (or any aircraft performance model) does not need to be executed if the full dataset for 1) fuel flow, 2) aircraft mass and 3) engine efficiency are provided along the flight trajectory. The true air speed (the speed of the aircraft relative to the air mass through which it is flying, in meters per second (m/s)), which is the fourth quantity needed along the flight trajectory, can separately be calculated internally using the trajectory waypoints and horizontal wind speeds. In case there are data gaps in the provided Primary data, it is recommended to run the BADA model for the whole flight.

The aircraft operator is encouraged to monitor discrepancies in fuel calculations. If Non-CO₂ Aviation Effects Tracking System (NEATS) or other methods provide higher fuel estimates than actual usage, operators may submit their own verified fuel flow data. For more information, see figure 3. in the February 2025 edition of the “MRV non-CO₂ data collection Guidance for Aircraft Operators”.

By way of derogation on relying exclusively on Primary data, the aircraft operator can use Secondary data instead. This includes using default values from the Monitoring and Reporting Regulation (MRR). However, default values can only be used when the data is missing, and the aircraft operator can prove that they cannot get the data via the Non-CO₂ Aviation Effects Tracking System (NEATS) It is to be noted that NEATS is designed conservatively, resulting in higher CO₂ emission estimates when relying on Secondary data, compared to using Primary data for the same flights. In addition, to ensure accuracy, aircraft operators undertaking the MRV must verify the completeness and correctness of flight information in NEATS. This verification process involves checking the call sign, as well as the departure and arrival dates and times (expressed in UTC). Additionally, aircraft operators must also confirm the origin and destination airport codes, using either ICAO or IATA identifiers.  Primary data provided by the aircraft operator must be correlated to the correct flights. Therefore, it is required to provide flight information, as Primary data, when providing any other type of Primary data under the MRV.

A. The ex-ante (before the flight takes place) calculation for the MRV allows to avoid regulatory route adjustments during flight. In line with Article 56b(2) of the Monitoring and Reporting Regulation (MRR), the aircraft operator must always start considering if it can use Primary data, here as collected planned flight trajectory data from the flight plan (OFP) and if not, make use of the Secondary data: provided in NEATS. This includes the EUROCONTROL planned flight trajectory data, which can be obtained from either the Regulated Tactical Flight Model (RTFM), or alternatively, if RTFM is not available, the Filed Tactical Flight Model (FTFM) from EUROCONTROL, or an equivalent model with comparable data accuracy. 

Furthermore, while in Method C (the weather-based approach, as described in in Annex IIIa Section 4 of the Monitoring and Reporting Regulation (MRR)), the flight trajectory is defined at the minimum by the latest flight plan (at the minimum, RTFM or FTFM), in theory the aircraft operator can decide to complement the latest flight plan by collected actual flight trajectory data (Primary data) or by flight flown data as Secondary data (represented by the EUROCONTROL Current Tactical Flight Model (CTFM), more generally referred to as model 3 document). In such case, it is assumed that the most recent and accurate data, including post-operational and historical weather records (reanalysis data), should be used for calculating CO₂(e) emissions. . The aircraft operator should expressly justify the choice of different set of flight trajectory data (including in relation to Secondary data) in the Monitoring Plan, under section 21(a) of the Monitoring Plan template, available on the European Commission’s Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification page (under Documentation > Monitoring and Reporting Regulation (MRR): Guidance and templates).

In all cases, when providing Primary data or deviating from the RTFM or FTFM, the aircraft operator needs to maintain the consistency between the 4D trajectory data (time as a fourth dimension, alongside the three spatial dimensions of latitude, longitude, and altitude) and the aircraft performance data (e.g. planned fuel flow should be used when planned flight trajectory is being used, while in principle, monitored in-flight fuel flow should be used when CTFM or collected actual flight trajectory data is being used). This ensures consistency between the flight trajectory and fuel flow data points. Accordingly, section 23 of the Monitoring Plan is always to be filled in.

Currently, the parameters used for emissions calculations at altitude are applicable only to rich burn (RQL) combustors. Efforts are underway within ICAO to develop a set of parameters for lean burn or staged combustors; however, these parameters have not yet been finalized or published.

NEATS supports aircraft operators by making available to them Secondary data retroactively for flights conducted before the operationalisation of NEATS. Once operational, NEATS will provide per-flight information as required by Article 56b of the Monitoring and Reporting Regulation (MRR). While aircraft operators are encouraged to use Primary data for greater accuracy, Secondary data can be used when Primary data is unavailable, ensuring the calculations of CO₂(e) are completed.

Yes, the data inputs are customized through use of Primary data, such as fuel flow, aircraft mass and engine efficiency, provided along the flight trajectory.

If an aircraft operator uses its own fuel burn module in Non-CO₂ Aviation Effects Tracking System (NEATS), it does not need to get it evaluated or approved. However, the fuel burn module still needs to be described in the emissions Monitoring Plan of the aircraft operator. Base for aircraft data (BADA) 4 that covers range of operating conditions, and BADA 3 as alternative, are both provided through NEATS.

NEATS is designed to provide consistent and detailed calculations for per flight reporting in CO₂(e) of Global Warming Potential (GWP) 20, 50 and 100 years. For the annual reporting exercise NEATS will generate, as required by the Monitoring and Reporting Regulation (MRR), a XML table at the end of each reporting year (after 31 December of the year). This table contains, per flight the flight information, aircraft type, engine identifier, and CO₂(e) expressed in the metrics mentioned above. The reporting of non-CO₂ effects is similar to the one on CO₂. The annual emissions report will provide the sum of CO₂(e) of the monitored flights of the aircraft operator per aerodrome pair.

Once NEATS will be available, the aircraft operator will have flexibility in the data selection, allowing for the use of Primary and Secondary data depending on the aircraft type, rather than on the flights. 

Flight trajectory, Engine type, Aircraft mass, Aircraft performance (optional) and Fuel properties, respectively Section 21(a), (c), (d), (e) and (f) of the Monitoring Plan, available on the European Commission’s Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification page (under Documentation > Monitoring and Reporting Regulation (MRR): Guidance and templates), here. This document provides a description of different methods to determine the data. Therefore, at this stage, the distinction of data detail regarding the categories of data mentioned above, can be made by aircraft type in the Monitoring Plan from one aircraft operator.

Yes. NEATS is prepared to receive and store large quantities of data in it.

Aircraft operators typically have a dedicated department or a person responsible for EU ETS CO₂ compliance, which is already in contact with the relevant Member State competent authority that will also oversee the non-CO₂ MRV. It is expected that this department or person will manage the collection and tracking of the required data. However, it remains the aircraft operator’s responsibility to coordinate these processes internally.

The Non-CO₂ Aviation Effects Tracking System (NEATS) interface is expected to support both automated (machine to machine) uploads, as well as manual uploads of Primary data. The NEATS interface will be supported using a published interface specification, which will be outlined in updates to the pre-NEATS insights on the System Architecture Description (SAD). This interface is expected to be a Representational State Transfer (REST)-based API, compliant with OpenAPI standards. Therefore, Aircraft Operator API will be able to facilitate the data upload. The data input description is provided in in the February 2025 edition of the “MRV non-CO₂ data collection Guidance for Aircraft Operators” specifically Appendix I, and in the Reference Set of Technical Specifications (RSTS). The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) format is likely to be used, as it more robust than Comma-separated values (CSV) and compliant with OpenAPI standards.

The current design of the meteorological reference data set is based on NWP forecast data rather than reanalysis data. This approach ensures consistency and prevents potential discrepancies between data sets, thereby avoiding penalties that could arise when using the NWP reference data set for flight planning and subsequent verification.

The responsible meteorological service provider is expected to provide the meteorological input data set for the operation of climate response models to aviation users starting from June 2025. In the first step, the data will be provided via a Secure File Transfer Protocol (SFTP) data server. A System-wide information management (SWIM) interface is planned for later.

The Numerical Weather Prediction (NWP)-based meteorological reference data set are offered for MRV purposes via NEATS. The meteorological service provider responsible for the meteorological data set of the NEATS system, intends to make the this data set available to the airlines for flight planning purposes. The meteorological data set will be continuously generated and offered to both the NEATS system and aviation users via the provision interface.

As emissions are calculated per aircraft and not per aircraft engine, it is currently not possible to set engine UIDs engine specific in the Non-CO₂ Aviation Effects Tracking System (NEATS). If the used engines do not differ significantly in their performance/emissions, it might be applicable to neglect the differences. Alternatively, NEATS could be applied separately for the different used engines and the mean model output of the two (or more) calculations be used.

To correct the emissions data in the ICAO EDB for cruise conditions, various methods have been developed. One such method, implemented by default in pycontrails, is the T4/T2 method (Teoh et al., 2022). This method was compared to in situ measurements of nvPM emission indices (EI)_from multiple scientific flight campaigns (Teoh et al., 2022; Dischl et al., 2024) 

According to the February 2025 edition of the “MRV non-CO₂ data collection Guidance for Aircraft Operators”, the following approach is recommended for 2025 and 2026: it is recommended to temporarily accept for the years 2025 and 2026, as actual values (Primary data), the maximum values for aromatics content, sulphur, naphthalene content, hydrogen-to-carbon ratio, and the net calorific value, as observed on a yearly basis in all the batches provided to a given EEA airport, as obtained by the aircraft operators from fuel suppliers, and assume these are the values for the flights taking off from the given airport for the given year. Average/mean values cannot be accepted as they may lead to underestimation of actual values. 

Yes, it has been considered, however, there is currently no method put in place to take into account the differences in SAF blends throughout the year, at a given airport.

Yes, the flight information data and aircraft properties data monitored by the aircraft operator in the reporting period 2025 is considered the aircraft operator’s primary source data. A verification of the non-CO₂ aviation effects report is required, and the verifier needs to assess this data as part of the verification. For more information, please see section 7.3.3.1 and 7.3.3.3 of Guidance Document III on verification in ETS aviation.

Small emitters and aircraft operators emitting less than 3000 tonnes of CO₂ are also required to monitor their own flight information data and aircraft properties data in the absence of NEATS. Thus, verifiers must verify this primary data when operators use it to calculate non-CO₂ aviation effects for the reporting year 2025.

Verifiers accredited under scope 12a may perform the verification in such cases. This means that verifiers that are currently accredited to verify aircraft operator’s annual emission reports can verify these non-CO₂ aviation effects reports. More information can be found in Chapter 10 of Guidance Document III on verification in ETS aviation.

Yes, the verifier is invited to prepare for and start the verification before NEATS becomes available and aircraft operators submit their non-CO₂ aviation effects report. The verifier can already develop the strategic analysis, risk analysis and verification plan. In addition, the verifier can carry out the activities in the process analysis. This includes:

• Checking flight information data and aircraft properties. Section 7.3.3.1 and 7.3.3.3 of Guidance Document III on verification in ETS aviation provides information on what checks to carry out on the flight information data and aircraft properties data.
• Assessing the implementation of the monitoring plan as well as the data flow activities, control activities that the aircraft operator has implemented to mitigate the inherent risks in the data flow and aircraft operator’s procedures described in the monitoring plan. Section 7.3.2 of Guidance Document III on verification in ETS aviation provides further information.
• Requesting aircraft operators to correct misstatements, non-conformities and non-compliance issues if the verifier has identified these issues.

The aircraft operator can however not do the final check between the primary source data and the data uploaded in NEATS, which can only be done when NEATS becomes available. See question 6.

Once NEATS is available and the flight information data and aircraft properties data is uploaded in NEATS, verifiers must cross-check the dataset from question 5 against the data uploaded in NEATS. The verifier will assess the material impact of those misstatements, non-conformities and non-compliance issues that are not yet resolved. The verifier will finalise the verification, draft the verification report and have an independent technical review carried out. Once the results of the technical independent review have been processed, a verification report will be issued to the aircraft operator.

For flight trajectory information, scope 12a-accredited verifiers may perform the verification. The checks described in section 7.3.3.2 of Guidance Document III on verification in ETS aviation should be carried out. 

To verify any of the following, verifiers must hold scope 12b accreditation:

• aircraft performance data,
• fuel properties data,
• their own fuel burn or emission estimation methods.

The verifier carries out the same steps as in any verification but carries out some specific checks on the data and the methods applied (see section 7.3.3 of Guidance Document III on verification in ETS aviation). 

CO₂ and non-CO₂ aviation effects verification follow the same principles, and the same steps in the verification process apply to both. However, the specific monitoring methodology, the type of primary source data provided by the aircraft operator and the way NEATS or other Commission-approved IT tools are used to generate the non-CO₂ aviation effects reports have an impact on the detail of the verification of non-CO₂ aviation effects and the type of checks carried out (see section 7.3 of Guidance Document III on verification in ETS aviation). Additional differences compared to CO₂ verification include:

• specific factors to take into account in the strategic and risk analysis,
• the ability for verifiers to have access to NEATS or other IT tools approved by the Commission,
• the materiality level applicable to verification of non-CO₂ aviation effects reports.
• A specific accreditation scope (12a or 12b) may be required depending on the primary source data used by the aircraft operator, with the competence requirements for each scope set out in Annex VI of Guidance Document III.

Guidance Document III highlights with symbols which elements in the verification process are specific to non-CO₂ aviation effects reports.

verification, the verifier requests the aircraft operator to correct the relevant issue. If the relevant issue is not corrected by the aircraft operator, the verifier assesses its material impact on the reported data. Any outstanding misstatements, non-conformities and non-compliance issues that are not corrected before the verification report is issued to the aircraft operator, must be reported in the verification report.

The verifier carries out similar checks on the data flow and the control activities as they do for CO₂ verification, assessing whether the control activities implemented by the aircraft operator are adequate to mitigate the inherent risks specific to non-CO2 effects. There may be specific control activities in place for the reporting of non-CO₂ aviation effects. Chapter 4 and section 7.3.2 of Guidance Document III on verification in ETS aviation provide more detailed information.

The type of primary source data used by the aircraft operator determines what competence the verifier needs to carry out non-CO₂ aviation effects report. Annex VI of Guidance Document III on verification in ETS aviation specifies what competence (lead) auditors must have when the verifier is accredited against accreditation scope 12a and what competence is applicable when verifiers are accredited against accreditation scope 12b. During the pre-contract stage the verifier assesses whether it has the correct accreditation to carry out the verification and what competence the verification team and its (lead) auditors must have to be able to verify the non-CO₂ aviation effects reports. Chapter 10 of Guidance Document III  provides further information.

Existing EU ETS verifiers that are already accredited under accreditation scope 12a need to extend their scopes of accreditation. Chapter 10 of Guidance Document III on verification in ETS aviation provides further information on the accreditation scope extension process.

• 16/12/2020 - Commission Decision of 16 December 2020 on instructing the central administrator to enter the national aviation allocation tables of Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Greece, Spain, France, Croatia, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Finland and Sweden into the European Union Transaction Log
• 05/11/2020 - Decision No 2/2020 of the Joint Committee established by the Agreement between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation on the linking of their greenhouse gas emission trading systems of 5 November 2020 on on amending Annexes I and II to the Agreement and the adoption of Linking Technical Standards (LTS)
• 01/01/2020 - Consolidated version of the Linking Agreement between the European Union and Switzerland
• 01/01/2020 - Notice concerning the entry into force of the Agreement between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation on the linking of their greenhouse gas emissions trading systems
• 05/12/2019 - Decision No 2/2019 of the Joint Committee established by the Agreement between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation on the linking of their greenhouse gas emission trading systems
• 07/12/2017 - Agreement between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation on the linking of their greenhouse gas emissions trading systems

• 25/06/2020 - Council Decision (EU) 2020/954 - Position to be taken on behalf of the European Union within the International Civil Aviation Organisation as regards the notification of voluntary participation in the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) from 1 January 2021 and the option selected for calculating aeroplane operators’ offsetting requirements during the 2021-2023 period (COM/2020/194 final - Proposal for a Council decision on the position to be taken on behalf of the European Union in the International Civil Aviation Organisation, in respect of notification of voluntary participation in the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) from 1 January 2021 and of the option selected for calculating the aeroplane operators’ offsetting requirements during the 2021-2023 period)
• 29/11/2018 - Council Decision (EU) 2018/2027 - (EU Member States’ notification of differences to the ICAO Secretariat) Position to be taken on behalf of the European Union within the International Civil Aviation Organisation in respect of the First Edition of the International Standards and Recommended Practices on Environmental Protection — Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA)
• 10/2016 - 2016 ICAO Assembly Resolution
  • Reservations by third countries
• 30/10/2013 - 2013 ICAO Assembly Resolution
  • Reservations by third countries
  • Statement of reservation from 42 members of the European Civil Aviation Conference
• 12/01/2012 - Statement of reservation to the ICAO Council decision
• 10-11/2010 - Reservations to the 2010 ICAO Assembly Resolution on Climate Change
• 07/10/2010 - 2010 ICAO Assembly Resolution on Climate Change
• 02/10/2007 - Statement of reservation on behalf of the member states of the European Community (EC) and the other states members of the European Civil Aviation (ECAC) [made at the 36th Assembly of ICAO, 18-28 September 2007]

• 19/03/2015 - Frequently Asked Questions. Free allocation from the Special Reserve
• 16/04/2014 - Regulation (EU) No 421/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2003/87/EC establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community, in view of the implementation by 2020 of an international agreement applying a single global market-based measure to international aviation emissions
  • Frequently Asked Questions on the 2013-2016 Regulation amending the EU Emissions Trading System for aviation
• 16/10/2013 - COM (2013) 722 - Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2003/87/EC establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community, in view of the implementation by 2020 of an international agreement applying a single global market-based measure to international aviation emissions.
  • COM (2013) 722 Annex - Coverage percentages
  • SWD (2013) 430 - Impact Assessment
  • SWD (2013) 431 - Executive summary of the impact assessment
  • 16247/13 - Additional Analysis of Impact Assessment
  • MEMO/13/906 – Commission proposes applying EU ETS to European regional airspace from 1 January 2014
  • 28/10/2013 - FAQ: Commission proposal for a European Regional Airspace Approach for EU emissions trading for aviation
  • 23/10/2013 - Provisional list of countries to/from which it is proposed that routes be exempted from EU ETS for the period from 2014 to 2020
• 04/10/2013 - Communication from the Commission - Guidance on the implementation of Decision No 377/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council derogating temporarily from Directive 2003/87/EC establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community
• 24/04/2013 - Decision No 377/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council derogating temporarily from Directive 2003/87/EC establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community
• 16/04/2013 - Flights that benefit from the derogation ("exempted flights")
• 18/04/2013 - Step by step instructions
• 20/11/2012 - COM (2012) 697 - Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and Council derogating temporarily from Directive 2003/87/EC establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community

• 19/11/2008 - Directive 2008/101/EC - Amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to include aviation activities in the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community
• 13/10/2003 - Directive 2003/87/EC - Establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC

• 26/03/2026 - EEA-wide list of aircraft operators
• 20/07/2011 - EEA JC Decision 93/2011 - has incorporated the Commission Decision on the Union–wide quantity of allowances for aviation into the EEA agreement and has established EEA-wide quantities of allowances for aviation
• 01/07/2011 - EEA JC Decision 87/2011 - has incorporated the Commission Decision on Union-wide historical aviation emissions into the EEA agreement and has established an EEA-wide figure for historical aviation emissions
• 20/04/2011 - Reglement 394/2011: List of aircraft operators further to the expansion of the Union emission trading scheme to EEA-EFTA countries
• 07/03/2011 - Commission Decision 2011/149/EU - Historical aviation emissions pursuant to Article 3c(4) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community
• 08/06/2009 - Commission Decision 2009/450/EC - Detailed interpretation of the aviation activities listed in the Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC
• 16/04/2009 - Commission Decision 2009/339/EC - Inclusion of monitoring and reporting guidelines for emissions and tonne-kilometre data from aviation activities

• 19/09/2008 - COM/2008/0548 - Communication on the European Parliament's amendments to the Council's Common Position
• 08/07/2008 - 2006/0304(COD) - Resolution of the European Parliament on the Council common position on the Commission's proposal
• 22/04/2008 - COM/2008/221 - Communication of the European Commission on the Council's common position
• 18/04/2008 - 2006/0304(COD) - Common Position of the Council on the proposal
• 20/12/2007 - Political agreement reached by the Environment Ministers on the Council's first reading position on the Commission's proposal
• 13/11/2007 - First reading position of the European Parliament on the Commission's proposal
• 10/10/2007 - Opinion of the Committee of the Regions stating it agrees with the Commission that aviation should be included in the ETS
• 08/06/2007 - Council Conclusions on the position to be taken by EU Member States at the ICAO Assembly in September 2007 in relation to the inclusion of aviation in the EU Emissions Trading System
• 31/05/2007 - Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee welcoming the Commission's proposal as a "carefully considered and pragmatic approach" to address emissions from aviation
• 20/12/2006 - Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to include aviation activities in the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community
• 04/07/2006 - Resolution of the European Parliament in response to the Commission's Communication
• 04/2006 - Opinion of the European Economic and Social Commitee on the Commission's Communication
• 16/12/2005 - European Council conclusions
• 12/2005 - Supportive conclusions of the Environment Council
• 27/09/2005 - Communication of the European Commission outlining plans to reduce the impact of aviation on climate change

• 04/2006 - Final report of the Aviation working group bringing together experts from Member States and industry, consumer and environmental organisations
• 2005-2006 - Background documents and minutes from working group meetings

• 02/12/2015 - Study: Possible legal arrangements to implement a global market based measure for international aviation emissions
• 25/03/2014 - ETS Aviation small emitters: Cost assessment of applying EU ETS on aviation small emitters and analysis of improvement potential by simplifications, alternative thresholds and alternative means of regulation (Summary)
• 20/12/2006 - Summary Impact Assessment
• 20/12/2006 - Full impact assessment
• 27/09/2005 - Preliminary impact assessment
• 07/2005 - Study on the possibility of including aviation in the EU Emissions Trading System
• 2005 - Report on the public consultation on Reducing the Climate Change Impact of Aviation from 11 March until 6 May 2005

• 21/12/2011 - Documents related to the ATA case against the EU ETS

The Commission has been assisted by Eurocontrol – the European organisation for the safety of air navigation. The comprehensive air traffic data contained in Eurocontrol's databases from the Central Route Charges Office (CRCO) and the Central Flow Management Unit (CFMU) were considered the best available data for calculation of the historic emissions. These provide among other things a calculation of the actual route length for each individual flight. Emissions were then calculated on a flight-by-flight basis using the ANCAT 3 (Abatement of Nuisances Caused by Air Transport) methodology and the CASE (Calculation of Emissions by Selective Equivalence) methodology.

In addition to Eurocontrol's data, the Commission also used information on actual fuel consumption from almost 30 aircraft operators of different types and sizes. This data was for aircraft types that were responsible for 93% of emissions in the base years.

Thirdly, additional calculations were carried out to account for fuel consumption associated with the use of the auxiliary power units (APUs). APUs are small engines that are used to provide lighting and air conditioning when the aircraft is stationary at airports. They are used when the aircraft is not connected to ground source electrical power and ventilation services. The approach taken was first to determine the average APU fuel consumption for different aircraft types. The individual emission factors of APU fuel consumption were then extrapolated to calculate total APU emissions applying a process which took into account the actual share of fuel burn for the flights under the EU ETS of each aircraft type and the use of ground power in airports. The emissions corresponding to the resulting total APU fuel consumption were included in the historical aviation emissions for each of the years 2004, 2005 and 2006.

The 2004-06 baseline period is defined in the legislation on the inclusion of aviation in the EU ETS. The baseline period for aviation allocation under the EU ETS is different from the 1990 baseline for the EU's overall reduction commitment as it takes into account the significant growth in aviation over the last 15 years.

This decision has been adopted later than originally foreseen in order to spend more time collating data on the historic emissions. Additional studies were done to increase the accuracy of the estimations of historic aviation emissions, in particular in relation to the fuel used by auxiliary power units (APU). Together with the support from Eurocontrol and contribution from aviation sector, a methodology to assess the APU was developed and the fuel consultation by APU was estimated. This figure was then added to the flight based CO₂ emissions.

The subsequent steps foreseen in the implementation of the Directive are to determine free allocations to aircraft operators and the volume of allowances to be auctioned.

82% of the allowances will be given for free to aircraft operators and 15% of the CO₂ allowances are allocated by auctioning. The remaining 3% will be allocated to a special reserve for later distribution to fast growing airlines and new entrants into the market.

The free allowances will be allocated by a benchmarking process which measures the activity of each operator in 2010 in terms of the number of passengers and freight that they carry and the total distance travelled. The benchmark should be published by 30 September 2011.

Member states have agreed that all revenues from auctioning should be used to tackle climate change including in the transport sector.

The events from the Icelandic volcano in 2010 will have no effect whatsoever on the total size of the emissions cap for aviation under the EU ETS or the total number of allowances that will be allocated free of charge to aircraft operators.

We have not seen data to suggest that the impact of the ash cloud will have a material impact on the distribution of free allowances between aircraft operators. Redistribution might occur if certain airlines had to cancel a greater proportion of flights then others, while the vast majority of operators have been impacted by the flight restrictions resulting from the volcanic ash cloud. Indeed all the estimations that we have seen confirm that distributional impacts are very small.

For the regulator to change or adapt the 2010 benchmarking year for the allocation of free allowances to aircraft operators, it would require a change in primary EU legislation. Adopting such legislation usually takes 2 years and there are no plans to start this process.

The EU ETS will cover any aircraft operator, whether EU- or foreign-based, operating international flights on routes to, from or between EU airports. All airlines will thus be treated equally. Very light aircraft will not be covered. Military, police, customs and rescue flights, flights on state and government business, and training or testing flights will also be exempted.

To reduce administrative costs, each operator will be administered by a single Member State regarding emissions from the total of its flights to, from and within the EU.

The list of aircraft operators that may be covered by the system includes over 4000 operators. The list has been created with the support of Eurocontrol and was based on actual flight information; it was last updated in February 2011 to take account of all changes that happened in 2010.

The EU is the strongest advocate for global action to reduce climate impacts of aviation. States have not been able to agree on a common global system through either the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) or the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). In the Resolution on climate change adopted at its most recent Assembly in October 2010, states in ICAO called for further work to explore the feasibility of a global market-based measure. The Resolution also recognized that states may take action prior to 2020. The EU ETS provides a good model for applying market-based measures to aviation. Development of other national programmes covering international aviation, compatible with the EU ETS, are a pragmatic way in which global action can be implemented.

While a number of airlines support action by the EU to address the climate change impacts from aviation, a challenge to the EU Directive has been launched by a number of US airlines. This has been referred to the European Court of Justice, and the European Commission, European Parliament, Council and a number of Member States have submitted observations, in addition to other organisations intervening in the case. The airlines involved are complying with the Directive's requirements in full pending the resolution of this challenge.

The environmental impact of including aviation in the EU ETS will be significant because aviation emissions, which are currently growing rapidly, will be capped at below their average level in 2004-2006. By 2020 it is estimated that a total of 183 million tonnes of CO₂ will be saved per year on the flights covered, a 46% reduction compared with business as usual. This is equivalent, for instance, to twice Austria's annual greenhouse gas emissions from all sources. Some of these reductions are likely to be made by airlines themselves. However, participation in the EU system will also give them other options: buying additional allowances on the market – i.e. paying other participants to reduce their emissions - or investing in emission-saving projects carried out under the Kyoto Protocol's flexible mechanisms. Providing aviation with these options does not reduce the environmental impact of the proposal since the climate impact of emission reductions is the same regardless of where they are made.

Including aviation in the EU ETS will not directly affect or regulate air transport tickets. However, aircraft operators may have to invest in more efficient planes or buy emission allowances in the market in addition to those allocated to them. The impact on ticket prices will probably be minor. Assuming airlines fully pass on these extra costs to customers, by 2020 the ticket price for a return flight within the EU could rise by between €1.8 and €9. Due to their higher environmental impact, long-haul trips could increase by somewhat more depending on the journey length. For example a return flight to New York at current carbon prices of around €15 might cost an additional €12. However, ticket price increases are in any case expected to be significantly lower than the extra costs airlines have passed on to consumers due to world oil price rises in recent years. Including aviation in the EU ETS will also have a smaller impact on prices than if the same environmental improvement were to be achieved through other measures such as a fuel tax or an emissions charge.

Direct emissions from aviation account for about 3% of the EU’s total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The large majority of these emissions comes from international flights, i.e. flights between two Member States or between a Member State and a non-EU country. This figure does not include indirect warming effects, such as those from NO_x emissions, contrails and cirrus cloud effects. The overall impact is therefore estimated to be higher. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has estimated that aviation’s total impact is about 2 to 4 times higher than the effect of its past CO₂ emissions alone. Recent EU research results indicate that this ratio may be somewhat smaller (around 2 times). None of these estimates take into account the uncertain but potentially very significant effects of cirrus clouds.

EU emissions from international aviation are increasing fast – doubling since 1990 – as air travel becomes cheaper without its environmental costs being addressed. For example, someone flying from London to New York and back generates roughly the same level of emissions as the average person in the EU does by heating their home for a whole year. Emissions are forecast to continue growing for the foreseeable future.

Emissions from aviation are higher than from certain entire sectors covered by the EU ETS, for example refineries and steel production. When aviation joins the EU ETS it is forecast to be the second largest sector in terms of emissions, second only to electricity generation.

The definition in Article 3(o) of the EU ETS Directive determines who is an "aircraft operator" for the purposes of the EU ETS. This definition refers to a natural or legal person which operates an aircraft at the time it performs an aviation activity specified in Annex I to the EU ETS Directive (i.e. a flight departure or a flight arrival at an aerodrome in the territory of the EU). If the identity of the operator cannot be ascertained then the aircraft owner is deemed to be the operator unless the owner identifies the relevant operator.

Under a "dry lease agreement" an aircraft is operated by the lessee under the AOC of the lessees and control of the aircraft effectively passes to the lessee. The presumption, therefore, is that the lessee is the operator and the ICAO designator of the lessee should appear in the flight plan.

The legal requirements of the EU ETS apply when an aircraft operator first performs an aviation activity in Annex I of the EU ETS Directive which is not covered by any of the exemptions in that Annex. The specific obligations which an operator needs to fulfil are explained in FAQs 3.1and 3.2 below.

Some aircraft operators employ the services of management companies to file flight plans and pay route charges on their behalf. Some management companies also provide services related to the ETS obligations of their clients. However, management companies are notaircraft operators for the purposes of the EU ETS Directive unless they also operate flights covered by Annex I of the EU ETS Directive.

An aircraft operator that does not perform any flight activity in Annex I of the EU ETS Directive for a complete calendar Year X is not required to comply with EU ETS requirements for that calendar year. However, verified emissions reports and the surrender of allowances will be required in Year X in respect of any relevant flight activity performed in the calendar year X-1.

It is entirely possible for a service company to be empowered to represent an aircraft operator before the competent authorities of the administrating Member State in relation to EU ETS matters. The extent of the powers of the service company will depend upon what is agreed between the operator and the service company.

It is possible, therefore, for a management company to file monitoring reports, and applications for free allowances on behalf of a particular aircraft operator if the management company is duly empowered. The issue of allowances can only be made directly to a registry account held by the aircraft operator. However, the Registries Regulation permits an aircraft operator to nominate an "additional authorised representative" who has limited rights on the account (the exact scope of these limited rights can be set by the account holder). Naturally, administering Member States will wish to be certain about the identity of the aircraft operator represented by a management company.

The Commission also has a duty to ensure the efficient operation of the EU ETS and so it will continue to identify and to include in the list of aircraft operators it publishes those operators who may nonetheless be represented by service companies for the matters relating to the EU ETS.

Annex XV of the Monitoring Decision states in Part 2 that for the purpose of identifying the aircraft operator defined by Article 3(o) of the EU ETS Directive, the ICAO designator in box 7 of a flight plan is to be used or, in the absence of such a designator, the aircraft registration marking is to be used. It appears that there is no uniform system, criteria or procedure for the application and issue of ICAO designator codes. So that it is unclear whether all operators will have a designator or whether aircraft operators within the same corporate group will share the same designator or have separate and distinct ICAO designators. Further complications may arise in identifying an aircraft operator due to the various types of aircraft leasing, the use of management companies, or the use of multiple ICAO designators by the same aircraft operator. Where the aircraft operator cannot be identified then the legislation stipulates that the owner will be responsible unless the owner can identify the relevant operator. Naturally, complications will not arise if each operator possesses and uses its own distinct ICAO designator.

There are several categories of flight which are exempt from the EU ETS. These are contained in Annex I of the EU ETS Directive and include activities such as search & rescue, state flights transporting third countries' Heads of State, Head of Government and Government ministers, police flights amongst others. There are special codes to designate these types of flight which should be inserted into the flight plan which is filed by the operator in order that the flight can be correctly excluded. More information about the types of flight excluded and the associated codes to be inserted in the flight plan can be found in the Annex I Decision1.

The relevant test in the EU ETS Directive for an aircraft operator is simply that there is a legal person responsible for flights arriving or departing from EU aerodromes which are not covered by the exemptions in Annex I of the EU ETS Directive. Individual companies that have been duly incorporated each possess their own distinct legal personality. It follows, therefore, that each company responsible for flights covered by Annex I is a different aircraft operator for the purposes of the EU ETS Directive even if they are in the same corporate group of companies.

In addition, Article 18(a) of the EU ETS Directive identifies an administering Member State, in relation to a particular commercial aircraft operator, by reference to the mandatory operating licence issued to that operator by the Member State concerned. There is a presumption, therefore, that each legal person issued with an operating licence by a Member State should be treated as a distinct and separateaircraft operator.

There is a de minimis exemption in subparagraph (j) of Annex I to the EU ETS Directive below which an entity ceases to be an aircraft operator covered by the provisions of the EU ETS. This exemption only applies to commercial air transport operators. Flights may also be provided by commercial operators without remuneration but this factor is not relevant when determining whether the de minimis threshold is exceeded.

In summary, all flights of a commercial operator which are not covered by any of the other exemptions in Annex I of the EU ETS Directive must be considered when assessing whether the de minimis threshold is exceeded.

The Commission intends to publish an updated list each year around the beginning of February on the basis of the best available information. The aim of this update is to include new aircraft operators that have undertaken flight activities covered by Annex I of the EU ETS Directive in the previous calendar year. In addition, this represents an opportunity to correct manifest errors in the designation of operators or administering Member States.

It is not so important to remove operators that cease their activities given that obligations arise under the ETS from performing relevant flight activities in Annex I of the EU ETS Directive rather than from inclusion on the list. However, to keep the list manageable administratively, where operators have clearly ceased to be covered by the ETS and will not return to it because, for example, they are no longer in existence or because they have rescinded their operating licence, then the Commission will remove such operators from the list at the time of its update. It should be remembered that the activities of some operators may be such that in one year they are not covered by the ETS but activity levels may increase so that in subsequent years they are covered. It does not make sense to amend the list in such circumstances.

Airspace users using services companies for flight planning and payment of route charges may not necessarily be included in the list.

Whilst an aircraft operator is defined by Article 3(o) of the EU ETS Directive, in practice the call sign used for Air Traffic Control (ATC) purposes has been used. The call sign appears in field 7 of the flight plan. The call sign either starts with the 3-letter ICAO designator of the operator or, if not available, represents the registration marking of the aircraft. In the latter case, the aircraft operator is identified by the operator indicated in field 18 of the flight plan or the operator identified by EUROCONTROL’s Central Route Charges Office (CRCO) with alternate sources of information (such as States’ registries or States’ administrations).

An airspace user may not appear as a distinct aircraft operator in the current list if all of its flights have been (a) operated under the ICAO designator of a service company; or (b) identified by the aircraft registration marking and the service company has indicated to the CRCO that it is responsible for the payment of route charges. In such cases, all the flights of the airspace user have been attributed to the service company.

If an aircraft operator has a 3-letter ICAO designator, the aircraft operator should ensure that this code is used in its flight plans or that box 18 of the flight plan indicates its ICAO designator as the operator of that flight. Alternatively, the operator can place the registration marking of the aircraft in field 18 of the flight plan and submit to EUROCONTROL an annual declaration, including information on the composition of their fleet.

The aircraft operator responsible for a flight has been identified on the basis of the information inserted in field 7 of the flight plan. Consequently, flights of subsidiaries operated under the ICAO 3-letter designator of the parent company will have been allocated to the parent company. Also, subsidiaries operating flights under their own ICAO 3-letter designator may also have been allocated to the parent company when the parent company took responsibility of the flights for air navigation charges purposes.

If the parent company has been identified as the aircraft operator for all the flights of a subsidiary, the latter will not appear as a distinct aircraft operator in the current list as there are no flights attributed to it. Aircraft operators which are subsidiary companies should ensure that they identify their flights using a separate ICAO designator and/or that they include all aircraft under their company in the fleet declaration submitted to EUROCONTROL’s Central Route Charges Office (CRCO).

Two conditions need to be fulfilled in order for an aircraft operator to benefit from the de minimis exemption under subparagraph (j) of Annex I to the EU ETS Directive:

• the operator is a commercial air transport operator; AND
• the aircraft operator operated less than 243 flights per consecutive period of four months (Jan-Apr, May-Aug, Sep-Dec) or emitted less than 10,000 tonnes of CO₂ annually.

If these conditions are met, the most probable reason for inclusion in the list is that for its present functions EUROCONTROL does not retain comprehensive records about AOCs for all operators flying in the EU region. As a result, EUROCONTROL may not be aware of the commercial status of particular operators (as defined in Article 3 of the EU ETS Directive). When this AOC information is missing, the operator is deemed not to be a commercial air transport operator.

An operator may also be included in the list because the last condition above is not satisfied. This means that according to the air traffic information held by EUROCONTROL and the CO₂ emissions estimations produced by EUROCONTROL, in any of the years since 2006 both of the following conditions were fulfilled:

• in one of these years, the annual CO₂ emissions were estimated to be above 10,000 tonnes and
• in at least one of the four month periods Jan-Apr, May-Aug, or Sep-Dec of the same year you operated at least 243 flights;

If your AOC contains information confirming that you are a commercial air transport operator, please provide a copy of it to EUROCONTROL. Please also keep your competent authority informed that you have sent your AOC to EUROCONTROL.

For non EU operators it may not be possible in all cases to determine your commercial status from your national certificate that is equivalent to the AOC (e.g. US Air Carrier Certificates). This is due to differences in the types of information that is contained in these certificates. However, you are still welcome to submit a copy of your certificate to EUROCONTROL, who may contact you for additional supporting documents.

The maximum take-off mass that has been used to determine whether flights should be exempted under subparagraph (h) of Annex I to the EU ETS Directive was that held by EUROCONTROL for the calculation of route charges. If you consider that all the flights you have operated were flown only with aircraft of less than 5.7 tonnes, please discuss this issue with your competent authority. The Commission is not in a position to decide whether an operator is exempt from the EU ETS. You may also wish to contact EUROCONTROL for further information.

If you are on the list it means that you have been identified as the aircraft operator of at least one flight since 2006 that was not considered exempted according to Annex I of the EU ETS Directive.

This situation could be the case for ferrying flights operated, for instance, during the delivery of the aircraft or for bringing it to or back from maintenance facilities. Such ferrying and positioning flights are not exempt from EU ETS. If you consider that all the flights you have operated are exempted under either of the subparagraphs of Annex I of the EU ETS Directive, please discuss this with your competent authority. The Commission is not in a position to decide whether an operator is exempt from the EU ETS. You may wish to contact EUROCONTROL for further information.

If you are on the list it means that you have been identified as the aircraft operator of at least one flight since 2006 that was flown to, from, or within the EU and that was not considered exempted according to Annex I of the EU ETS Directive.

This can be the case for ferrying flights operated, for instance, during the delivery of the aircraft or when bringing it to or back from maintenance facilities. If you consider that you have never operated any flight to, from or within the EU, or you do not plan to have any flights in the future, please discuss this with your competent authority. You may also wish to contact EUROCONTROL for further information.

The name of the operator is the name used by EUROCONTROL’s Central Route Charges Office (CRCO) when establishing the invoices for route charges. If you wish to correct the name of the operator on the list, please notify EUROCONTROL about the name change, providing sufficient evidence as to the correct name of the aircraft operator.

The list has been defined on the air traffic information since 2006. An operator has been included in the list as long as it had operated at least one eligible flight in those years.

EUROCONTROL can determine when the most recent flight was flown by a given operator but does not hold comprehensive information on whether such operator is still in operation. If you consider that an operator should NOT be on the list because it does not exist any longer or because it has ceased or suspended its aviation actives in the EU, please inform the competent authority about this. Please also notify the European Commission by sending a message to:

ENV-EU-ETS-AIRCRAFT-OPERATOR-LISTec [dot] europa [dot] eu (ENV-EU-ETS-AIRCRAFT-OPERATOR-LIST[at]ec[dot]europa[dot]eu)

You may wish to contact EUROCONTROL for further information (e.g. the date of the most recent flight in the EU).

The EU ETS Directive stipulates the administering Member State for any given operator in receipt of an operating licence in the EU is the Member State that issued the operating licence. Unfortunately, a complete and comprehensive database of all the operating licences granted by Member States in accordance with the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1008/2008 is not available, nor does EUROCONTROL hold this information. There is no definitive way, therefore, for the Commission or EUROCONTROL to check which Member State has issued AOCs and operating licences to particular operators and so there may be discrepancies in the list.

If you possess an operating licence from an EU Member State, but in the list you are allocated to a different Member State, please provide a copy of your operating licence to EUROCONTROL.

The administering Member State has been determined on the basis of the information available for the operator’s base year as defined by Article 18a(5) of the EU ETS Directive. The fact that an operator no longer operates or does not fly mainly from (or to) aerodromes located in such a State does not change the designation of the administering Member State.

Different companies operating flights covered by Annex I of the EU ETS Directive are considered as separate aircraft operators (see question 1.5). Administering Member States are attributed either on the basis of which Member State issued the operating licence or the State with the greatest attributed emissions for that operator. It is for the parent company to decide how to organise its corporate structure and flight activities in relation to the administration of the EU ETS and the allocation of administering Member States.

Article 18a(1) of the EU ETS Directive sets the rules on the initial attribution of an aircraft operator to an administering Member State. Attribution is done on the basis of which Member State has issued the operating licence or which is the Member State with the greatest attributed emissions from flights performed by that operator in the base year (2006).

However reattribution of an operator to a new Member State may be necessary if it turns out that the initial attribution does not meet the conditions set under Art 18a(1) of the EU ETS Directive.

Reattribution may be necessary where:

• the Commission together with EUROCONTROL changes the methodology used for the generation of the list of aircraft operators in order to improve the list's accuracy and better reflect the requirements of the Directive (such reattribution will not occur frequently after the initial set up of the scheme);
• there is an error in the list as a result of incomplete or inaccurate information held by the Commission or EUROCONTROL;
• the scope of the EU ETS is expanded to other countries, for instance the full integration of the EEA-EFTA countries (Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway) into the EU ETS.

Reattribution is different from the transfer of aircraft operators based on Article 18a(2) of the EU ETS Directive. Such transfer occurs where in the first two years of any trading period, none of the attributed aviation emissions from flights performed by an aircraft operator without an operating licence granted by a Member State are attributed to its administering Member State. That aircraft operator must be transferred to another administering Member State in respect of the next period. The new administering Member State will be the Member State with the greatest estimated attributed aviation emissions from flights performed by that aircraft operator during the first two years of the previous period.

After an aircraft operator is reattributed on the basis of Article 18a(1) or transferred on the basis of Article 18a(2) of the EU ETS Directive to a new administering Member State, the monitoring plan will have to be transferred from one administering Member State to another, or resubmitted by an operator to the new administering MS. This process has to be agreed between the Member States on a case by case basis, taking account of the views of the aircraft operator affected and seeking to minimize the financial costs and administrative burden to aircraft operator.

The timing of the transfer or resubmission of the monitoring plan should also be agreed between the Member States and the operator.

The list now contains a unique identification number (code) for each aircraft operator. This code will be used for compliance purposes. The code coincides with the number used by EUROCONTROL’s Central Route Charges Office (CRCO) for identifying airspace users in the route charges system. This identification number is shown in the reference of air navigation charges bills.

The extension of the scheme entails that in addition to the 27 EU Member States the EU ETS covers also the 3 EEA-EFTA countries (Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway). As a result, flights which depart from or arrive in an aerodrome situated in the territory of an EEA-EFTA country, collectively called 'EEA additional flights', are subject to EU ETS rules. More precisely, EEA additional flights are:

• Domestic flights within the EEA-EFTA countries;
• Flights between the EEA-EFTA countries;
• Flights between the EEA-EFTA countries and third countries outside the EEA.

The list of exemptions from the scope of the EU ETS in Annex I of the EU ETS Directive also applies for the EEA additional flights.

Equal treatment of aircraft operators is a fundamental element of the EU ETS for aviation. The EU and the EEA-EFTA countries therefore have ensured that the design of the scheme is not altered by the extension to the EEA-EFTA countries. In particular, the same benchmark and harmonized allocation rules are applied for the EEA additional flights as for other flights covered by the scheme.

Aircraft operators which are already covered by the EU ETS are only be affected by the extension of the system if they perform EEA additional flights (see answer to question 8.2). These operators have to include their EEA additional flights into their monitoring and reporting activities.

These operators should have already updated their monitoring plans to cover their EEA additional flights.

Operators who update their monitoring plans should notify their competent authority without delay of any changes made. In case of substantial changes to the monitoring methodology, the operators need to submit their updated plans for re-approval. Substantial changes are described in the EU ETS monitoring and reporting guidelines and include:

• Change of the average reported annual emissions which causes the operator to exceed the threshold for applying tier 1 uncertainty for the determination of fuel consumption;
• Change in the number of flights or in the total annual emissions which cause the aircraft operator to exceed the threshold for small emitters, so that the operator is no longer eligible to benefit from the simplified monitoring procedures;
• Substantial changes to the type of fuels used.

If a commercial aircraft operator is exempted from the scope on grounds of point (j) of Annex I of the EU ETS Directive, (i.e. because it operates either fewer than 243 flights per period for three consecutive four-month periods or flights with total annual emissions lower than 10 000 tonnes per year (de minimisrule)), the exemption could cease to apply if EEA additional flights cause the aircraft operator to exceed the aforementioned limits. Those aircraft operator should submit monitoring plans as soon as possible to the competent authority in its administering state.

12/02/2019 - EEA-wide list of aircraft operators

The criteria set under Article 18a (1) of Directive 2003/87/EC to determine aircraft operator's administering Member State must take into account the extension of the aviation part of the EU emission trading scheme to EEA-EFTA countries (Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway). Thus, certain aircraft operators, previously allocated to one of EU 27 Member States, are allocated to the EEA-EFTA countries for administration. Regulation (EC) No 748/2009 has therefore been amended.

To facilitate a smooth changeover of the affected aircraft operators, the former administering Member State should complete all its obligations related to the aviation activities carried out during the calendar year before the reattribution of an aircraft operator to an EEA-EFTA country took place. The new administering State (Norway or Iceland) will take over the obligations related to the calendar year in which the reattribution took place and for the following calendar years.

The aircraft operator will need to deal with two authorities for the changeover period, as it completes it obligations in relation to aviation activities carried out in the previous year to the former administering Member State and progressively develops its relations with the newly attributed authority.

The key steps are as follows:

1. Monitoring year 2011:
   The EEA-wide list of aircraft operators reallocates some aircraft operators to Norway and Iceland. Each affected aircraft operator should submit without delay to the new administering State the monitoring plan for annual emissions, the approval of the monitoring plan by the previous administering Member State and the verified emissions report for the year 2010. This should enable the new administering State to administer the aircraft operator relating to its aviation activities performed during the year 2011.
2. Calculating the benchmarks and the auctioning share:
   The former administering Member State should submit to the Commission by 30th June 2011 the data from the emissions report for the year 2010 and the verified 2010 report for tonne-kilometre data (the applications for free allowances for the periods 2012 and 2013-2020).
3. Allocation of allowances:
   If applicable, each concerned aircraft operator should submit to the new administering State the approved monitoring plan for tonne-kilometre data and the verified report for tonne-kilometre data, accepted by the former administering Member State.

If the former administering Member State has modified the data before submitting to the Commission, it should inform the new administering State about the modifications made.

The new administering State should:

• calculate and publish the allocation of allowances for each aircraft operator whose application was submitted to the Commission; and
• issue by 28 February 2012 and by 28 February of each subsequent year the number of allowances allocated to the respective aircraft operator for that year.

The change of administrative responsibility, from a EU 27 Member State to Iceland or Norway, of those aircraft operators which are marked with an asterisk in the EEA list of operators may be subject to a specific timeline. This is to be agreed in conformity with Decision of the EEA Joint Committee n° 6/2011 of 1^st April 2011 amending Annex XX (Environment) to the EEA Agreement, (published at the OJ L 93 7.04.2011 page 35).

Those aircraft operators, attributed to Iceland and Norway under the EEA list, which are marked with an asterisk, can request to remain under the administration of its former administering Member State until 2020 the latest, as provided in the Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 6/2011 of 1^st April 2011 amending Annex XX (Environment) to the EEA Agreement.

Such a request can be made by an affected aircraft operator to its former administering Member State within six months from the adoption by the Commission of the EEA-wide list of aircraft operators. The Member State concerned may agree to administer that operator for another year or longer, but only until the end of the trading period in 2020. The EEA-wide list was adopted on 20^th April 2011, thus the requests can be made until 20^th October 2011.

If the former administering Member State agrees to continue administering the aircraft operator concerned, it should inform the Commission about this agreement and indicate the date from which the aircraft operator will be administered by the new administering State.

Data from the EEA-EFTA countries will be taken into account when calculating the EEA historical aviation emissions The EU 27 historical aviation emissions will thus increase to reflect the extended scope of the EU ETS. Likewise, the total amount of allowances to be allocated free of charge, the total amount of allowances to be auctioned and the size of the special reserve will increase proportionally.

The following note was added on the Commission's website on aviation:

'Please note that all references to Member States on the templates should be interpreted as including all 30 EEA States. The EEA comprises the 27 EU Member States, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway.'

In addition to this, references to the EEA-EFTA countries have been added to the list of Member States in several places in the templates:

• Where the aircraft operator indicates administering Member States;
• Where the aircraft operator indicates the state that has accredited the verifier;
• In the domestic flights emissions table under 9 (c) in the annual emissions report;
• As state of departure and state of arrival in tables 9 (d) and 9 (e) in the annual emissions report.