ATAG Statement on Pegasus Guidelines

GENEVA, 4 April 2024 – The Pegasus Guidelines have been developed by a working group of banks1 coordinated by the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI). They are designed to allow finance institutions to grade the climate impact of their aviation investments (particularly airlines and leasing companies), in order to start positioning their portfolios towards a 1.5°C-aligned future. As part of this process, they will seek information from airlines and lessors as to the efficiency of the operations of the aircraft fleet they are financing (the type of aircraft as well as their operational efficiency and use of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) to bring down the carbon intensity of their operations).

Haldane Dodd, Executive Director of the Air Transport Action Group, comments: “Aviation has a net-zero carbon by 2050 goal, a commitment from both industry and through our United Nations specialised agency ICAO. This vital ambition is a significant challenge, but is achievable with the right support from Governments, the energy industry and, importantly, a marked scale-up in investment from the finance community.

The Pegasus Guidelines provides a reminder that investors in air transport infrastructure and technology also have a role to play in helping to decarbonise the global air transport system. It is the responsibility for all parts of the value chain – including the banks – to walk the talk and take net-zero pathways seriously. Put simply: if banks commit to the Pegasus Guidelines, they also need to commit to an increase in investment for SAF production scale-up and to support new aircraft acquisition for their customers. Their investments in, and pressure on, the traditional energy sector must also be put to the same scrutiny. As COP28 in Dubai showed us, the transition away from fossil fuels is now inevitable.”

In addition to concern over the substantial increase in reporting requirements from multiple stakeholders, the industry says that there are several elements of the Pegasus Guidelines which could benefit from further refinement: the inability to account for the use of out-of-sector measures such as CORSIA-compliant emissions units and carbon removals will make it challenging to meet medium-term Pegasus Guidelines ambition; carbon removals deployed during SAF production should be able to count towards emissions reductions; and the chosen 1.5°C comparison pathway (the Mission Possible Partnership’s PRU scenario) contains an overly ambitious and likely unfeasible near-to-mid-term trajectory due to assumptions on the ramp-up in SAF, efficiency gains, and the use of radical new technologies.


1  Bank of America, Credit Agricole, BNP Paribas, Standard Chartered, Citi, Société General