EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 23.11.2020 SWD(2020) 277 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Full-length report Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council Updated analysis of the non-CO2 climate impacts of aviation and potential policy measures pursuant to EU Emissions Trading System Directive Article 30(4)











{COM(2020) 747 final}



SAFE AND SUSTAINABLE AVIATION FINAL REPORT Updated analysis of the non-CO2 climate impacts of aviation and potential policy measures pursuant to the EU Emissions Trading System Directive Article 30(4) Contract reference: MOVE/E1/SER/2019-475/SI2.817062 Date: September 2020

Disclaimer The information and views set out in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein. Project Team This project team consisted of Stephen Arrowsmith (EASA – Project Lead), David S Lee (Manchester Metropolitan University – Task 1 Lead), Bethan Owen (Manchester Metropolitan University – Task 2 Lead), Jasper Faber, Lisanne van Wijngaarden (CE Delft – Task 3 Lead), Olivier Boucher (CNRS, OB Consulting), Ayce Celikel (ENVISA), Robin Deransy (EUROCONTROL), Jan Fuglestvedt (CICERO), Joonas Laukia (EASA), Marianne Tronstad Lund (CICERO), Robert Sausen (DLR), Martin Schaefer (EASA), Agnieszka Skowron (Manchester Metropolitan University), Stavros Stromatas (EUROCONTROL) and Andrew Watt (EUROCONTROL). The Project Team gratefully acknowledges the support of the Stakeholder Groups, whose representatives provided valuable input and comments on the work undertaken within this study. This included Myles Allen (University of Oxford), Ulrike Burkhardt (DLR), Frank Dentener (DG JRC), Chris Eyers (Limited Skies), Volker Grewe (TU Delft), Martin Plohr (DLR), Matteo Prussi (DG JRC), Stephanie Shillling (European Environment Agency), Etienne Terrenoire (ONERA), Peter van Velthoven (KNMI), Andre van Velzen (TAKS), Rik Brouwer (SkyNRG), Robert Gemmill (Emission Monitoring, Reporting and Verification Expert), Chris Lewis (Aircraft engine and fuels expert), Jarlath Molloy (UK National Air Traffic Services) and Peter Vis (Climate change policy expert).

For further information linked to matters on aviation and environmental protection, we invite you to visit the EASA website ( www.easa.europa.eu/environment ).



CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 1. Introduction 21 2. TASK 1: Aviation non-CO2 Impacts – Current status of science and remaining uncertainties 2.1 Aviation emissions in context 2.2 The effects of aviation on climate 2.3 CO2 equivalent emissions metrics 2.4 Mitigation opportunities 24 3. TASK 2: Technological and Operational options for limiting or reducing non-CO2 impacts from aviation and related trade-off issues 42 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Emissions and impacts 3.3 Current policies 3.4 NOX standard and technology goals 3.5 nvPM standards and technology goals 3.6 CO2 standard and technology goals 3.7 Aircraft technology issues and potential trade-offs 3.8 Operational / ATM measures and potential trade-offs 3.9 Fuels and potential trade-offs 4. TASK 3: What research has been undertaken on potential policy action to reduce non-CO2 climate impacts? 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Identification of measures to address non-CO2 climate impacts of aviation 4.3 Criteria for the selection and classification of measures 4.4 Shortlist of measures for further development 61 5. TASK 3: Potential policy options 5.1 NOX charge 5.2 Inclusion of aircraft NOX emissions in EU ETS 5.3 Reduction in maximum limit of aromatics within fuel specifications 5.4 Mandatory use of Sustainable Aviation Fuels 5.5 Avoidance of ice-supersaturated areas 5.6 A climate charge 5.7 Overview of potential policy options 75 APPENDICES 112 Appendix 1 – Task Specifications Appendix 2 – Telecon / meeting schedule Appendix 3 – Task 1 and 2 Workshop on 20 November 2019 Appendix 4 – Task 3 Workshop on 12 March 2020 Appendix 5 – Updated aviation radiative forcing components in 2020 Appendix 6 – List of Resources





EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) currently regulates aviation CO2 emissions, although it is recognised that there are other aviation emissions that contribute to the sector’s climate impact. In 2006, the Impact Assessment for the EU ETS Directive 2003/87/C analysed the possibility of regulating Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx), and this was subsequently followed up in 2008 by a DG MOVE study ‘Lower NOx at Higher Altitudes: Policies to Reduce the Climate Impact of Aviation NOx Emission’. At that time, scientific understanding in this field was not considered to be sufficiently mature to indicate a clear course of action from a policy perspective. There have been many scientific developments over the last decade and consequently the co-legislators provided the following mandate within Article 30(4) of the revised EU ETS Directive 2018/410: ‘Before 1 January 2020, the Commission shall present an updated analysis of the non-CO2 effects of aviation, accompanied, where appropriate, by a proposal on how best to address those effects.’ In response to this mandate, the European Commission commissioned a study to EASA covering three main elements: Task 1: What is the most recent knowledge on the climate change effects of non-CO2 emissions from aviation activities? Task 2: What factors/variables have had an impact on these effects (e.g. technology / design, operations, fuel, market based measures)? What is the level of that impact? Do these factors/variables exhibit trade-offs or interdependencies between different emissions? Task 3: What research has been undertaken on potential policy action to reduce non-CO2 climate impacts? What are the pros and cons of these options in terms of implementation? What knowledge gaps exist? An initial project team meeting of key European experts was held on 17th September 2019, followed by a workshop on Tasks 1 and 2 on 20th November with a wider group of experts covering different perspectives within the scientific community. An interim report was delivered on 6th December, with initial thoughts on the three tasks. This report was used to focus the subsequent work, with a further project team meeting on 20th February 2020 and an additional expert workshop on Task 3 on 12th March.



TASK 1: Aviation non-CO2 impacts – current status of science and remaining uncertainties Aviation Radiative Effects

·There are significant scientific uncertainties remaining in quantifying aviation’s non-CO2 impacts on climate. The non-CO2 impacts arise from emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx), soot particles, oxidised sulphur species, and water vapour. These emissions result in changes in the chemical composition of the global atmosphere and cloudiness, perturbing the earth-atmosphere radiation budget. The net impact of aviation non-CO2 emissions is a positive radiative forcing (warming), although there are a number of individual positive (warming) and negative (cooling) forcings arising from respective aviation non-CO2 emissions, for which large uncertainties remain. ·The largest aviation non-CO2 impacts that can be calculated with ‘best estimates’ are those from ‘net-NOx’ and contrail cirrus, both of which have significant uncertainties in their magnitude, particularly contrail cirrus. ·The Effective Radiative Forcing (ERF) from the sum of non-CO2 impacts yields a net positive (warming) that accounts for more than half (66%) of the aviation net forcing in 2018. ·The uncertainty distributions (5%, 95%) show that non-CO2 forcing terms contribute about 8 times more than CO2 to the overall uncertainty in the aviation net forcing in 2018. ·The scientific understanding on the net effect of NOX climate forcing has evolved over the last decade. Research has shown that there is high non-linear chemistry of the interaction of NOX with background concentrations of other emissions at cruise altitudes, and the effect of NOX is dependent on the location it is emitted. While the confidence level on the magnitude of the impact of NOX remains low, the current scientific understanding is that NOX still has a net positive climate forcing effect (i.e. warming). ·If surface emissions of tropospheric ozone precursors (NOx, CH4, CO, non-methane hydrocarbons) decrease significantly and aviation emissions increase, as envisaged by various scenarios, it is possible that the net aviation NOx Effective Radiative Forcing (ERF, see Metrics below) will decrease or even become negative (i.e. cooling) in the future, even with increasing total emissions of aviation NOx. This highlights one of the problems of formulating NOx mitigation policy based on current emissions/conditions. ·Soot particle number emissions show a dependency on the aromatic content of aviation fuels. A decrease in soot particle number emissions reduces the number of ice particles formed, increases the mean crystal size, reduces contrail lifetime and reduces optical depth. This leads to a net reduction in the positive Radiative Forcing (i.e. warming). One study has shown that a ~50% reduction of the number of initial ice particles formed on emitted soot resulted in a ~20% reduction in Radiative Forcing. ·Aerosol-cloud interactions, which are separate to contrail cirrus, also have a potentially large non-CO2 impact from changes in high-level cloudiness from soot particle emissions, and changes in low-level clouds from sulphur emissions. Best estimates of these effects cannot be given at present. The impact of changes in high-level cloudiness has been calculated to be either a positive or negative forcing (warming or cooling), whereas the impact on low level clouds is highly likely to be cooling but with very uncertain magnitude. Greater understanding of the indirect cloud effects of soot particles and sulphur, through aerosol-cloud interactions, is urgently required to formulate effective policy. Metrics ·The scientific community has adopted the metric ‘Effective Radiative Forcing’ (ERF) as a better metric of an absolute impact when compared to Radiative Forcing (RF). This is because it shows better proportionality to changes in global mean surface temperature response particularly for short-lived climate forcing agents such as clouds and aerosols. ·The usage of ERF rather than RF is potentially significant for aviation NOX and contrail cirrus impacts. Aviation ERFs are less well quantified than RFs for net NOx impacts (only one estimate at present), but better quantified for contrail cirrus forcing effects. The available studies suggest that that the aviation net NOx ERF > net NOx RF (by possibly factor ~2) and the contrail cirrus ERF < contrail cirrus RF (by factor 0.3–0.6). Irrespective of which metric is used, ERF or RF, the largest aviation non-CO2 impacts remain ‘net-NOx’ and contrail clouds. ·In terms of comparing aviation CO2 emissions with non-CO2 emissions and their impacts on a common scale, ‘equivalent emissions metrics’ are required (CO2-e). The CO2-e metric that is currently widely used, including within the EU ETS, is the Global Warming Potential for a time-horizon of 100 years (GWP100). ·Formulating aviation emissions equivalencies for short-lived climate forcers (e.g. non-CO2 impacts) with the long-lived greenhouse gas (e.g. CO2), presents scientific and policy challenges. In addressing this, the scientific community has proposed a number of alternatives to the GWP100. There is no exclusively ‘correct’ choice of a CO2 equivalent emissions metric, as the choice depends on the policy (e.g. temperature target, emissions reduction target), and also the subjective choice of time horizon of interest. A particular challenge is associated with the use of emissions metrics to assess policy options that involve a reduction of a short-lived climate forcer with a possible CO2 penalty. ·A simple approach to account for the climate effects of non-CO2 emissions would be to formulate a single CO2 equivalent emissions ‘multiplier’ (for example a net GWP100 based multiplier for aviation non-CO2 impacts), averaged across the aircraft fleet and all atmospheric conditions. However, adopting a single multiplier may not be appropriate because: oThe magnitude of the multiplier depends on the metric chosen, and mostly, the time horizon considered. oThe use of a multiplier does not incentivise reductions of non-CO2 emissions independently of CO2 emissions, neither at the global/regional fleet level nor on an individual flight-by-flight basis. ·Another option, would be to calculate the total climate impact of individual flights and then determine the CO2 equivalent emissions on a flight-by-flight basis. Such equivalents could be used as the basis for a policy instrument, but once again, the magnitude of the equivalency depends on the choice of metric and time horizon. Also, a flight-by-flight basis would require calculating climate impacts of individual flights in space and time, which would be a challenge, even on a statistical or average basis. Mitigation Opportunities ·Technological or operational measures to mitigate aviation’s non-CO2 impacts that involve a reduction of a short-lived climate forcer (e.g. NOx or contrail cirrus), but result in increased CO2 emissions, need to be considered carefully to ensure that the net impact is beneficial. Since CO2 has a very long lifetime in the atmosphere, the ratio between benefits and disbenefits will change with the time horizon being considered. As such, a reduction of short-lived climate forcers might make it easier to achieve climate change targets in the next decades and up to a century. Nevertheless, conservative mitigation approaches that ensure benefits on a wide range of timescales may be possible.

·Aviation emissions of NOx are currently calculated to have a positive RF (warming) and represent a potential mitigation opportunity. However, mitigation of aviation NOX would require a careful consideration of: othe regulatory approach taken as the ICAO NOx emissions regulations allow for increasing emission index of NOx (g NOx per kg fuel) with engine pressure ratio; otechnological trade-offs that might increase fuel consumption and CO2 emissions; othe possibility of technological ‘lock in’ of decreasing NOx over the longer term, when NOx emissions may eventually have an overall cooling effect. ·Reducing the climate impact of aviation by avoiding the formation of contrail cirrus could be achieved by operational means whereby contrail cirrus-forming regions of the atmosphere are avoided. The atmospheric conditions that produce contrail cirrus are associated with ice-supersaturated regions (ISSR) being of the order of tens to hundreds of kilometres wide and hundreds of metres thick. There is some evidence that most of the total forcing comes from a few events, where contrail cirrus formation is large and long-lasting – sometimes termed ‘Big Hits’. It would therefore be advisable that flights impacting these events should be ‘targeted’ for avoidance, rather than all flights, and that research into reliably forecasting such ‘Big Hits’ is undertaken. ·Avoidance of contrail cirrus would require that: othe inherent uncertainties of the contrail cirrus effect are much better quantified (including a better understanding of the differences between the ERF and RF); othe potential impacts of trade-offs from increased CO2 emissions are more thoroughly understood to ensure ‘no regrets policies’, and; oregions of ice-supersaturation can be predicted in a sufficiently accurate manner, at least 24 hours in advance. ometeorological forecast modelling be improved as the capability to forecast persistent contrails is limited. ·Reducing soot particle emissions (by number) from aviation, in particular by means of sustainable low carbon footprint aviation fuels, would be a ‘win-win’ situation for improving air quality and reducing contrail cirrus impact on climate, but by an uncertain amount that requires better quantification from measurements and modelling. This would not require any modification of flight trajectories or incur any additional fuel consumption/CO2 penalty.



TASK 2: Technological and operational options for limiting or reducing non-CO2 impacts from aviation and related trade-off issues Technology ·EASA environmental certification standards already exist for aircraft engine emissions. These include Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) as well as the mass and number of non-volatile Particulate Matter (nvPM) emissions. ·NOX and nvPM emissions are measured during the engine type certification process at various power settings and duration that simulates a reference Landing and Take-Off (LTO) cycle. Uncertainties, and the variability between engine types, of nvPM emissions are greater than for NOX. ·Cruise NOX and nvPM emissions are generally considered to be related to LTO emission trends (i.e. reductions in LTO emissions leads to reductions in cruise emissions), but are less well characterised for newer staged combustion technology. However, work in the ICAO environmental committee is ongoing to provide better cruise emission estimation methods using LTO data. ·A reporting point for NOX and nvPM emissions at cruise thrust settings in the engine emissions certification requirements may allow better inventory quantification and incentivise reductions of NOX and PM emissions in this flight phase.

·The global aircraft fleet NOX performance, in terms of certified data, will improve as older high-NOX engine designs are replaced with combustion technologies such as Rich-Burn, Quick-Mix, Lean-Burn (RQL) and Lean Burn combustors. Emissions of NOx on a per passenger kilometre basis will also show a reduction over time. ·However, the general trend for increased engine overall pressure ratios to provide better specific fuel consumption means that emission indices (g NOx per kg fuel burnt) are likely to increase. Significant overall NOx reductions from new technology beyond Lean Burn and advanced RQL may also be limited. ·Advanced alternative aircraft technology, including electrified aircraft propulsion, is not considered likely to be in service in the next 20 years. Beyond 2040-2050, hybrid/electric aircraft and revised configurations could offer significant reductions in NOx emissions. ·nvPM emissions (mass and number) are likely to improve as engines with technology designed for NOX control enter the fleet (i.e. Lean Burn and advanced RQL). However, technologies to mitigate nvPM are less well understood than NOX. ·Improvements in aircraft fuel efficiency for a given engine combustor technology generally provide a win-win situation for both fuel burn and engine emissions, as well as noise. ·Emissions indices of CO2 (kg CO2 / kg fuel burnt) are derived directly from fuel use estimates, or measured data, and are well understood. ·There are commercial pressures to incentivise fuel burn improvements up to the point where they cease to lower overall costs. This incentive has been reinforced by the introduction of the EASA aeroplane CO2 certification standard ·Potential trade-offs would need to be taken into account between fuel burn/CO2, NOX and nvPM control technologies if more stringent standards are considered for aircraft engine emissions or aeroplane CO2 emissions. Operations ·The Single European Sky (SES) has various environmental performance indicators linked to the fuel efficiency / CO2 emissions of the air traffic management system. This could be further developed to potentially consider the impact of non-CO2 emissions and added to the route-charging concept. ·Improvements in air traffic management that result in a reduction of fuel burn / CO2 emissions will generally reduce non-CO2 emissions. ·Contrail avoidance by changing flight paths horizontally or vertically generally have fuel burn penalties as this involves flying longer distances or at sub-optimum altitudes. Fuel ·International fuel standards contain limits on chemical composition requirements, but are not currently defined with environmental concerns in mind. ·Use of sustainable aviation fuels (biofuels and ‘Power to Liquid’) has shown a reduction in nvPM emissions in LTO and cruise due to their lower aromatic and sulphur content. ·There is scope for improving emission characteristics through the hydrotreatment of conventional fossil fuels to reduce aromatics and sulphur. However, the overall costs and energy requirements need to be examined carefully in order to balance the differential environmental benefits (e.g. reduced soot emissions and contrail climate impact but extra energy for fuel processing, and therefore increased CO2 unless renewable energy is utilized).





TASK 3: Potential policy action to reduce non-CO2 climate impacts Following a review of scientific literature, and expert workshop discussions, a range of potential mitigation measures were identified to reduce the non-CO2 climate impacts of aviation . Based on various criteria in line with EU climate policy goals, the below six options were shortlisted to be considered in greater detail in terms of design, administration, incentives, caveats and constraints, and further research needs. These six options were considered representative of similar considerations and details exhibited by an original longer list of options. Type of Measure Main non-CO2 effect(s) addressed by the measure Financial 1.NOX charge NOX 2.Inclusion of aircraft NOX emissions in EU ETS NOX Fuel 3.Reduction in maximum limit of aromatics within fuel specifications Soot particulates and contrail-cirrus 4.Mandatory use of Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAF) Soot particulates and contrail-cirrus ATM 5.Avoidance of ice-supersaturated areas Contrail-cirrus 6.A climate charge All (NOX, water vapour, soot, sulphates, contrails) 1.NOX charge ·This measure is defined as a monetary charge on the total NOX emissions over an entire flight, approximated by certified Landing Take-Off (LTO) NOX emissions data, the distance flown and a factor accounting for the relation between LTO and cruise emissions. ·A legal analysis from 2009 suggested that neither ICAO’s Chicago Convention nor ICAO’s recommended policies on taxes and charges should prevent the implementation of such a measure. ·This option would incentivise engine manufacturers to reduce LTO NOX emissions during their engine design process, and airlines to minimise NOX emissions in operation, while taking into account associated trade-offs. ·Further research would be needed in these key areas: oUnder certain future scenarios of declining emissions of tropospheric ozone precursors from surface sources, combined with increasing aviation emissions, aviation NOX may lead to a net negative climate forcing (i.e. cooling). As such, there is a need to monitor the scientific understanding of this issue as it further evolves over time.

oExisting analytical methods, such as the Boeing fuel flow method (BFF2) and the DLR fuel flow method, have been used in the past to estimate cruise NOX emissions based on LTO NOX data. However, the robustness of these methods when applied to recent technological developments, such as lean burn staged combustion, is still being assessed and the methods may need to be updated. Research to develop and agree on an accurate, internationally recognised methodology for estimating cruise NOX emissions will be important for the implementation of this measure. oIn order to compare the climate change impact of NOX emissions to CO2 emissions, an appropriate CO2 equivalent emissions metric and time horizon would need to be agreed politically. In doing so, it is important to ensure that the trade-off between NOX and CO2 emissions in engine design does not result in unintended consequences and a resulting net warming effect. oThe level of the charge should reflect the climate damage costs of aircraft NOx emissions. Using the aforementioned metric, these costs could be related to the damage costs of CO2, which are an on-going point of discussion. ·The necessary legislation and implementation of this option would need to be considered within the context of the regulatory framework of the Single European Sky Performance and Charging Scheme , as well as other financial policy options (including those already in place). ·If the outstanding research issues linked to this measure are addressed, and there is the political will to take the option forward, then the measure could potentially be implemented in the mid-term (5 to 8 years). 2.Inclusion of aircraft NOX emissions in EU ETS ·The EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) is a ‘cap and trade’ scheme in which emission allowances for CO2 emissions are traded among incumbent operators in a number of different sectors, including aviation. The system allows opt-ins for emissions of N2O and PFCs for stationary installations. ·This measure would see the extension of the scope of the EU ETS by incorporating aviation NOX emissions. ·As the EU ETS legislation uses the CO2 equivalent emissions metric ‘GWP100’ to convert other greenhouse gases to CO2 equivalents, it is assumed that including aircraft NOX into EU ETS would also require using GWP100. ·This option would incentivise engine manufacturers to reduce NOX emissions during their engine design process, and airlines to minimise NOX emissions in operation, while taking into account associated trade-offs. ·Further research would be needed on the same issues as the ‘NOX charge’ measure. ·In contrast to other measures outlined in this report, this measure could be implemented by adjusting existing ETS legislation and building on existing administrative processes and precedents (e.g. monitoring, reporting, verification and accreditation - MRVA; baseline; cap and auctioned allowances). ·The same EU ETS geographical scope for aviation could be applied to NOX as that for CO2 emissions. ·The uncertainty about the climate impact of NOX, and the potential unintended consequences, introduces a political risk for the integrity of the EU ETS which needs to be taken into account when considering it as an opt-in non-CO2 gas in the EU ETS. In this sense, the measure differs from the ‘NOx charge’. ·If the outstanding research issues linked to this measure are addressed, and there is the political will to take the option forward, then the measure could potentially be implemented in the mid-term (5 to 8 years).

3.Reduction in maximum limit of aromatics within fuel specifications ·This measure would entail reducing the maximum volume concentration of aromatics within fuel uplifted at European airports. ·Lower aromatics in fuels provide a cleaner burn and reduced non-volatile Particulate Matter (nvPM) emissions, which are directly linked to contrail cirrus formation and radiative properties. In addition, the reduction in aromatics improves the energy density of the fuel, which reduces the mass of fuel needed for a specific flight and results in a small reduction in overall fuel burn / CO2 emissions (approx. 1%). ·The aromatics concentration could be reduced through blending certain sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) with conventional Jet A-1 fuel, through hydro-treatment of Jet A-1 fuel or through changes in production processes by refineries. ·Jet A-1 fuel is the most commonly used aviation fuel in the world. Its fuel specifications are managed through the four main standardisation committees, including US ASTM (D1655) and UK DEF STAN (91-091). Engagement with these committees to discuss the climate benefits of low aromatic fuels will be crucial. ·This measure would require fuel producers to adapt their production processes to meet the new standard, which may result in higher CO2 emissions in refineries. ·Further research would be needed in these key areas: oThe scientific understanding of the contribution of nvPM to the formation of contrail cirrus is evolving, but confidence level in the magnitude of the net positive climate forcing effect (i.e. warming) is low. As such, there is a need to monitor the scientific understanding of this issue as it further develops over time. oA cost-effectiveness assessment is needed to assess options for reducing the aromatics limit. While the maximum volume concentration of aromatics is 25 volume percent, the actual content in Jet A-1 fuel currently used within the aviation sector is not well known. Studies have revealed that it can vary extensively. As such, the specifications of fuels being used in Europe will need to be monitored in order to be able to assess the impact of a reduced maximum limit of aromatics. oSpecial consideration will need to be given to the effect on military aircraft, which can be relatively old compared to commercial aircraft, and the use of lower aromatics fuels may have airworthiness consequences for parts of the engine (e.g. rubber seals) where the fuel supply is shared. For this reason, ASTM and DEF STAN are currently considering an 8% minimum aromatics limit for fossil based fuels, though this is currently just guidance. oA system to monitor the aromatics content of fuels used in the aviation sector would need to be set up to ensure that the policy delivers the anticipated benefits. ·Existing fuel specification committees use a consensus-driven, technical approach. While a legally imposed EU standard would ensure a specific outcome, it would disrupt the current global approach to managing fuel quality standards. ·An alternative option to this measure could be an incentive for the sale of fuel with low aromatics. ·If the outstanding research issues linked to this measure are addressed, and there is the political will to take the option forward, then the measure could potentially be implemented in the mid- (5 to 8 years) to long- term (+8 years). 4.Mandatory use of Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAF) ·This measure would entail the mandatory use of SAF, for instance through an EU blending mandate specifying that a certain percentage of the total Jet A-1 fuel sold in Europe over a set time period would have to be SAF.

·Within the European regulatory framework, SAF would be defined as per the criteria in the new Renewable Energy Directive (RED II) 2018/2001/EU. ·SAF typically have lower aromatic concentrations and thus the same benefits as summarised in the ‘Reduction in maximum limit of aromatics within fuel specifications’ measure, as long as the aromatics content in the fossil part of the blend does not increase and offset the benefits. In addition, SAF also have lower lifecycle CO2 emissions compared to conventional fossil based fuels and lower sulphur content resulting in lower SO4 emissions. ·This measure would incentivise the use of SAF in the single market by providing certainty to SAF producers and an impetus to up-scale their production and benefit from economies of scale. It may also increase airline operational costs, depending on the size of the mandate and subsequent supply-side response from the SAF market. ·Further research would be needed in these key areas: oBlending mandates have already been introduced or announced in individual European states. A cost-benefit assessment would be needed to inform a decision on the level of an EU blending mandate. This assessment would need to consider realistic yet ambitious levels, the impact on stakeholders and potential implementation processes (e.g. a dynamic blending mandate that increases over time in order to provide certainty to the market for long-term investments). oAs per option (3), a system to monitor the characteristics of SAF being used in operation within Europe would be needed to ensure compliance with the mandate and provide valuable oversight on the environmental benefits from this measure. ·A ‘control point’ will need to be identified (e.g. blending location), where the total SAF going to the aviation sector in Europe can be identified and hence compliance with the blending mandate can be monitored. This could build on existing legislation (e.g. RED II, FQD). ·The mandating of SAF results could be considered as a holistic approach with simultaneous reductions in CO2, nvPM and sulphur emissions, although it does not address NOx emissions. ·If the outstanding research issues linked to this measure are resolved, and there is the political will to take the option forward, then the measure could potentially be implemented in the short- (2 to 5 years) to mid- term (5 to 8 years). 5.Avoidance of ice-supersaturated areas ·This measure involves optimizing flight trajectories to avoid climate-sensitive regions, such as ice-supersaturated areas, in order to reduce the climate impact of aviation. This can be considered a potential first step towards full optimisation of flight profiles for climate impacts. ·Contrails are largely formed in ice-supersaturated and low-temperature areas, and thus avoiding these regions reduces contrail cirrus occurrence that have a net positive radiative forcing effect (i.e. warming). ·Prior to a flight plan being filed, Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSPs) and airline operators would need to have all the relevant information (e.g. temperature, humidity) in order to identify the ice-supersaturated areas. The route network would also have to be designed to allow such deviations based on this pre-flight tactical planning. ·Further research would be needed in these key areas: oA pilot project involving ANSPs, ICAO, meteorological institutes and airlines operating over the Atlantic would be needed to assess the feasibility and benefits of this measure. This should include the effect of such a measure on existing Single European Sky operational initiatives such as Free Route Airspace. Implementation over mainland European airspace would be a challenge as this region already faces capacity constraints during daily peak periods. oFlight detours (horizontal and vertical) to avoid ice-supersaturated areas are likely to have an impact on airlines in terms of costs, and will also lead to trade-offs with regard to fuel burn and emissions (e.g. CO2 and NOX). An appropriate CO2 equivalent emissions metric that permits a comparison between the climate change impact of contrail-cirrus and other aviation emissions will be required to determine the maximum detour that still ensures an overall reduction in climate impact from a flight. oMost of the contrail cirrus forcing that results in significant warming is believed to be due to a few large-scale events. It would therefore be advisable to ‘target’ flights that impact these events, rather than all flights. Identification of these few large-scale events should be a topic of further research as meteorological forecast models presently have only limited capability to predict persistent contrails correctly in time and space.

·Demonstration and communication on the environmental benefits would be needed, as well as potentially additional incentives, to ensure buy-in from stakeholders. ·If the outstanding research issues are addressed, including positive results from a pilot-phase project in the short-term, and there is the political will to take the option forward, then the measure could potentially be implemented in a more complete form in the mid-term (5-8 years). 6.A climate charge ·The concept of this policy measure is to levy a charge on the full climate impact of each individual flight. This makes it both the measure with the broadest coverage and the one that is likely to be the most complicated to implement. ·The introduction of a charge requires a good estimate of the climate costs at a flight level. Currently, there is no scientific consensus on the methodology to calculate these costs. ·It could be argued that a levy that aims to internalise the external costs would be considered a charge and not a tax. In this case, the charge would be related to recover the external costs of the climate impact of aviation ·Further research would be needed on the same issues as the ‘Avoidance of ice-supersaturated areas’ measure, but with a larger geographical scope and including the level of the charge to be set for the climate damage costs of CO2, which is an on-going point of discussion. ·The necessary legislation and implementation of this option will need to be considered within the context of the regulatory framework of the Single European Sky Performance and Charging Scheme . ·Significant more research is needed to develop and define this measure. If there is the political will to take this forward, then the measure could potentially be implemented in the long-term (+8 years).





CONCLUDING REMARKS The latest scientific understanding on the climate change effects of non-CO2 emissions from aviation activities has advanced over the last 10 years. While uncertainties remain with regard to these impacts, and how to assess them in terms of CO2 equivalent emissions metrics, there are a range of policy options with associated pros and cons that the European Commission could evaluate. Specific research issues, which are identified this report, would need to be addressed in order to take these options forward.



[placeholder for aviation-related illustration]

1. INTRODUCTION In order to achieve the Paris Agreement global temperature goals, it is recognised that the aviation sector will need to provide a contribution to reductions in Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. In this respect, in addition to the actions aimed at reducing or mitigating the climate change impact from CO2, measures to address non-CO2 climate effects (e.g. NOx, SO2, sulphate aerosols and soot particles) need to be investigated. There have been several requests by the co-legislators, particularly the European Parliament, for aviation’s non-CO2 emissions to be scrutinised and possibly addressed through policy/legislative means. In 2006, the Impact Assessment for the EU ETS Directive analysed the possibility of also regulating NOx, and this was subsequently followed up in 2008 by a DG MOVE study ‘Lower NOx at Higher Altitudes: Policies to Reduce the Climate Impact of Aviation NOx Emission’. At that time, scientific understanding of the impact of NOX emissions was not considered to be sufficiently mature to indicate a clear course of action from a policy perspective. There have been many scientific developments over the last decade and consequently the co-legislators provided the following mandate within Article 30(4) of the revised EU ETS Directive in 2018: ‘Before 1 January 2020, the Commission shall present an updated analysis of the non-CO2 effects of aviation, accompanied, where appropriate, by a proposal on how best to address those effects.’

In response to this mandate, DG MOVE and DG CLIMA initiated discussions with EASA during spring 2019 to perform this analysis. The tasks specifications (Appendix 1) included three main elements: Task 1: What is the most recent knowledge on the climate change effects of non-CO2 emissions from aviation activities? 1A. Which metric and time horizon may be used to measure these effects? 1B. What is the level of scientific understanding of these effects and what are the related uncertainties? Task 2: What factors/variables have had an impact on these effects (e.g. technology / design, operations, fuel, market based measures)? What is the level of that impact? Do these factors/variables exhibit trade-offs or interdependencies between different emissions? Task 3: What research has been undertaken on potential policy action to reduce non-CO2 climate impacts? What are the pros and cons of these options in terms of implementation? What knowledge gaps exist? In order to meet the ambitious timescales of an interim report in December 2019 and a final report by April 2020, significant outreach was made to key European experts in this field, and provisional telecons / meetings agreed (Appendix 2), in order to secure their participation and availability prior to the start of the contract in August 2019. An initial project team meeting was held on Tuesday 17 September 2019 at the EASA offices in Brussels, with the objective of taking forward discussions on all three tasks and development of the overall project schedule. As per the task specifications, it was agreed to hold a workshop on Tasks 1 and 2 on Wednesday 20th November at the EASA office in Brussels with a wider group of experts covering different perspectives within the scientific community. Initial thoughts on the three tasks were provided by the project team in order to place the project in context and stimulate an interactive discussion. The output from this workshop was subsequently taken into account when developing the Interim Report that was completed on Friday 9th December 2019 (Appendix 3). The Interim Report provided an overview of the work done up to that point, and the evolving views based on these initial discussions. It also provided an indication of the future work to finalise the report, including the shortlisted potential policy options to be considered in more detail under Task 3.

A further project team meeting was held on Wednesday 20th February 2020 to discuss the Task 3 policy options, and an additional workshop focused on Task 3 was organised on Thursday 12th March to obtain feedback from experts in the relevant fields. The presentations and output from this workshop (Appendix 4) fed into this Final Report that was delivered on Friday 3rd April.

[placeholder for aviation-related illustration]



2. TASK 1: Aviation Non-CO2 Impacts – Current status of science and remaining uncertainties 2.1 Aviation emissions in context The climate impact of aviation emissions has been recognized for many years with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC, 1999) Special Report ‘Aviation and the Global Atmosphere’ being a landmark. This IPCC report highlighted aviation’s impacts on climate using the metric ‘radiative forcing of climate’ through its CO2 and a range of non-CO2 impacts. Updated assessments since then have been published by Sausen et al. (2005) and Lee et al. (2009; L09), and a further update has recently been published (Lee et al., 2020; L20 – see Appendix 5). Aviation’s non-CO2 emissions of importance to climate include water vapour, SO2, soot particles, and oxides of nitrogen (NOx, where NOx = NO + NO2). The main climate forcing agents from aviation emissions include: Emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) from civil aviation in 2018 represented around 2.4% of annual CO2 emissions from total global fossil fuel emissions and land-use change emissions using data from the International Energy Agency and Le Quéré et al. (2018). The cumulative amount of emissions of CO2 is more important than any given year’s emissions (IPCC, 2013). Aviation’s long-term cumulative emissions between 1940 and 2018 amount to ~33 billion (109) tonnes (IEA and other data, L20), of which ~9.5 billion tonnes have been emitted since 2005 (29%). Emissions of water vapour (H2O) have a well-quantified emission index (g H2O/kg fuel burnt) for current fossil-fuel based kerosene, so can be easily calculated if the fuel burn is reliably known. The direct climate effect of water vapour is relatively small for the current subsonic fleet at current cruise altitudes (2.8 mW m-2 of a total aviation signal of 78 mW m-2, see Figure 2), but emitted water vapour plays an important role in the initial formation of contrails (see section 2.2). Emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) from current-day subsonic civil aviation result in (i) the formation of ozone (O3, a greenhouse gas) in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere, where today’s fleet of subsonic aircraft cruise, and (ii) the destruction of a small amount of ambient methane, another greenhouse gas, originating largely from natural, agricultural, waste and industrial sources . The emission of NOx from global aviation is estimated to be around 1.4 Tg N yr-1, compared with around 42 Tg N yr-1 from surface anthropogenic sources . While aviation emissions appear to be a small fraction of total emissions, they have a larger specific radiative forcing (W/m2 per unit emission) than surface sources of NOx. Aviation NOx emissions are relatively well quantified compared with other anthropogenic and natural sources, although there are uncertainties regarding scaling of ground-level to cruise altitude emission indices for some modern engine types (see section 3.4.3). Emissions of sulphur dioxide (SO2) are the result of the combustion of kerosene whose composition includes hydrocarbons containing sulphur (S). Most of the S is emitted as gaseous sulphur dioxide (SO2), but a small fraction of about 5% is fully oxidised within the engine to form gaseous sulphuric acid (H2SO4), which subsequently condenses on the surfaces of other ambient or soot particles. The larger fraction of emitted SO2 goes on to form condensed particles as sulphate in the plume and ambient atmosphere. The fuel S content can be easily measured and has a regulatory limit of 3,000 parts per million by volume (ppm by mass). In practice, S is thought to be present in fuel at levels averaging ~600 – 800 ppm(m) (Miller et al., 2010), but data are not readily available. The global emissions of S from aircraft are estimated to be small at ~0.2 Tg S yr-1 (compared with surface anthropogenic sources of ~53 Tg S yr-1). Emissions of soot particles from aircraft are largely the result of incomplete combustion of fuel from the aromatic and naphthalene content (Ebbinghaus and Wiesen, 2001). Soot particles are present in large number concentrations in the initial plume (milli-seconds to seconds) and, under certain ambient conditions of ambient temperature and water vapour, they play a role in the formation of contrails (see section 2.2). The global emissions from aviation are estimated to be ~0.01 Tg (range 0.001 to 0.02 Tg y-1) soot particles yr-1 compared with surface anthropogenic sources of around 4.8 Tg (range 3.6 to 6.0) soot particles yr-1 (IPCC, 2013). Emissions of soot particles during the landing and takeoff cycle are becoming better understood through the engine type certification process (see section 3.3) although emissions at cruise conditions are poorly quantified as emissions indices (mg soot particles per kg fuel burnt) for soot particulate mass and number can vary according to the particular combustor design in the engine type. In addition, high-quality reference data are not publicly available, and the scaling from ground-level to cruise-level emission indices is not well quantified (see section 3.4.3). Key points from 2.1: ØAviation emissions of NOx are relatively well quantified and amount to ~1.4 Tg N yr-1 in 2018 or ~3% of anthropogenic sources. ØEmissions of SO2 are not well quantified because of poor availability of fuel sulphur content data, but are likely to be below 0.2 Tg S or 0.4% of global sulphur emissions. ØSoot particle number and mass emissions for individual current aircraft are not as well quantified as NOx LTO emissions and poorly quantified for cruise conditions. The fleet emissions are thought to be ~0.01 Tg or some 0.2% of global anthropogenic emissions. ØDespite relatively low emissions compared to other sources, aviation emissions in relatively clean parts of the atmosphere can have a disproportionally large impact.

2.2 The effects of aviation on climate 2.2.1 Radiative forcing of climate The metric ‘radiative forcing’ (RF) of climate has been used by the scientific community and the IPCC for many years as a useful proxy for expected global mean surface temperature change. This is because there is an approximately linear relationship between the RF (watts per square metre W m-2) since the onset of industrialization that is taken to be 1750, and the expected equilibrium change in global mean surface temperature (ΔTs in kelvin), with the climate sensitivity parameter (λ, in kelvin per Wm-2) as the multiplying factor, i.e.: ΔTs = λ RF [1] There are a number of definitions of RF. In its simplest form, it is the instantaneous change in total irradiation (incoming short wave solar radiation minus the outgoing long wave terrestrial radiation) at the top of the atmosphere since 1750 due to a climate forcing mechanism with everything else being fixed. For most climate forcers, a better definition is the ‘stratosphere-adjusted radiative forcing’, in which the stratosphere is allowed to reach a new radiative equilibrium upon the introduction of a climate forcing agent while other climate variables are held constant. The stratosphere-adjusted RF allows a better approximation of the linear relationship in [1]. More recently, there has been a shift away from RF, particularly for forcing agents that are either horizontally or vertically inhomogeneously distributed, such as aerosols, contrails or aviation-induced ozone. The metric ‘effective radiative forcing’ (ERF) was introduced by the IPCC (2013) in their Fifth Assessment Report as it is a better predictor of the equilibrium change in global mean surface temperature to a forcing, by accounting for rapid adjustments in the atmosphere (e.g. thermal structure of the atmosphere, clouds, aerosols etc.) but maintaining sea surface temperatures constant. This is illustrated as case (d) in Figure 1 (IPCC, 2013). Figure 1. Schema comparing (a) instantaneous RF, (b) RF, which allows stratospheric temperature to adjust, (c) flux change when the surface temperature is fixed over the whole Earth (a method of calculating ERF), (d) the ERF calculated allowing atmospheric and land temperature to adjust while ocean conditions are fixed and (e) the equilibrium response to the climate forcing agent. The methodology for calculation of each type of forcing is also outlined. ΔTo represents the land temperature response, while ΔTs is the full surface temperature response. (Updated from Hansen et al., 2005.) From AR5 WG1, Chapter 8, Figure 8.1 (Myhre et al., 2013). The ERF is relevant to aviation non-CO2 effects as potentially significant differences exist for the net-NOX effect through responses to ozone and methane atmospheric chemistry (estimates of ERF > RF, Ponater et al., 2005) and contrails (estimates of ERF < RF, Bickel et al., 2019; Ponater et al., 2006; Rap et al., 2010). In all cases, it is emphasised that the nature of RF, in any form, is ‘backward looking’ and informs on the current perturbation of the radiation budget from historical and current-day emissions. It does not inform on potential future changes, nor does it directly provide any emission equivalence on the climate impact of CO2 and non-CO2 emissions. As such, RF or ERF are of relevant for understanding science, but are unsuited for direct use in policy or regulation that considers emissions equivalency. 2.2.2 Aviation radiative effects Aviation emissions have a number of radiative effects. These are summarized in the bullet points below and described in more detail in following sub-sections, illustrated by the latest available assessment of Lee et al. (2020) using the ERF metric, shown in Figure 2. ·CO2 – a positive RF (warming effect) as a long-lived greenhouse gas (LLGHG) that is a direct result of burning fossil fuel kerosene. ·Water vapour – a positive RF (warming effect) as a short-lived climate forcer (SLCF) that is a direct result of burning fossil fuel kerosene. ·Sulphate particles – a negative direct RF (cooling effect). ·Soot particles – a positive direct RF (warming effect). ·NOx – a net positive RF (warming effect). Net effect is the sum of the rapid formation of ozone (warming effect), the slower destruction of ambient methane CH4 (cooling effect), and the indirect effects on stratospheric water vapour and long-term background ozone (cooling effect). There are less well quantified effects on aerosols. ·Contrails and contrail cirrus – a net positive RF (warming) from the formation of linear contrails and their spreading into contrail cirrus clouds.

·Aerosol-cloud interactions from soot, sulphate, and nitrate – the indirect effect on high altitude ice cloud formation has an RF effect of uncertain sign and magnitude, and likely a negative RF (cooling) from lower level warm clouds (no best estimate included in Figure 2). Figure 2. Best-estimates for climate forcing terms from global aviation from 1940 to 2018. The bars and whiskers show ERF best estimates and the 5–95% confidence intervals, respectively. Red bars indicate warming terms and blue bars indicate cooling terms. Numerical ERF and RF values are given in the columns with 5–95% confidence intervals along with ERF/RF ratios and confidence levels. RF values are multiplied by the respective ERF/RF ratio to yield ERF values. ERF/RF values designated as [1] indicate that no estimate is available yet.. Taken from Lee et al. (2020). The two largest quantifiable non-CO2 effects, which have much shorter atmospheric timescales than CO2, are the net NOx effect and contrail cirrus. In addition, aerosol-cloud interactions represent potentially large effects although there are no consensus best estimates of these effects. These are all described in a little more detail below. NOX Emissions result in the production of ozone (O3) through gas-phase chemistry in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere (a positive RF – warming effect) with impacts on timescales of weeks and the destruction of ambient CH4 (a negative RF – cooling effect) with impacts on timescales of decades, with a net positive balance of warming for current day conditions. These effects are well known, and many studies have confirmed this over the last 20 years. During the last 10 years, additional secondary effects associated with the NOx effects on CH4 have been quantified, including the decrease in stratospheric water vapour resulting from decreased CH4 abundance (Myhre et al., 2011), and a decrease in the long-term background O3 in the troposphere from reduced background CH4 (Holmes et al., 2011). These additional effects have contributed to a decrease in current estimates of the net positive RF (warming effect) from NOx. Another recent development has been the reformulation of the basic CH4 forcing according to Etminan et al. (2016), who showed that the 1750 – 2011 RF is about 25% greater than estimated in the IPCC (2013) AR5 assessment by inclusion of the shortwave forcing. For aviation, this means that the cooling impact of CH4 reduction from aircraft NOx is stronger (greater negative RF). A recent study (Grewe et al., 2019) indicates that a more advanced consideration of the longer lifetime of the methane effect, and a more accurate attribution of the aviation NOx emissions using the so-called ‘tagging’ technique to the abundance of short-term O3, results in a smaller cooling from methane and a larger warming from ozone, which both increase the net warming from aircraft NOx emissions. The reduction in the CH4 effect is somewhat offset by a revised formulation of the forcing of CH4 by Etminan et al. (2016). The net effect is to increase the net NOX forcing by ~71%, including the revised formulation and steady-state of CH4 with a further increase of a factor of 1.26 of the net NOx forcing. Both the reformulation of the CH4 forcing of Etminan et al. (2016) and the steady-state to equilibrium correction were included in the net NOx assessment of Lee et al. (2020), shown in Figure 2. The assessment of Grewe et al. (2019) does not include any consideration of the ERF, which may increase the net NOx forcing effect further (Lee et al., 2020). The net-NOx effect of aviation is the result of highly non-linear atmospheric chemistry and is also inextricably linked to the state of the background atmosphere. Thus, the net NOx climate effect from aviation emissions is dependent on background conditions. In other words, the magnitude of the aviation net NOx effect can be different for the same magnitude of aviation emissions due to different magnitudes of background concentrations from precursor emissions emitted by other sources. Under future emission scenarios of declining emissions of tropospheric ozone precursors, including CH4 (e.g. RCP4.5) from surface sources, combined with “business as usual” increasing aviation emissions, a net negative RF (cooling) of aviation NOx may result (Skowron et al., 2020; Hauglustaine, pers. comm., 2020). However, it should also be recalled that for current day conditions, the net-NOx forcing is positive, (i.e. warming) by somewhere between ~15 to 30 mW m-2. Contrail and contrail-cirrus modelling of radiative effects have improved markedly over recent years with incorporation of process-based modelling into regional and global models (Burkhardt and Kärcher, 2011; Chen and Gettelman, 2013; Schumann et al., 2015). Contrails predominately cool if the zenith angle is large, i.e. the sun is close to the horizon, and they warm if the zenith angle is small, i.e. the sun is high in the sky. However, contrails exclusively warm at night by reducing the outgoing infra-red radiation flux, thereby resulting in a net positive (warming) RF (Meerkötter et al., 1999). More recently, it has been observed that air traffic appears to increase the optical thickness of pre-existing cirrus clouds, which would likely be a net cooling effect (Tesche et al., 2016). A normalized figure of the radiative forcing by contrails and contrail-cirrus was estimated by the IPCC (2013) to be 50 mW m-2 (90% uncertainty range, 20 to 150 mWm-2) for 2011.

Contrail and contrail cirrus process models show a dependence of RF on soot particle number emissions, to varying degrees. As such, a decrease in soot particle number emissions reduces the number of ice particles formed, increases the mean crystal size, reduces contrail lifetime and reduces optical depth. Consequently this leads to a net reduction in the positive RF warming effect (Bier and Burkhardt, 2019). However, the reduction in the associated RF is less than that of the decrease in soot particles, e.g. a ~50% reduction of the initial ice particles (formed on emitted soot) results in a ~20% reduction of the positive RF. In addition, when estimating the impact of contrail cirrus on surface temperatures it is important to switch to the ERF metric (Ponater et al., 2005; Rap et al., 2010, Bickel et al., 2019) which is reduced relative to the RF estimates by ~50% or more. Bickel et al. (2019) showed that the largest factor at play reducing the forcing was the negative feedback that decreased natural clouds as contrail cirrus dehydrates the surrounding atmosphere, as earlier observed in the model simulations of Burkhardt and Kärcher (2011). There are several elements to the forcings shown in Figure 2 that will be updated in the new assessment of aviation ERF (see Appendix 5). These include: accounting for increased emissions from the baseline year of 2005 to 2018; reassessment of direct radiative effects of particles and water vapour; inclusion of the secondary negative effects of NOx on CH4 in the net-NOx effect (reductions in stratospheric water vapour and long-term background ozone); updated assessment of the CH4 RF term from Etminan et al. (2016); updated assessment of a combined linear contrail plus contrail cirrus effect; depiction of the indirect aerosol-cloud interactions and accounting for ERFs vs RF of net-NOx and contrail-cirrus terms. Aerosol-cloud interactions. The indirect radiative effects of S, N and soot are potentially large, relative to the effects of other aviation emissions, but current estimates are highly uncertain. The radiative effect on low-level clouds is likely to be negative (cooling) and potentially of a large magnitude (tens of mW m-2), relative to other aviation RF effects (Gettelman and Chen 2013; Kapadia et al., 2014; Righi et al., 2013). The radiative indirect effect of soot on upper tropospheric (cirrus) clouds has been estimated to potentially be relatively very large (hundreds of mW m-2), but current estimates range from negative, to near zero, through to positive values (Gettelman and Chen, 2013; Pitari et al., 2015; Zhou et al., 2014; Zhou and Penner, 2014; Penner et al., 2018) by approximately -350 to +210 mW m-2 in this literature. The ranges of potential forcings for aerosol cloud interactions was examined by Lee et al. (2020) and is illustrated in that paper (see Appendix 5). 2.2.3 Uncertainties This section considers some of the uncertainties associated with the main RF effects from aviation emissions. The principal uncertainties associated with the CO2 ERF term lies in the history of emissions and the usage of CO2 ERF. Aviation CO2 emissions are well quantified from 1971 onwards through International Energy Agency (IEA) data on aviation kerosene usage. However, there is greater uncertainty (±20%) for the period 1940 to 1970, which is taken as the start of ‘significant’ aviation activity (Sausen and Schumann, 2000). Estimates of the uncertainties of the net NOx ERF of 17.5 mW m-2 still remain large (0.6 – 29 mW m-2, for 95% confidence interval, Lee et al., 2020) because of model-to-model variability in results. This may be associated with the set-up and assumptions of models, in terms of aviation and surface emissions, or other treatments of atmospheric processes including boundary-layer schemes, convection, chemical mechanisms and large-scale meteorological processes. One of the uncertainties is the way attribution of climate impact is made to a sector or emission source. Since the chemistry is non-linear, removal of a source to determine the magnitude of its impact is not necessarily the best way to quantify this, although it is the most practical in many circumstances. Alternative techniques are available, such as ‘tagging’ of NOx molecules to sources (Grewe, 2013), or computing smaller perturbations of the source of interest, which are then linearly scaled (Myhre et al., 2011). However, there is no single method that solves this non-linear attribution problem. For example, NOx can be ‘tagged’ to avoid non-linearities invoked by differencing techniques to assess the short term ozone effect (i.e. the model runs ‘with’ and ‘without’ aviation), but the CH4 reduction has only been determined by differencing so far. Linear scaling of small perturbations may also lose the non-linear characteristics that the technique is attempting to capture. In terms of the ERF (cf RF) of aviation NOx impacts, these are particularly poorly researched with only one study being available for aviation perturbations (Ponater et al., 2005). There is considerable uncertainty with the aviation net NOx effect for future scenarios. As the chemistry is highly non-linear, the size of the aviation RF effect varies with the associated future changes in surface emissions of ozone precursors. To put it another way, the size of the net NOx RF effect can vary for the same aviation NOx emissions, depending on background conditions (Skowron et al., 2020). The principal uncertainties around the contrail cirrus effect are linked to the dependence on soot particle number emissions, the contrail optical properties, the time evolution of the contrail cirrus and the ERF (vs RF).

Indirect aerosol-cloud interaction radiative effects from soot, S, and N have very large uncertainties that preclude any best estimates. This is an important area for future research as these effects could be significant and are currently poorly understood. Key points from 2.2: ØEffective radiative forcing (ERF), which takes fast adjustments to a RF into account, is an improved metric of climate change relative to RF, in that it better quantifies the relationship between forcing and a change in global mean surface equilibrium temperature response. ERF is being widely adopted across the scientific community, and notably by the IPCC. ØA number of aviation non-CO2 emissions have an effect on climate. The largest of these effects are the forcing from the current-day net NOx effect and contrail cirrus. However, these effects are quantified with low confidence and still subject to considerable uncertainty (see Appendix 5). ØIt has been found in recent years that the net-NOx RF has additional associated negative (cooling) terms, although the current overall net signal is still one of warming. The ERF of net-NOx is poorly known, with only one study that allows a correction from RF to ERF. However, this change in metric may increase the climate impact by a factor of ~2. Future forcing from aircraft NOx is not well understood as the aviation effect is greatly affected by changes in background composition of the atmosphere, potentially even to a change in sign of the effect, i.e. from warming to cooling. ØModelling of contrail cirrus has vastly improved in recent years with incorporation of the formation process into global and regional models. Nevertheless, the uncertainties remain large (see Appendix 5). The ERF/RF of contrail cirrus has been estimated to be somewhere between 0.35 and 0.7, with a mean of 0.42. ØThere are potentially large effects from the impact of soot particles on ice clouds, but the sign of the forcing is not known with confidence. There are also potentially large effects of S, N, and soot on lower-level clouds. This is likely to be a negative forcing (cooling), but there is low confidence in the magnitude. Both are important areas for future research. 2.3 CO2 equivalent emissions metrics The concept of Global Warming Potentials (GWP) was introduced in the First Assessment Report of the IPCC (IPCC, 1990) as an illustration of difficulties related to comparing the climate impacts of emissions of different gases. It was later adopted as the metric for calculating so called “CO2-equivalent emissions” (CO2-e) in order to provide a flexible mechanism to signatories of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to reduce their emissions of long-lived GHGs. Emissions equivalence metrics were also supposed to be able to be used in policy measures such as emissions trading schemes; once again, to give flexibility to participants. The Global Warming Potential (GWP) for a time horizon of 100 years, despite much discussion and debate, has remained the metric of choice within UNFCCC and adopted within the EU. This choice is still in discussion for the implementation phase of the Paris Agreement. The calculation of GWP has progressively been extended to short-lived climate forcers such as NOx, soot, sulphate, etc. and applied to aviation forcing agents (e.g. Fuglestvedt et al., 2010; Lee et al., 2010). As discussed below, there are important limitations to GWP as a metric to aggregate forcing agents with very different temporal behaviour. In the case of aviation, emissions metrics have been of interest in order to determine CO2 emission equivalencies of its non-CO2 forcing agents. A method to place emissions on a common scale is also needed for determining whether technological or operational trade-offs between reductions in aviation non-CO2 SLCFs and corresponding CO2 penalties produce net benefits or disbenefits at particular time horizons (Freeman et al., 2018). There are many emission-equivalence metrics available to approximate non-CO2 emissions to CO2 emissions. There is a wealth of literature on the merits and history of emission equivalency metrics, but the assessments of Fuglestvedt et al. (2003; 2010) provide much of this background. Emission metrics were also the subject of assessment in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, within its Chapter 8 of WGI (Myhre et al., 2013). Here we outline some of the key points. All metrics entail subjective user choices, such as time horizon and none are true ’equivalents’ to CO2, because of its unique behaviour . The biogeochemical cycle of CO2 gives it a unique behaviour amongst LLGHGs in that it accumulates in the atmosphere, a fraction of it for millennia (Archer and Brovkin, 2008). To illustrate the complexity of this without a ‘textbook’ explanation of the carbon cycle, a convenient quote may be taken from the IPCC in the Fourth Assessment Report summary of Chapter 7 of WGI (IPCC, 2007; Denman et al., 2007):

“Carbon dioxide cycles between the atmosphere, oceans and land biosphere. Its removal from the atmosphere involves a range of processes with different time scales. About 50% of a CO2 increase will be removed from the atmosphere within 30 years, and a further 30% will be removed within a few centuries. The remaining 20% may stay in the atmosphere for many thousands of years.” Most equivalent emissions metrics have an underlying physical basis. Figure 3, taken from the IPCC WG1 Fifth Assessment Report, Chapter 8 (Myhre et al., 2013), illustrates the definition of the two most commonly discussed and used emission metrics, the GWP and the Global Temperature change Potential (GTP) (Shine et al., 2005). The GWP gives the response of the climate system to a change in a non-CO2 climate forcing agent over a selected time horizon in terms of the integrated radiative forcing (the ‘absolute’ or AGWP represented by the area under the red and green fields), which is divided by the same AGWP for an equal mass emission of CO2 (area of the blue field). The GTP is the resultant change in global mean surface temperature at a given time horizon, again expressed as a dimensionless ratio to the same response (absolute GTP) from an equivalent amount of CO2 emission. Whereas the GWP is an integrating metric, the GTP is an ‘end point’ metric . Both the GWP and GTP are designed to provide a ‘conversion currency’ for climate forcing agents although the original intent was for LLGHGs. Figure 3. (a) The Absolute Global Warming Potential (AGWP) is calculated by integrating the RF due to emission pulses over a chosen time horizon; for example, 20 and 100 years (vertical lines). The GWP is the ratio of AGWP for component i over AGWP for the reference gas CO2. The blue hatched field represents the integrated RF from a pulse of CO2, while the green and red fields represent example gases with 1.5 and 13 years lifetimes, respectively. (b) The Global Temperature change Potential (GTP) is based on the temperature response at a selected year after pulse emission of the same gases; e.g., 20 or 100 years (vertical lines) (taken directly from Figure 8.28 of Myhre et al., 2013). There are a range of derivative metrics from GWP and GTP that express the changes in different ways, for example: ·ATRH: Average Temperature Response over a defined time horizon H (Schwartz Dallara et al. 2011; Grewe and Dahlmann, 2012), an application of GTP; ·MGTP(H): Mean Global Temperature Potential = iAGTP(H)/H (Gillett and Matthews 2010); ·iAGTP(H): Integrated Absolute Global Temperature change Potential (Peters et al. 2011);

·GWP*: An alternative usage of GWP that equates an increase in the emission rate of an SLCF with a one-off “pulse” emission of CO2. (Allen et al., 2018; Cain et al., 2019). It is possible to formulate regional metrics, based on the AGTP, that provide additional insight into the geographical distribution of temperature change beyond that available from traditional global metrics (Lund et al., 2017). In addition, there are a number of other metrics that overlay an economic dimension to the physically based metrics, for example the Global Cost Potential, Global Damage Potential, Global cost Effective Damage Potential (Manne and Richels, 2001; Fuglestvedt et al., 2003; Johannson, 2012). The integrative nature of GWP causes particular issues when used for comparing short-lived climate forcers (such as aviation non-CO2 impacts) with CO2, as it maintains an ‘artificial memory’ (due to the integration) and hence indicates a larger importance of short-lived climate forcers than is ‘felt’ by the climate system in terms of temperature (Fuglestvedt et al., 2010). Put another way, for a pulse of a short lived climate forcer (SLCF), the climate system has forgotten most of this input after about 20 – 30 years (roughly approximating to the thermal equilibrium time of the surface ocean, although the deeper ocean has a longer but smaller response (Boucher and Reddy, 2008). The time-variant nature of the GWP is illustrated in Figure 4 for the simple case of CH4 emissions (not aviation-related), again taken from the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, Chapter 8 (Myhre et al., 2013). Figure 4. Development of AGWP-CO2, AGWP-CH4 and GWP-CH4 with time horizon. The yellow and blue curves show how the AGWPs changes with increasing time horizon. Because of the integrative nature the AGWP for CH4 (yellow curve) reaches a constant level after about five decades. The AGWP for CO2 continues to increase for centuries. Thus, the ratio which is the GWP (black curve) falls with increasing time horizon (taken directly from Figure 8.29 of Myhre et al., 2013). The fundamental differences between emission metrics is clearly illustrated by calculations of ‘net’ GWP- and GTP-weighted emissions (i.e., net CO2-equivalent emissions) for aviation effects (Lee et al., 2020) for a 100-year time horizon, where the net GWP-weighted emissions was 1.7 and the GTP-weighted emissions was 1.1 . A ‘net’ CO2-equivalent emission, as derived from weighting by either GWP or GTP, represents what is commonly referred to as an ‘emissions multiplier’ to account for aviation non-CO2 effects (noting that RFI, see footnote, is an incorrect ‘emissions multiplier’). Additionally, GWP100 can result in negative CO2 equivalent emissions in the case of pulse emissions of aviation NOx for short time horizons (Fuglestvedt et al., 2010), while sustained emissions produce positive CO2 equivalent emissions. A relatively new application of the GWP, referred to as ‘GWP*’, produces a better temperature-based equivalence of short-lived non-CO2 climate forcers than the traditional use of GWP by equating an increase in the emission rate of a Short Lived Climate Forcer with a one-off “pulse” emission of CO2. The GWP* is an example of a ‘flow-based’ method that represents both short-lived and long-lived climate forcers explicitly as ‘warming-equivalent’ emissions that have approximately the same impact on the global average surface temperature over multi-decade to century timescales (Allen et al., 2016; 2018; Cain et al., 2019). GWP*100 for net aviation impacts was calculated by Lee et al. (2020) for recent conditions. The CO2-warming-equivalent emissions based on this method indicate that aviation emissions are currently warming the climate at approximately three times the rate of that associated with aviation CO2 emissions alone. It could be argued that temperature-based metrics, and the GWP*, are potentially more useful for temperature-based policy objectives such as the temperature targets of the Paris Agreement. They also provide a more physical basis of actual impacts than GWPs for SLCFs. Niklaß et al. (2019) addressed whether non-CO2 climate impacts from aviation could be incorporated into the EU-ETS and CORSIA. In Part A of the report, Dahlmann et al. (2019) recommended the usage of the ATR with a 100 year time horizon to be used for emission trading or additional non-CO2 impacts to be incorporated into CORSIA. Their conclusion was based upon a particular mitigation approach of a range of complexity of spatially and temporarily adjusted factors. The potential mitigation options considered in Sections 4 and 5 are wider in approach. Key points from 2.3: ØIn considering mitigating aviation non-CO2 impacts, one of the key considerations is how to formulate emission equivalences between its non-CO2 impacts, which are all short lived climate forcers, and emissions of CO2, a long-lived greenhouse gas. Equivalent emissions metrics are also needed in considering any trade-offs that may arise between the shorter timescale non-CO2 impacts and longer timescale impacts of CO2. ØTemperature-based metrics, and the GWP*, are potentially more useful for temperature-based policy objectives such as the temperature targets of the Paris Agreement. ØAll metrics produce different magnitudes of equivalence (or even sign, positive or negative), based on the user’s choice of either metric or time-horizon. The GWP* and Average Temperature Response (ATR) minimise some dependency of time horizon. Additionally, the ATR provides the same sign for pulse and sustained emissions if it takes an average of the last n years that excludes any negative response (e.g. in the case of aviation net-NOx).

ØMetrics differ in their applicability, with standard metrics comparing pulse emissions as this approach is more adapted to standard policy instruments as discussed in 2.3 and illustrated in Figure 3. ØThis report does not recommend one specific metric, or choice of time horizon. These choices partly depend on the suitability of the metric to a particular mitigation strategy, and partly upon the user’s choices which may be influenced by socio-economic factors, such as equity valuation. ØIPCC (2013) provides a succinct summary of the problems associated with comparing short lived climate forcers with long-lived greenhouse gases: “Ideally, the climate effects of the calculated CO2 equivalent emissions should be the same regardless of the mix of components emitted. However, different components have different physical properties, and a metric that establishes equivalence with regard to one effect cannot guarantee equivalence with regard to other effects and over extended time periods.” (IPCC AR5, Chapter 8, Myhre et al., 2013). 2.4 Mitigation opportunities The mitigation of aircraft NOx emissions can potentially be achieved by technological or operational means. The development of more fuel-efficient aircraft engines has increased the pressure ratio and combustor temperatures, leading to an increase in the average NOx emission index (EINOx – g NOx/kg fuel burn) during the recent decades. The introduction of low-NOX combustion technology has mitigated this increase in EINOx for a given engine pressure ratio. EASA regulations allow a larger EINOx for higher pressure ratio engines. Decreasing NOx emissions for increased pressure ratio engines may involve a fuel-burn penalty (see section 3), although it is thought not to have happened so far (IEIR, 2019). Comparisons of NOx reductions with fuel penalties are difficult and the use of different emissions-equivalency metrics can be invoked to explore the impacts, which can reveal that large emission reductions of NOx, e.g. a 50% reduction for a 2% fuel penalty can actually imply a net climate disbenefit in terms of net forcing over a 100 year timescale (Freeman et al., 2018). Operational options exist for reducing impacts of NOx by modifying cruise altitudes (e.g. Frömming et al., 2012), but if these involved systematic changes (generally lowering) in cruise altitude of current-day aircraft, it would involve a fuel burn penalty, and therefore a CO2 penalty with net RF changes dependent upon the time horizon used. Mitigation options for contrail-cirrus can also be technological or operational. Contrail cirrus ERF can be reduced by reducing the emission index for soot particle number , but at very small soot number emission indices (<1014 kg-1 fuel) well below contrail formation threshold conditions, ultrafine aqueous particles can be activated and form large numbers of ice crystals thereby increasing ERF (Kärcher, 2018) (see Figure 5). Figure 5. Taken from Kärcher (2018). Dependency of nucleated ice crystal number/kg fuel on emitted soot particle number/kg fuel for two contrail threshold formation conditions. For moderate decreases in the soot particle number index, the number of nucleation sites for ice crystals is reduced, resulting in fewer larger crystals, and reducing the optical thickness of the clouds, and also the lifetime of clouds (Bier et al., 2017; Burkhardt et al., 2018). The effect is a reduction of RF (see Figure 6, from Burkhardt et al., 2018), but the real-fleet change is not well known because of large uncertainties in the emissions quantification of soot particle number emissions at cruising conditions, and the microphysical and optical properties of contrail cirrus. Lower aromatic fuels are also an option to reduce soot number emissions and represent a mitigation opportunity with no CO2 penalty (assuming that the fuels are either lower carbon footprint biofuels or synthetic fuels manufactured from renewable energy). The reduction in soot particle number emissions both at ground level and cruise altitudes from lower aromatic content fuels is well established from measurements (see Moore et al., 2015; 2017 and references therein). Figure 6. Global net radiative forcing (RF), given as a fraction of the radiative forcing for the ‘present-day soot number scenario’, as a function of the initial ice particle number concentration of contrails, given as a fraction of the initial ice crystal number concentration for the ‘present-day soot number scenario’. Initial ice crystal numbers were reduced to 0.5, 0.2, and 0.1 of the present-day values (taken from Burkhardt et al., 2018). Changes to more day-time only flights have been suggested, thereby avoiding the larger net warming at night and reducing the impact of linear contrails (Stuber et al., 2006). However, modelling of contrail cirrus shows no net benefit because of the longer lifetime (observed to be up to 18 hours) of the contrail cirrus (Newinger and Burkhardt, 2012).

Changing flight paths to avoid low-temperature ice-supersaturated regions is feasible in order to reduce the positive radiative effects of contrail cirrus, especially as a small proportion of flights produce a large proportion of contrail cirrus. This would require accurate forecasting of ice-supersaturation and temperature (Matthes et al., 2017; Teoh et al., 2020). However, on most occasions, this would involve a fuel burn penalty and therefore additional CO2 emissions (Teoh et al., 2020). Changing route could potentially be environmentally beneficial, even with some additional CO2 emission but there are some important qualifications to this. Gierens (GBD, 2019; 2020 pers. comm.) and more recently Teoh et al. (2020) have shown that potentially much of the annual forcing from contrail cirrus originates from a small number of events, described as ‘Big Hits’. Thus, the argument is that avoidance of ice supersaturated regions (ISSRs) need only be done selectively, which represents a potential mitigation opportunity. If ISSR avoidance were to be applied in European air space, there are a number of scientific considerations to be made (practical air traffic management considerations are outlined in Section 5). Most importantly, ISSRs would need to be accurately predicted in horizontal and vertical extent. While statistics of ISSRs have been made that indicate average horizontal extents are of the order of 100s km and vertical extents of 100 – 200 m (Spichtinger et al., 2003), the statistics of ISSRs that cause ‘Big Hits’ are not well known. This could be problematic from a practical point of view because a rather accurate definition of the vertical extent of ISSR would be required for contrail avoidance. Recent work by Gierens et al. (2020) provides the first comprehensive analysis of the ability of a meteorological model to forecast persistent contrails by comparing reanalysis data from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecast (ECMWF) model, the ‘ERA-5’ data, with aircraft observational data (MOZAIC/IAGOS; Petzold et al., 2015) and satellite data of persistent contrails (Vázquez Navarro et al., 2015). Contrail formation could be predicted quite reliably from thermodynamic conditions, but the weather model had only a poor ability to predict ice supersaturation at the right time and place (Gierens et al., 2020). The weather data were deemed to have “only limited capabilities for estimating real-world contrail formation along an aircraft trajectory”. From the analysis of Gierens et al. (2020), it is clear that much more work is needed to examine the abilities and shortcomings of meteorological models to predict persistent contrail formation correctly in time and space. The other consideration, from an environmental/scientific point of view, is how to assess the net benefit of contrail avoidance. Teoh et al. (2020) have suggested that there could be a net benefit with the RF avoided in the short to medium term by outweighing the consequential long-term CO2 additional RF. Whether this is a ‘benefit’ or ‘disbenefit’, depends on the time horizon over which the additional CO2 ‘effect’ eventually becomes larger than the avoidance ‘effect’ from contrail cirrus. The ‘effect’ can also differ depending on the emissions equivalency metric, e.g. AGWP or AGTP. As has been outlined earlier, there are also significant uncertainties over the magnitude of contrail cirrus RF and ERFs, which would place additional uncertainties on the assessment of ‘benefit/disbenefit’. In case studies, it has been demonstrated that flight planning according to trajectories with minimal climate impact can substantially (up to 50%) reduce the aircraft net climate impacts despite additional CO2 emissions (e.g., Niklaß et al., 2017). However, where trade-offs exist between reduced non-CO2 forcing and increased CO2 forcing, the net benefit or disbenefit depends upon the choice of metric and time-horizon applied. There is a tendency for additional CO2 to cause a net disbenefit for all metrics when very long time horizons are considered. Conservative mitigation approaches (i.e. focusing on a limited number of favourable cases) may be possible in order to ensure a net climate benefit on a wide range of timescales. Key points from 2.4: ØMitigation of NOx emissions has been achieved historically through technological means, although the fleet emission index (g NOX per g fuel burnt) has increased due to the nature of the regulatory metric, which allows increasing NOx emissions with increasing pressure ratio of engines. ØIf NOx emissions are reduced by technological means, this may be at the expense of improved fuel consumption and could ultimately lead to a climate dis-benefit from increased CO2 over longer time horizons. ØContrail cirrus Effective Radiative Forcing is between 0.35 and 0.5 of previously calculated RF (see Section 2.2). The uncertainties on the forcing term still remain large. ØContrail cirrus forcing could be decreased by up to 50% with an 80% reduction in soot particle emission number. This could be achieved by reducing aromatic content of the fuel through the use of either biofuels or synthetic fuels from renewable energy. Further research is needed to address uncertainties in this quantification, but there would be no CO2 penalty. ØContrail cirrus can be reduced by avoiding regions that are conducive to contrail formation. For most cases, this will involve a flight path deviation and fuel burn penalty, and the net benefit (or disbenefit) will depend on the contrail cirrus reduction vs CO2 increase, and time horizon of computation. For contrail cirrus, there seems no benefit in targeting night-time flights since contrail cirrus has a longer lifetime than linear contrails (up to 18 hours) and modelling indicates little variation over day/night even with night-time traffic removed. Nonetheless, avoidance should be studied further, including the degree to which ‘Big Hits’ (large contrail outbreaks, responsible for a large fraction of annual mean forcing) can be accurately forecast. ØMeteorological forecast models need to be analysed further for their ability to predict persistent contrail formation which, at present, is poor. ØThe total climate impact of aviation could be reduced by choosing climate-optimized flight trajectories.



[placeholder for aviation-related illustration]





3. TASK 2: Technological and Operational factors for limiting or reducing non-CO2 impacts from aviation and related trade-off issues 3.1 Introduction Aviation emits a wide variety of gases and aerosols with distinctly different characteristics, which influence climate directly and indirectly via chemical and physical processes as described in Task 1. The principle non-CO2 climate impacts identified in Task 1 are as follows: ·Contrail formation i.e. contrail and contrail cirrus impacts arising from the jet exhaust in particular local atmospheric conditions (temperature and moisture); ·The complex impacts arising from NOx emissions during cruise; ·The complex impacts arising from PM emissions (primary and secondary) during cruise especially their potential links to contrail/cirrus formation. Technological and operational factors determining the emissions/impacts, and potential trade offs between these factors, are presented in this section. In the absence of supersonic civil aircraft in the current fleet, the focus of this report is on subsonic aircraft only. Current policies designed to reduce non-CO2 emissions and their impacts are identified in this section, and consideration is given as to how these existing policies and their likely future direction may impact CO2 and non-CO2 emissions/impacts. Potential future directions for technology will also be discussed, particularly in terms of how these factors may interact with each other. 3.2 Emissions and Impacts 3.2.1 NOx oxides of nitrogen (NOx = NO and NO2) Aviation NOx emissions are formed in the engine combustor at the heart of the aircraft engine. The NOX formation rate is dependent upon the temperature of the flame and system pressure (higher temperature and pressure result in acceleration of NOX formation), the fuel to air ratio in the primary combustion zone and the residence time spent at the flame temperature. Most aviation engine NOx emissions are formed by the thermal route where the nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2) molecules dissociate to their atomic states at high temperature and react with N2 and O2 to form NO (nitric oxide). NO is the primary NOx species produced in the flame and subsequent oxidation of NO to NO2 occurs in the engine and in the ambient environment by O3.

Emissions of NOX from a reference aircraft Landing and Take Off (LTO) cycle are measured as part of the engine type certification process (see section 3.4), and hence the emission indices (g NOX as NO2 per kg fuel burn) during LTO are therefore fairly well known. Full flight emissions of NOX are less well known and estimation methods have been developed (e.g. Boeing Fuel Flow Method BFFM2, DLR fuel flow method) to predict NOX emissions during cruise from the LTO NOX data. However, the suitability of these estimation methods is less certain for newer technologies developed to control NOX such as staged lean burn combustion. Consequently, work is ongoing to establish whether these methods can be applied to this technology. In terms of in-production engines within the current fleet, their NOX emission indices during the LTO varies between around 5 and 65 grams of NOx per kilogram of fuel burnt. Emissions of NOx in the LTO cycle are highest during take-off (i.e. highest thrust settings) and lowest during idle (i.e. lowest thrust settings). For the 2015 global fleet in the ICAO Trends Analysis (ICAO, 2019) the fleet full flight average EINOx was approximately 15.6 grams of NOx (as NO2) per kilogram of fuel burnt. EINOx for the overall LTO cycle are similar to the average EINOx for cruise phase, while EINOx for the climb phase (top of the LTO to cruise altitude) are higher due to the higher thrust levels. 3.2.2 Particulate matter Aviation emission particles can be roughly divided into two categories; non-volatile particulate matter (nvPM) and volatile particulate matter (vPM). The former, nvPM, is usually interpreted as ‘black carbon’ (BC)’ or ‘soot’, which are terms that are sometimes used interchangeably. Here, the term nvPM refers to particles measured at the engine exit and is the basis for the engine emissions certification regulation. The volatile fraction (vPM) is composed of compounds that are in the gas phase at engine exit plane temperatures such as organic compounds. Gaseous emissions from engines can also condense to produce new particles, or coat the emitted soot particles. Additionally, gaseous emissions species react chemically with ambient background chemical constituents in the atmosphere to produce the so-called secondary particulate matter. Volatile particulate matter is dependent on these gaseous precursor emissions, which are controlled by aircraft engine gaseous emissions certification standards and fuel standards (e.g. sulphur content). At the engine exhaust, particulate emissions mainly consist of nvPM. They are present in the high temperature regions at the engine exhaust, and they do not change in mass or number as they mix and dilute in the exhaust plume near the aircraft. The geometric mean diameter of these particles is much smaller than 2.5 µm, which is the operational cut-off used for air quality relevant total PM concentration PM2.5 (particular matter mass smaller than 2.5 µm) and ranges roughly from 15 to 60 nm (0.015 to 0.060 µm). These are classified as ultrafine particles (UFP), and the mass and number of nvPM emissions is primarily dependent on the engine technology. The aircraft engine LTO nvPM mass and number certification standards seek to ensure continuous improvements over time through the introduction of cleaner combustor technologies. LTO nvPM mass and number emission rates for lean burn staged combustor technologies are much lower than for conventional non-staged combustion. Synthetic fuels with low aromatics content can also help to reduce nvPM mass and number emissions, especially at low thrust conditions. Measured LTO nvPM mass and number emissions data, using consistent certification measurement procedures, is being collated as engines come forward for certification against the new nvPM mass and number standard (see section 3.5). LTO emissions of nvPM mass and number are not as well understood as NOX LTO emissions due to greater uncertainties in the sampling and measurement procedures. Emissions of nvPM during cruise are not well characterised, with very little measured data available. As such, work is ongoing to develop suitable estimation methods for cruise nvPM emissions. Emissions Index (EI) of nvPM mass vary from 1-400 mg/kg (i.e. 0.001-0.4 grams per kilogram of fuel burnt) and EI nvPM number are in the range between 5x1013 – 5x1015 particles per kilogram of fuel burnt during the LTO, although for lean burn combustion engines the EIs are much lower. Unlike for NOx emissions, the range in values is large between engine types, the variation of EI nvPM (mass and number) is less predictable and EI versus thrust setting varies considerably between engines. 3.2.3 Fuel burn/Carbon dioxide The emission of carbon dioxide (CO2) is directly proportional to the fuel burnt, and for aviation kerosene the Emission Index is 3.16 kilograms of CO2 per kilogram of fuel burnt (IPCC, 2006). Unlike for NOx and nvPM, the CO2 emissions are directly related to fuel consumption. Key points from 3.2: ØEmissions of NOX for the LTO cycle are well defined through engine certification data. Cruise NOX emissions are less well defined, especially for newer staged combustion technology, although work is ongoing to provide better estimation methods using LTO measurements. ØThe Emission Index (EI) of NOx during LTO vary between around 5 and 65 grams of NOx (as NO2) per kilogram of fuel burnt for in-production engines within the current fleet. ØEmissions of nvPM mass and number during the LTO cycle are reducing and are expected to continue to reduce. This trend can be monitored through approved engine certification data. Sampling and measurement uncertainties and variability of nvPM mass and number emissions are greater than for NOX. ØThe Emissions Index (EI) of nvPM mass during LTO vary from 1-400 mg/kg (i.e. 0.001-0.4 grams per kilogram of fuel burnt) and EI of nvPM number are in the range between 5x1013 – 5x1015 particles per kilogram of fuel burnt, although for lean burn combustion engines the EIs are much lower. ØEmissions of CO2 are derived directly from fuel burn estimates or measured data, and are well understood. The EI of CO2 for aviation kerosene is 3.16 kg per kg of fuel burnt.

3.3 Current policies 3.3.1 Technology-Design Standards The environmental certification standards are developed internationally within the ICAO environmental committee (CAEP), promulgated by national legislation and implemented by the Certification Authorities. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) certification standards for aircraft engine emissions include NOx, nvPM (mass and number), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Unburnt Hydrocarbons (UHC) and Smoke, and are based on the ICAO Annex 16 Volume II. Likewise, the EASA aeroplane CO2 emissions standard is based on ICAO Annex 16 Volume III. These EASA standards are technology-design standards that compare the environmental performance of different products. They are not designed to promote any specific technology, but to provide regulatory pressure to improve the overall environmental performance of the global fleet over time. The emission standards of most relevance to aviation non-CO2 climate change impacts are the NOX and nvPM aircraft engine emissions standards. These standards are focused on local air quality concerns and based on the emissions during the Landing and Take-Off (LTO) cycle. Past analysis has concluded that reductions in emissions of NOX and nvPM at LTO will also lead to reductions at cruise. EASA standards have been set to follow the latest available technology in order to prevent backsliding and to provide a regulatory pressure for improvement over time through the integration of best available technology. This has given rise to the need to have a separate set of technology goals focused on leading edge technology, to guide subsequent regulations, and to which industry and ICAO may aspire. In 2016, ICAO’s CAEP commissioned a study from a group of independent experts to establish long-term technology goals for aircraft fuel burn, engine NOx and nvPM emissions and aircraft noise in a so-called Independent Expert Integrated Review (IEIR) . The time periods to be considered were medium term (2027, 10 years from baseline) and long term (2037, 20 years from the baseline). The report of the Independent Experts was presented and accepted at the CAEP/11 meeting in February 2019, and a summary was subsequently published in the ICAO Environmental Report (ICAO, 2019) The ICAO Technology Goals defined by the Independent Experts (IE) needed to be “challenging but achievable”, which is the same definition as that adopted by previous groups of Independent Experts established by ICAO CAEP. The NOx, nvPM and CO2 standards are considered separately in the following sections (3.4 to 3.6), together with the ICAO CAEP technology goals that provide an assessment of the direction for future technology developments over the next 20 years. 3.3.2 Operational Regulatory Instruments There are no specific operational regulations currently in place that are aimed at reducing non-CO2 impacts, i.e. emissions of NOx, nvPM or the formation of contrail-cirrus. The Single European Sky (SES) has various environmental performance indicators linked to the fuel efficiency of the air traffic management system, but none on non-CO2 climate impacts at the present moment. 3.3.3 Fuel Standards As jet fuel supply arrangements have become more complex, involving co-mingling of product in joint storage facilities, a number of fuel suppliers developed a document that became known as the Aviation Fuel Quality Requirements for Jointly Operated Systems, or AFQRJOS, Check List. The Check List represents the most stringent requirements of the following specifications:

(a) UK Ministry of Defence Standard