Blogs
Turbulence over aviation carbon rules
Far fewer flights could face delays or cancellations as the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) accelerates the global implementation of Air Traffic Flow Management (ATFM) — a move that could also reduce unnecessary fuel burn and aviation emissions, writes Denis Tukahikaho
Denis Tukahikaho PhD. (File)
By: Admin ., Journalist @New Vision
______________
OPINION
By Denis Tukahikaho PhD|CLE|
Far fewer flights could face delays or cancellations as the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) accelerates the global implementation of Air Traffic Flow Management (ATFM) — a move that could also reduce unnecessary fuel burn and aviation emissions.
The push comes as the international aviation sector faces growing pressure to improve operational efficiency while cutting carbon emissions and, at the same time, a separate policy dispute is emerging over how those emissions should be regulated and offset.
With ICAO's global Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) increasingly coming into tension with the European Union's Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), the recent airspace closures and severe weather events have highlighted the vulnerability of air services to disruption, and meanwhile, the introduction of new aviation technologies is adding to the complexity of flight operations.
With global air traffic expected to continue growing, ICAO is accelerating ATFM as a comprehensive international approach to improving the efficiency, reliability and resilience of the aviation system. ATFM combines air navigation technologies with new operational procedures to improve the predictability of air services while reducing unnecessary fuel consumption and emissions.
Under the system, airlines, airports and air navigation service providers can coordinate flights and operational constraints across national borders before aircraft take off. The objective is to match traffic demand with available airspace and airport capacity while reducing unnecessary holding, congestion and inefficient flight paths.
One of the key procedures is Airport Collaborative Decision Making (A-CDM), which shall enable airlines, airports and air traffic controllers to exchange real-time information and coordinate decisions on when and how aircraft depart and arrive. The approach can improve the reliability and efficiency of flight operations. The concept of Total Airport Management extends this coordination across a wider range of airport activities, including baggage handling, aircraft refuelling and passenger movements.
ATFM is also intended to make better use of available airspace. The gradual adoption of free route airspace will allow pilots to select more direct and efficient flight paths rather than being restricted to pre-established routes. Under the ATFM principle of flexible use of airspace, portions of controlled airspace can also be dynamically allocated according to traffic requirements, allowing available capacity to be used more efficiently.
The Aviation operational reforms are significant because aviation's climate challenge is not limited to the carbon credits and emissions allowances used by regulatory systems, but cutting unnecessary flight time, efficient routing and de-congestion can reduce fuel consumption at source. But even as ICAO promotes operational measures to make flying more efficient, the organisation is facing a growing disagreement with the European Union over the regulatory treatment of aviation emissions.
As we all know, ICAO's CORSIA is the global market-based measure established specifically to address CO₂ emissions from international aviation, and under CORSIA, qualifying airlines meet offsetting requirements by cancelling emission units that have been approved under ICAO's eligibility framework.
But still, ICAO maintains a specific process for determining which emissions-unit programmes can supply credits for CORSIA, and the system has been designed to address issues including environmental integrity, eligibility and the avoidance of double counting. The European Union, however, operates the EU ETS, which places a carbon cost on covered aviation emissions through the European carbon market, and the EU currently applies stronger measures to intra-European flights and incorporates CORSIA for certain extra-European routes.
In July, ICAO publicly expressed concern about a European Commission proposal to expand the geographical scope of the EU ETS for aviation from 2029, and ICAO urged that the proposed expansion could undermine CORSIA as the globally harmonised market-based measure for international aviation and could result in duplicative measures.
As the European Commission takes a different approach, its current framework provides for a review of CORSIA in 2026 to assess whether the global scheme is sufficiently effective and adequately aligned with the goals of the Paris Agreement and, depending on the outcome, the Commission proposed extending the EU ETS to additional departing flights. This creates a significant policy question for international aviation: should airlines operating across borders primarily comply with one globally harmonised carbon mechanism, or should regional systems such as the EU ETS impose additional requirements where governments believe the global system does not go far enough?
CORSIA relies on a defined pool of ICAO-eligible emissions units rather than allowing airlines to use any carbon credit available in the voluntary carbon market. ICAO evaluates emissions-unit programs against specific eligibility criteria before they can supply credits for CORSIA. For the 2024–2026 first phase, ICAO approved eight emissions-unit programs while four programs have been approved for the 2027–2029 second phase.
ICAO also requires attention to host-country authorisation and the avoidance of double claiming in relevant circumstances, but the EU's rules similarly place conditions on the use of credits under CORSIA, including requirements related to participation in the Paris Agreement and CORSIA’s safeguards against double counting. The difference is therefore not simply about whether airlines should buy carbon credits; it is about which emissions are covered, which credits qualify, how those credits are accounted for, and whether an airline can face more than one regulatory obligation for the same international aviation emissions.
ATFM is also intended to make better use of available airspace. The gradual adoption of free route airspace will allow pilots to select more direct and efficient flight paths rather than being restricted to pre-established routes. Under the ATFM principle of flexible use of airspace, portions of controlled airspace can also be dynamically allocated according to traffic requirements, allowing available capacity to be used more efficiently.
The Aviation operational reforms are significant because aviation's climate challenge is not limited to the carbon credits and emissions allowances used by regulatory systems, but cutting unnecessary flight time, efficient routing and de-congestion can reduce fuel consumption at source. But even as ICAO promotes operational measures to make flying more efficient, the organisation is facing a growing disagreement with the European Union over the regulatory treatment of aviation emissions.
As we all know, ICAO's CORSIA is the global market-based measure established specifically to address CO₂ emissions from international aviation, and under CORSIA, qualifying airlines meet offsetting requirements by cancelling emission units that have been approved under ICAO's eligibility framework.
But still, ICAO maintains a specific process for determining which emissions-unit programmes can supply credits for CORSIA, and the system has been designed to address issues including environmental integrity, eligibility and the avoidance of double counting. The European Union, however, operates the EU ETS, which places a carbon cost on covered aviation emissions through the European carbon market, and the EU currently applies stronger measures to intra-European flights and incorporates CORSIA for certain extra-European routes.
In July, ICAO publicly expressed concern about a European Commission proposal to expand the geographical scope of the EU ETS for aviation from 2029, and ICAO urged that the proposed expansion could undermine CORSIA as the globally harmonised market-based measure for international aviation and could result in duplicative measures.
As the European Commission takes a different approach, its current framework provides for a review of CORSIA in 2026 to assess whether the global scheme is sufficiently effective and adequately aligned with the goals of the Paris Agreement and, depending on the outcome, the Commission proposed extending the EU ETS to additional departing flights. This creates a significant policy question for international aviation: should airlines operating across borders primarily comply with one globally harmonised carbon mechanism, or should regional systems such as the EU ETS impose additional requirements where governments believe the global system does not go far enough?
CORSIA relies on a defined pool of ICAO-eligible emissions units rather than allowing airlines to use any carbon credit available in the voluntary carbon market. ICAO evaluates emissions-unit programs against specific eligibility criteria before they can supply credits for CORSIA. For the 2024–2026 first phase, ICAO approved eight emissions-unit programs while four programs have been approved for the 2027–2029 second phase.
ICAO also requires attention to host-country authorisation and the avoidance of double claiming in relevant circumstances, but the EU's rules similarly place conditions on the use of credits under CORSIA, including requirements related to participation in the Paris Agreement and CORSIA’s safeguards against double counting. The difference is therefore not simply about whether airlines should buy carbon credits; it is about which emissions are covered, which credits qualify, how those credits are accounted for, and whether an airline can face more than one regulatory obligation for the same international aviation emissions.
The developing ICAO-EU dispute highlights two different approaches to reducing aviation's climate impact, and the first is operational efficiency, as better air traffic management, shorter routes, improved airport coordination and more efficient use of airspace can reduce fuel consumption and emissions without requiring an aircraft to purchase an offset.
The second is market-based regulation, as CORSIA and the EU ETS seek to place an economic mechanism around aviation emissions, encouraging airlines and the wider industry to reduce their climate impact and, where applicable, compensate for emissions through approved mechanisms.
These approaches are not necessarily mutually exclusive; they are more efficient air traffic operations, which can reduce the amount of emissions generated, while carbon-market mechanisms can address emissions that remain, and the challenge is ensuring that the different systems work together rather than creating overlapping requirements or competing carbon-accounting frameworks.
A key priority for ICAO is ensuring that every region and airport can accurately measure and manage airspace and airport capacity, the maximum number of aircraft that can be safely handled during a given period, as ICAO is also renewing its focus on optimising minimum aircraft separation distances.
Where safely possible, improved separation management could increase airspace capacity while maintaining required safety standards. This capacity issue is becoming increasingly important as global aviation demand grows; more aircraft operating in increasingly congested airspace means that efficiency gains from better planning and coordination could have both economic and environmental benefits.
“Together, we will deliver a truly connected network for air traffic flow management, enabling every flight to operate in a predictable and efficient manner while enhancing safety and sustainability,” ICAO Secretary General Juan Carlos Salazar said this while welcoming delegates to ICAO Headquarters in Montréal.
The ICAO discussions were scheduled to conclude on October 9, and their findings would inform updates to ICAO guidance for member states and the organisation's activities supporting ATFM implementation. At the same time, the future relationship between CORSIA and the EU ETS is likely to remain an important issue for airlines, governments and carbon-market participants as the central question extends beyond how quickly aircraft can move through increasingly congested airspace; it is also about how the international aviation sector will account for the price and ultimately reduce the emissions generated by that growth.
If ICAO succeeds in building a more connected ATFM network while governments establish compatible and credible carbon rules, the aviation industry could benefit from both more efficient operations and a clearer framework for managing emissions. But if regulatory systems continue to diverge, however, airlines operating international routes could face increasingly complex compliance requirements, particularly where different jurisdictions apply different rules to the same emissions, and the outcome will help determine whether the next phase of aviation decarbonisation is built around a genuinely global framework—or an increasingly fragmented collection of regional carbon regimes.
The writer is an International Carbon Development Award-Winner (ICDA) 2026
The second is market-based regulation, as CORSIA and the EU ETS seek to place an economic mechanism around aviation emissions, encouraging airlines and the wider industry to reduce their climate impact and, where applicable, compensate for emissions through approved mechanisms.
These approaches are not necessarily mutually exclusive; they are more efficient air traffic operations, which can reduce the amount of emissions generated, while carbon-market mechanisms can address emissions that remain, and the challenge is ensuring that the different systems work together rather than creating overlapping requirements or competing carbon-accounting frameworks.
A key priority for ICAO is ensuring that every region and airport can accurately measure and manage airspace and airport capacity, the maximum number of aircraft that can be safely handled during a given period, as ICAO is also renewing its focus on optimising minimum aircraft separation distances.
Where safely possible, improved separation management could increase airspace capacity while maintaining required safety standards. This capacity issue is becoming increasingly important as global aviation demand grows; more aircraft operating in increasingly congested airspace means that efficiency gains from better planning and coordination could have both economic and environmental benefits.
“Together, we will deliver a truly connected network for air traffic flow management, enabling every flight to operate in a predictable and efficient manner while enhancing safety and sustainability,” ICAO Secretary General Juan Carlos Salazar said this while welcoming delegates to ICAO Headquarters in Montréal.
The ICAO discussions were scheduled to conclude on October 9, and their findings would inform updates to ICAO guidance for member states and the organisation's activities supporting ATFM implementation. At the same time, the future relationship between CORSIA and the EU ETS is likely to remain an important issue for airlines, governments and carbon-market participants as the central question extends beyond how quickly aircraft can move through increasingly congested airspace; it is also about how the international aviation sector will account for the price and ultimately reduce the emissions generated by that growth.
If ICAO succeeds in building a more connected ATFM network while governments establish compatible and credible carbon rules, the aviation industry could benefit from both more efficient operations and a clearer framework for managing emissions. But if regulatory systems continue to diverge, however, airlines operating international routes could face increasingly complex compliance requirements, particularly where different jurisdictions apply different rules to the same emissions, and the outcome will help determine whether the next phase of aviation decarbonisation is built around a genuinely global framework—or an increasingly fragmented collection of regional carbon regimes.
The writer is an International Carbon Development Award-Winner (ICDA) 2026