As the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Council edges closer to a decision on eligible carbon credits under its flagship aviation climate scheme, alarm is growing among states and market participants that the process may undermine both national sovereignty and global climate action.
At the centre of the controversy is the CORSIA Technical Advisory Body (TAB), the body tasked with assessing which carbon credit programmes can supply offsets under the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA). Its recommendations carry significant weight: once endorsed by the ICAO Council, they determine which projects worldwide can access a multibillion-dollar compliance market.
However, senior climate figures argue that the TAB’s recent conduct violates accepted standards for technical rigour and transparency at the direct expense of Africa’s interests.
Procedural opacity and inconsistencies
According to publicly available ICAO documentation, the TAB is expected to apply transparent, consistent criteria when evaluating emissions unit programmes. Yet the body has repeatedly failed to follow its mandated procedures. Notably, the TAB has violated crucial safeguards intended to ensure transparency and public participation in its deliberations.
This lack of transparency has raised questions about whether all applicant programmes are being treated equally. Critically, the TAB appears to have diverged in its treatment of questions focused on African interests. Such concerns strike at the credibility of an organisation in which Africa has a long track record of good faith engagement.
Implications for state sovereignty
Beyond technical concerns, the looming Council decision touches on a deeper political fault line: the rights of states to determine how mitigation outcomes generated within their borders are authorised and transferred internationally.
CORSIA operates at the intersection of aviation policy and the broader carbon market architecture under the Paris Agreement. Many countries have developed, or are developing, national frameworks to manage carbon credits, including rules on authorisation, tracking, and corresponding adjustments.
These frameworks are essential for ensuring that carbon market activities do not come at the expense of Africa’s communities and environment. By refusing to accommodate these mechanisms, ICAO risks overriding or sidelining national systems.
A massive blow to climate finance
The stakes are especially high for climate finance. CORSIA has long been positioned as a major source of demand for carbon credits, with the potential to channel billions of dollars into emissions reduction projects in developing economies.
If the eligibility process is perceived as arbitrary or exclusionary, entire categories of projects – and countries like Kenya – could be locked out of the market. This would not only reduce expected revenue streams but could also dampen investment in future mitigation activities.
Moreover, uncertainty around eligibility undermines investor confidence. Carbon markets rely heavily on predictability; shifting or opaque rules increase risk, potentially raising costs of capital or deterring participation altogether.
A pivotal moment for ICAO
As the ICAO Council prepares to act on the TAB’s latest recommendations, it faces a critical test. Endorsing a process viewed as procedurally flawed could weaken trust in CORSIA at a time when global climate cooperation is already under strain.
Conversely, a decision to revisit or clarify the TAB’s approach, ensuring alignment with established procedures and greater transparency, could help restore confidence and reaffirm the role of states in shaping carbon markets.
What is clear is that the outcome will reverberate far beyond aviation. It will signal whether international climate mechanisms can balance environmental integrity, market functionality, and respect for national sovereignty or whether those objectives are drifting further apart.