CORSIA Monitoring Reporting and Verification
In just over a hundred years, aviation has brought the world together, transporting over four billion passengers every year. Aviation has reshaped the way we move, but it has also had a negative effect on the climate. In 2018, the aviation industry accounted for 895 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions, which is equivalent to 2.4% of global emissions.
This article is a continuation of Brightspot’s aviation series, which covers the upcoming role of Biofuels in Aviation as a method to reduce carbon emissions and the Current State of CORSIA, the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation. The article below provides a summary of the details and requirements for monitoring, reporting and verification under CORSIA.
Monitoring, Reporting and Verification
In 2019, ICAO member states began their Monitoring, Reporting and Verification (MRV) plans for CORSIA. This was defined under ICAO’s A39-3 Resolution, which requires the implementation of an MRV plan from all member states, regardless of whether they are volunteering in the pilot phase of the scheme or not. The MRV is an essential step to collect data on international aviation CO2 emissions annually and compare these emissions against a baseline set between 2019 and 2020. Currently, over three quarters of ICAO’s members will begin to voluntarily offset CO2 emissions under the pilot phase of CORSIA in 2021.
An aircraft operator has to monitor its fuel use and equivalent CO2 emissions from international flights in accordance with an eligible monitoring method. The operator is required to use the same monitoring method throughout the 3-year compliance period. The monitoring of fuel burn and CO2 emissions by an aircraft operator requires:
1. Aircraft fleet and operating routes
2. Monitoring method (where 1 tonne of fuel = 3.16 tonnes of CO2 emissions)
a. Method A, based on measurements after the completion of fuel uplifts (for the current
and subsequent flight) and the fuel uplift for the subsequent flight;
b. Method B, based on measurements at block-on times (preceding and current flight) and
the fuel uplift for the fight considered;
c. Block-off/block-on, based on the fuel consumed between block-off and block-on;
d. Fuel uplift, based on the fuel uplift before each flight;
e. Fuel allocation with block hours, applies the average fuel burn ratio by aeroplane type
and during the reporting year in question to the block hours of each flight.
3. Data management plan
a. Based on fuel monitoring methods
b. Using CORSIA’s CO2 Estimation and Reporting Tool (CERT)
Reporting of CO2 emissions data provides the baseline to calculate emissions and annual offsetting requirements:
1. Aircraft Operators report annual emissions to state authority.
a. In Canada, aircraft operators report to Transport Canada.
2. Member States report total emissions to ICAO
3. ICAO consolidates the data, publishes total CO2 emissions, calculates the annual sectoral
growth factor and communicates the growth factor to states and aircraft operators
a. CORSIA included the concept of a “Dynamic Approach” for offsetting requirements,
which is based on sectoral approach (international aviation global average growth
factor) and individual approach (aircraft operator’s growth factor);
i. 2021-2029, 100% sectoral;
ii. 2030-2032, at least 20% individual; and
iii. 2033-2035, at least 70% individual.
Verification on emissions data aims to ensure the consistency of data and to identify any errors in the aircraft operator’s Annual Emissions Report. CORSIA outlined a three-step verification across- the-board:
1. Aircraft Operator performs an internal pre-verification
2. Third-Party verification requirement before reporting to the state authority.
a. The third-party verification body shall
i. Be accredited to ISO 14065:2013 and ISO 14066:2011
ii. Possess knowledge and technical expertise in
1. Assembly Resolution A39-3
2. Environmental Technical Manual (Doc 9501),
3. Volume IV – Procedure for demonstrating compliance with the CORSIA
3. Member State conducts an order of magnitude review