Heathrow Airport is raising its climate ambition once again. In 2026, the airport plans to use Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) at levels 2% higher than the UK government’s mandate. This means total SAF use at Heathrow could reach 5.6% of all jet fuel next year.
The UK requires 3.6% SAF blending in 2026. Heathrow’s extra incentive pushes that figure higher, which could translate into around 350,000 tonnes of SAF being used at the airport. About 124,000 tonnes of that would come directly from Heathrow’s own incentive scheme.
To support this effort, Heathrow has set aside more than £80 million to help airlines cover the higher cost of SAF compared to traditional jet fuel. SAF remains more expensive to produce, so this financial support helps narrow the price gap and makes cleaner fuel more attractive for carriers.
This is the fifth year in a row that Heathrow has expanded its SAF support program, showing a consistent push toward lower-carbon flying.
How SAF Cuts Aviation Emissions
Sustainable Aviation Fuel works in today’s aircraft without major changes. Airlines can blend it with regular jet fuel and use existing engines and infrastructure. The key difference lies in how SAF is produced.
It can be made from waste oils, agricultural residues, household waste, or through synthetic processes that combine renewable electricity with captured carbon. Because of these production methods, SAF can reduce lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions by more than 70% compared to fossil jet fuel, according to the UK government.
If Heathrow achieves its 5.6% SAF target in 2026, the airport estimates emissions could fall by around 600,000 tonnes in one year.
To understand the scale:
- A round-trip economy flight from London Heathrow to New York JFK produces about 612 kilograms of CO₂ per passenger, based on ICAO calculations.
- Cutting 600,000 tonnes would equal roughly 950,000 return passenger journeys on that route.
That level of reduction highlights how even small percentage increases in SAF use can create large carbon savings.
Understanding the UK SAF Mandate
The UK introduced the SAF Mandate to ensure steady growth in cleaner aviation fuel. Instead of relying only on voluntary airline commitments, the policy legally requires fuel suppliers to blend increasing amounts of SAF into their total jet fuel supply.
The system includes two parts. The main obligation requires suppliers to meet a rising SAF percentage each year.
- It started at 2% in 2025 and will increase to 10% by 2030 and 22% by 2040. A second requirement, known as the Power-to-Liquid obligation, focuses on advanced synthetic fuels made using renewable electricity. This part begins at 0.2% in 2028 and grows to 3.5% by 2040.
Suppliers earn certificates based on how much carbon savings their SAF delivers. The greater the emissions reduction, the more certificates they receive. They can use these certificates to prove compliance, trade them with others, or pay a buy-out fee if they fail to meet targets. The buy-out price is designed to encourage real SAF supply rather than paying the penalty.
- By 2040, the UK government estimates the mandate could deliver up to 6.3 megatonnes of carbon savings each year.
Matt Gorman, Heathrow’s Director of Sustainability, said,
“Sustainable Aviation Fuel is not a hypothetical concept for the future, it’s already producing real impact in 2026. Heathrow is leading the way globally, with 17% of the world’s SAF supply in 2024 used at the airport. SAF is a key lever on aviation’s journey to net zero by 2050, and a key element of Heathrow’s Net Zero Plan. Our incentive delivers real progress today, as well as a future promise for tomorrow.”
- FURTHER READING: Greening the Aviation: Lufthansa and Airbus Team Up to Cut Business Travel Emissions Using SAF
Cutting Carbon in the Air and on the Ground: Heathrow’s Net Zero Strategy
Heathrow’s SAF expansion fits into a larger strategy to reach net-zero emissions. As one of the world’s busiest international hubs, the airport is working to cut carbon both in flight operations and in ground activities.
By 2030, Heathrow aims to reduce flight-related emissions by up to 15% compared to 2019 levels. Achieving this depends heavily on scaling up SAF use and improving aircraft efficiency.
Looking further ahead, the airport targets at least an 80% reduction in emissions by 2050. The remaining emissions would need to be removed from the atmosphere to achieve full net zero.
Heathrow’s main roadmap assumes three key developments: continued improvements in aircraft efficiency, introduction of zero-carbon aircraft from the mid-2030s, and large-scale replacement of fossil jet fuel with SAF. In its lead scenario, SAF could replace up to 90% of remaining kerosene by 2050, delivering major lifecycle carbon savings.
There is also a more ambitious scenario in which fully synthetic fuels with near-zero lifecycle emissions replace all fossil-based jet fuel by mid-century.
Use of Hydrogen and Drop-in SAF
Hydrogen-powered aircraft could also play a role in aviation’s future. These planes may use hydrogen in fuel cells or burn it directly in turbines. However, experts expect hydrogen aircraft to serve mainly short-haul routes by 2050.
Shorter flights represent about 30% of global aviation emissions. Long-haul flights, which account for roughly 70%, will likely continue to depend on liquid fuels for decades. For those routes, drop-in SAF remains the most practical and scalable solution.
Heathrow says it must prepare its infrastructure to support hydrogen aircraft while keeping a strong focus on expanding SAF use for conventional planes.
Global SAF Market Reaches a Turning Point
The year 2025 marks a major shift for the global SAF market. Blending mandates in both the European Union and the UK have begun to drive demand growth. SAF demand in the EU could reach about 0.9 million tonnes in 2025, while the UK could require around 0.25 million tonnes. Globally, total demand may approach 2 million tonnes this year.
Industry report says, by 2030, global SAF demand could climb to 15.5 million tonnes. Around 4.4 million tonnes of that would come from existing mandates, while the rest would depend on new policies, incentives, and voluntary airline commitments. Nearly 60 airlines have pledged to use 10% SAF by 2030, creating additional market momentum.
However, supply remains fragile. Announced global SAF production capacity for 2030 stands at about 18 million tonnes. While this appears enough on paper, delays and project cancellations in Europe, the UK, and the United States have raised concerns. Lower fossil fuel prices, policy uncertainty, and broader economic pressures have slowed some investments.
Beyond 2030, the challenge grows even larger. By 2035, global SAF demand could reach 40 million tonnes. Meeting that level will require rapid expansion of production capacity over a short period.
A Strong Signal to the Aviation Industry
Heathrow’s decision to exceed the national SAF mandate sends a clear message. Airports can influence the pace of decarbonization, not just governments and airlines.
By offering financial incentives and committing to higher SAF uptake, Heathrow strengthens confidence in the long-term growth of sustainable aviation fuel. Whether supply can scale fast enough remains the key question. For now, the airport’s 5.6% SAF target for 2026 marks a bold and practical step toward cleaner aviation.
The post Heathrow Boosts 2026 Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) Incentive 2% Above UK Government Mandate appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Insetting program design starts with your supplier map. The carbon claim comes much later.
Consider a coffee procurement team that funds a farm intervention before checking its sourcing data. The supplier aggregates coffee lots from several regions. The buyer lacks farm-level traceability. Another purchaser expects to report the same outcome. A more attractive project brochure solves none of these problems.
If the distinction between a value-chain intervention and a purchased credit is still open, read CCC’s Insetting vs Offsetting guide before you set the brief.
Insetting program design begins with the purchasing relationship and works outward. You need to decide 1) where an intervention belongs, 2) what business problem it addresses, 3) who pays for it, 4) how results will be measured, and 5) what the evidence will let you say about them. This five-step playbook turns that sequence into a procurement plan.
Step 1: Insetting program design starts with supplier mapping
Start with the commodities that matter most to your Scope 3 inventory and sourcing continuity. Ask finance for spend by supplier, sustainability for the emissions baseline, and category managers for origin and volume records. Then identify which suppliers can trace material to a jurisdiction, sourcing region, producer group, or individual land-management unit.
The level of traceability affects what you can account for. Under the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard, the spatial boundary for purchased land-based products depends on the traceability associated with each volume. Farm-specific factors or removals require physical traceability through an acceptable chain-of-custody model. A contract with a tier-one trader, by itself, does not establish a link to the farms behind its deliveries.[1]
Build a first-pass table with five columns: commodity and annual volume; supplier and origin; current traceability level; land-use and production risks; and the business owner who can change the purchasing terms. Mark missing data plainly. A blank cell is cheaper to fix before a program starts than after a claim is drafted.
If your company sets an SBTi Forest, Land and Agriculture target (FLAG), keep its land-related target boundary separate from energy and industry emissions. The current FLAG guidance also requires relevant companies to assess primary deforestation-linked commodities in their value chains.[2]
Step 2: Choose a commodity and jurisdiction for a pilot
Select one supply corridor where the sourcing connection can be established and procurement has a reason to stay. A useful pilot has repeat purchases, suppliers willing to share records, an intervention matched to a diagnosed problem, and a defined plan to measure the result. Carbon potential alone is a poor selection rule if the supplier cannot deliver the crop your business needs.
Compare candidate regions on land-use risk, supplier concentration, local rights and tenure, the availability of baseline data, and exposure to drought, erosion, or forest conversion. Check the relevant legal requirements separately. A nature project does not satisfy a due-diligence obligation merely because it has a carbon method attached.
Consider a coffee buyer sourcing from two districts. In the first, producer-group records identify the farms, while recent dry seasons have increased rejected green coffee lots. In the second, deliveries pass through several intermediaries and farm origins are unknown. Pilot shade management in the first district, with local agronomic advice and quality checks built into the plan. The buyer can trace purchases there and test the intervention against a defined sourcing problem.
Use a short decision memo to record why the selected corridor beats the alternatives, what remains uncertain, and what would stop the pilot. That memo is the first control against a project drifting toward whatever happens to photograph well.
Step 3: Design the supplier engagement and commercial model
The intervention needs an owner on each side of the contract. Decide who supplies planting material or training, who maintains the practice, who bears the cost if a harvest disappoints, and how long the buyer expects to purchase from participating suppliers. Where smallholders participate, budget cash flow and technical support for practices that offer a later return.
Put these terms in a supplier agreement or pilot addendum. It should cover eligible farms and volumes, consent to data collection, access for monitoring, any land or carbon rights that matter, benefit sharing, and what happens if the purchasing relationship ends. Ask local counsel and producer representatives to review the arrangement. The Accountability Framework is a useful reference for supply-chain work involving forests, ecosystems, and human rights.[3]
Avoid assigning an automatic carbon benefit to the buyer. The contract should say which party has the right to report each outcome, how overlapping claims will be checked, and how any issued credits will be handled. A reduction reported in a buyer’s inventory cannot simply be sold for someone else’s offset claim without an accounting review. SBTi FLAG guidance excludes purchased credits used as offsets from near-term FLAG target achievement.[2]
Set commercial measures beside environmental ones: delivered volume, rejection rate, supplier retention, and procurement cost. They tell you whether the program works as a supply-chain investment, even if carbon accounting takes longer to resolve.
Step 4: Build monitoring, reporting, and verification before rollout
Agree on the baseline and data flow before paying for a full rollout. Identify the land units or sourcing regions in scope, the practices that change, the records suppliers already keep, and the additional measurements the program requires. Decide which data can come from field visits, transaction records, or remote sensing, and who checks each source.
For carbon, separate three questions. Did the practice happen? Did emissions or removals change under an applicable method? Can the buyer attribute a defensible share to its purchased goods without double counting? The GHG Protocol’s 2026 guidance includes dedicated chapters on spatial boundaries, data and methods, evaluating actions, credited outcomes, and assurance.[1] These are distinct jobs. A photograph of a planted tree answers only part of the first.
CCC’s MRV and Additionality article explains the separate evidence questions a project reviewer will ask.
Create an evidence file for every reporting period: dated supplier and farm records, purchase volumes, methods and emission factors, uncertainty, quality checks, and changes from the baseline. Specify who can challenge the data and how corrections are recorded. If a project also seeks credit certification, keep project accounting and corporate inventory accounting separate. The GHG Protocol says its land standard focuses on entity-level inventories and does not set the rules for credit certification.[4]
Start with the minimum viable measurement design that can survive review. Add complexity when the pilot tells you which data actually changes a decision.
Step 5: Decide what can be reported and claimed
Insetting program design needs reporting rules before the marketing copy. Procurement, sustainability, finance, and legal should agree on four distinct outputs: operational performance; observed land or nature outcomes; inventory effects, if the accounting criteria are met; and any separately issued credits. One dashboard can display them, but they should not share a single unqualified headline.
SBTi FLAG guidance allows certain land-based removals within a company’s operations or supply chain to contribute to FLAG pathways, subject to criteria including permanence, traceability, data quality, and allocation. It does not allow purchased offsets to meet near-term FLAG targets.[2] Eligibility therefore depends on evidence and the applicable target rules, not on calling an activity “insetting.”
Draft a claims register. For each proposed sentence, record the period, boundary, data owner, calculation method, reviewer, and whether the result is measured, estimated, or still a goal. If the evidence supports only “we funded a pilot with 200 farms,” say that. Do not turn a funding fact into a verified emissions reduction.
What good looks like by year three
Treat year three as a review point, not a promised payback date. A mature pilot should have mapped participating supply volumes, a stable supplier agreement, a repeatable data collection process, and a comparison of commercial and environmental results against the baseline. It should also have a documented answer for outcomes that cannot be included in the buyer’s inventory.
Scale only where the pilot improves a sourcing decision and the evidence can follow the product. If neither condition holds, redesign the intervention or change the corridor. A disciplined program can conclude that a site is unsuitable. That is useful procurement intelligence.
Discuss your insetting program with CCC
Carbon Credit Capital designs nature-based supply chain investments around sourcing needs and measurable sustainability outcomes. Schedule a consultation with our carbon and sustainability experts to map your tier-one supplier network, FLAG exposure, and first pilot decision.
Sources
[1] GHG Protocol, Land Sector and Removals Standard, version 1.1, and companion Guidance, June 2026: https://ghgprotocol.org/land-sector-and-removals-standard ; https://ghgprotocol.org/land-sector-and-removals-guidance
[2] Science Based Targets initiative, Forest, Land and Agriculture Science-Based Target-Setting Guidance, version 1.2, March 2026, especially pp. 16–17, 37, and 41: https://sciencebasedtargets.org/resources/files/SBTiFLAGGuidance.pdf
[3] Accountability Framework initiative, Accountability Framework and guidance for companies: https://accountability-framework.org/
[4] GHG Protocol, Frequently Asked Questions: Land Sector and Removals Standard, questions 10 and 18: https://ghgprotocol.org/blog/frequently-asked-questions-land-sector-and-removals-lsr-standard
Nature-based carbon investments deserve consideration when they address a specific business dependency and produce outcomes you can measure. Imagine Moonbucks, a global coffee roaster planning next season’s espresso blend. It is considering natural Grade 4 coffee from Jimma, in southwestern Oromia, Ethiopia. Its sourcing decisions affect the roasting schedule and the cash tied up in coffee purchases. Moonbucks needs to understand which measures could protect that supply, what they would cost and how it would judge the results.
1. Define the sourcing problem before choosing a project
Moonbucks needs a dependable component for its espresso blend. Its procurement team wants continuity of volume and an agreed cup profile. Replacing a shipment at short notice could require new sample approval and changes to the blend, and given the schedules for cultivation, processing, and freight delivery, is practically impossible. Moonbucks needs to get this right, and its initial concern is inconsistent deliveries. It commissions an assessment of the supplying farms and post-harvest chain. The questions cover land condition, harvest availability and whether drying or storage problems are affecting saleable lots.
This distinction changes the investment brief. A tree-planting proposal cannot be assumed to fix drying problems. Better storage cannot restore eroded land. The team must establish which problem exists before selecting the response.
CCC’s guide to finding nature-based solutions in your supply chain explains where to look. Here, the next task is to turn a broad concern into a testable proposal.
2. Develop nature-based carbon investments around the actual supply chain
The assessment would trace Moonbucks’ purchases back through the exporter and supplying producer groups. Which farms supply the contracted lots? Who controls land-management decisions? How long does the buyer expect to maintain the purchasing relationship?
Furthermore, Jimma natural Grade 4 cannot be treated as interchangeable with every Ethiopian coffee. Moonbucks would need to test any substitute against its own blend and quality requirements.
Suppose Moonbucks’ assessment identifies an opportunity to maintain shade trees and restore vegetation along exposed streambanks. The IPCC describes agroforestry as a way to store carbon in vegetation and soil, with potential benefits for erosion control and water quality.1 Moonbucks would need local advice on species, growing conditions and maintenance before deciding how these measures fit its sourcing plan.
The proposal now has a defined sourcing connection and a candidate intervention. The next steps are to test its effect on production, assess carbon eligibility and build the financial case.
3. Compare the proposal with other ways to protect supply
WBCSD’s Nature-based Solutions Blueprint recommends comparing nature-based options with other responses across their benefits and costs.2 For Moonbucks, that means evaluating the landscape proposal alongside drying improvements, storage controls and alternative sourcing arrangements.
The product’s natural-process designation matters. Moonbucks should examine the drying and dry-milling chain alongside land conditions. Its team would check storage practices, contamination risks and incoming-lot quality to see whether problems arise before or after the coffee leaves the farms.
The revised proposal might combine land stewardship with separate post-harvest controls. Each component needs its own purpose and budget. A sustainability label should not obscure which activity is expected to solve which problem.
The project develops as the evidence improves. Its scope should follow the diagnosis rather than preserve the first idea unchanged.
4. Establish what the carbon outcome could count toward
Moonbucks’ sustainability team now tests the proposed carbon case separately from the sourcing case. Is the objective a measurable change in Moonbucks’ value-chain emissions, verified credits for separate voluntary use, or distinct outcomes under carefully defined arrangements?
Scope 3 covers value-chain emissions. A purchasing relationship alone does not prove that a farm intervention can be included in Moonbucks’ inventory. The team needs an applicable accounting method, defensible boundaries and evidence supporting attribution.
SBTi’s FLAG Guidance (forest, land and agriculture), version 1.2, says purchased credits used as offsets cannot meet near-term FLAG or energy and industry targets. Eligible land-based removals are subject to accounting requirements.3 Moonbucks needs to test its proposal against those rules before including an outcome in its targets.
For Moonbucks’ Jimma proposal, maintaining existing trees and establishing new vegetation could involve different carbon questions. Specialists must examine the baseline and additionality, meaning what changes because the project proceeds. They must also assess measurement and the risk that stored carbon is lost. CCC’s MRV and additionality article introduces those tests.
Until that work is complete, Moonbucks should not budget an assumed Scope 3 reduction or credit-sale receipt. Direct emissions reductions remain the priority.
5. Build a financial case that survives weaker assumptions
Moonbucks’ finance team would now build a multi-year budget. UNEP’s State of Finance for Nature 2023 compares current finance with the investment needed to meet climate, biodiversity and land-restoration goals.4 The company would cost its proposed activities, farmer participation and ongoing monitoring. Verification, where required, is a separate expense. Maintenance and responsibility for replacing failed plantings must remain visible after the initial establishment budget ends.
Operational benefits need equally careful treatment. If fewer rejected lots reduce emergency purchasing, count that saving once. Do not add “supply resilience” as another financial benefit when it represents the same avoided cost.
Moonbucks should compare a base case with slower benefits, higher implementation costs and no carbon revenue. It should also distinguish production outcomes from quality and shipment outcomes. A single good harvest would not prove that the landscape intervention caused better delivery performance.
A project can remain worth funding even when its carbon case needs more work. That decision must rest on the operational evidence and the company’s objectives, without unsupported environmental claims.
6. Fund a pilot with a clear expansion decision
Moonbucks’ first approval would fund a bounded pilot, rather than commit the entire sourcing program. Before spending, Moonbucks would agree on participating farms, responsibilities and the evidence needed at review.
Its scorecard could track farmer participation, implementation costs and plant survival, alongside accepted coffee volumes and lot-quality results. Carbon measurements would follow the selected method. Farm-level traceability must connect the intervention to the actual sourcing relationship.
Suppose Moonbucks’ review later finds that storage changes explain most quality improvements, while the land measures need longer observation. Those findings would shape the next decision: expand the proven component, adjust the landscape work or pause further spending. They would not justify crediting all improvements to tree planting.
This gives nature-based carbon investments a practical place in a multi-year strategy. Funding increases as the evidence supports it, and the project can change direction before a larger commitment.
Discuss a sourcing opportunity with CCC
Carbon Credit Capital’s nature-based supply-chain investment service uses its Dual-Value Model to examine supply-chain economics alongside potential sustainability outcomes.
Schedule a consultation to discuss your sourcing exposure and the questions to resolve before allocating capital.
Sources
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change, Chapter 7, Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses, section 7.4.3.3 (Agroforestry).
- World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), Nature-based Solutions Blueprint, 5 June 2024.
- Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), Forest, Land and Agriculture Science-Based Target-Setting Guidance, version 1.2, March 2026, section 3.1.4, pp. 37–38.
- United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), State of Finance for Nature 2023, 2023.
A plastic credit funds the collection of plastic waste in places where no formal system exists to collect it. Each credit represents a measured, independently audited quantity of plastic taken out of the environment or returned to use, tracked on a public registry.
