Report (en)

Reference/dossier no.: L271-0595

Seven participants refer to Switzerland’s role as mediator within the ICAO and warn that, if the

Ordinance were to enter into force, it would hardly be possible for Switzerland to continue playing this role.

(AEA, Aerosuisse, ASDA, chambers of commerce of both Basel cantons, SHA, Swiss, VSF)

Two participants are of the view that the planned data collection will make it more difficult to find a solution at the global level.

(AEA, IATA)

2.2.6 Criticism regarding insufficient legal basis

Seven participants argue that the legal basis for the Ordinance is insufficient. Firstly, Article 2,

paragraph 3 of the applicable CO2 Act stipulates that an international agreement is a prerequisite for civil aviation, but no such agreement would exist. Secondly, in accordance with Article 58, paragraph 2 of the Swiss Federal Civil Aviation Act, only the regulation of aircraft registered in Switzerland would be permissible. And thirdly, the term “installation” as defined in Article 16 of the revised CO2 Act would not be applicable to aircraft.

(Aerosuisse, BAR, economiesuisse, chambers of commerce of both Basel cantons, SHA, Swiss, VSF)

2.2.7 Criticism regarding administrative burden

Seven participants note that the collection and verification of tonne-kilometre data will give rise to an enormous administrative burden for aircraft operators.

(A4A, Aerosuisse, chambers of commerce of both Basel cantons, IATA, SHA, United Airlines, VSF)

One participant points out that the required data could in fact be obtained from the corresponding Swiss airport statistics.

(VSF)

2.2.8 Criticism regarding the potential introduction of alternative measures

Two participants demand that aircraft operators must be informed about the details of alternative measures if the collected data are to be used for this purpose. They are of the opinion that such alternative measures should not be based on Article 25a of the EU emissions trading scheme directive. (A4A, United Airlines)

2.3 Statements regarding individual elements of the draft Ordinance

Subject to the fundamental objections summarised above (section 2.2), various participants also comment on individual elements of the draft Ordinance.

2.3.1 Double administrative burden for aircraft operators

Three participants express the view that data collection should be carried out in coordination with the enforcement mechanism of the EU emissions trading scheme, and thus that each aircraft operator should only be subject to the administration of one national authority.

(AACO, IATA, United Airlines)

Two participants demand that, for flights that are already recorded in the EU emissions trading

scheme, a second data collection should be waived.

(AEA, Air Malta)

Two participants propose that, for aircraft operators already integrated into the EU emissions trading scheme, the monitoring plans and reports should be obtained from the relevant national authorities within the EU.

(AACO, IATA)

Two participants propose that aircraft operators already integrated into the EU emissions trading scheme should be given the option to draft the monitoring plans and reports specific to Switzerland or to apply the monitoring plans and reports authorised by the EU emissions trading scheme to Swiss