Antalya Airport Carbon Footprint Verification Level 3 Renewal

Transcription

1 Antalya Airport Carbon Footprint Verification Level 3 Renewal Client Name Client Representative Name of Consultant Consultant Clouds Product ID ICF Airports Musa Gungoren Bryony Karsenbarg [email protected] Date of Verification April 2014 Page 1 April 2014

2 Administration Record Issue Modification Approved Approved Date 1.0 Internal QA Alan Bish 11/04/ Modification from QA Bryony Karsenbarg 11/04/2014 Prepared by Approved by Consultancy Bryony Karsenbarg Alan Bish Clouds Environmental Consultancy Ltd T: F: Confidentiality, Copyright and Reproduction This report is the Copyright of Clouds Environmental Consultancy Ltd and has been prepared under contract with ICF The contents of this report may not be reproduced in whole or in part, nor passed to any organisation or person without the specific prior written permission of Clouds Environmental Consultancy Ltd. Clouds Environmental Consultancy Ltd accepts no liability whatsoever to any third party for any loss or damage arising from any interpretation or use of the information contained in this report, or reliance on any views expresses therein. Page 2 April 2014

3 Executive Summary The Carbon Footprint report provided for verification sets out total Carbon Dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions (and additional reported greenhouse gases Methane and Nitrous Oxide emissions where applicable) for all activities over which ICF Airport Inc. (ICF) had direct operational control at Antalya International Airport, Turkey, from 1 January December 13. In line with ACI ACAS guidance for Level 3 applications this Carbon Footprint Report includes all Scopes 1 and 2 emissions sources, as defined by The Greenhouse Gas Protocol1 falling under the operational control of ICF, along with the following Scope 3 emissions sources: Air Traffic Movements (ATMs) in the Landing and Take-off cycle as defined by the ICAO Airport Air Quality Guidance Manual Passenger Access Journeys Staff Access Journeys Ground Support Vehicles The CFR also provides the required adjustments to the methodological approach for reporting electricity, required to align the emissions scope boundary s in 2013 in line with Green House Gas reporting requirements, altered by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), the framework used for all previous carbon footprint analyses at Antalya Airport. The methodological changes have been explained within the CFR provided by ICF and follow the guidance provided by DEFRA on re-base lining electricity data and have been verified in Section 4 of this Verification Report. In 2013 Scopes 1 and 2 CO 2 emissions for which ICF are directly responsible at Antalya Airport were 16,613.6 tco2, a significant reduction of tco 2 compared to the revised 2012 figure of 17, tco2, and a reduction against the new three year average emissions value (17, tco 2 ) of tco2. Passenger numbers in 2013 grew by 1,761,549 (7.06%). As such the relative emissions metric chosen by ICF against which to measure its emissions reduction performance (emissions per passenger) fell from the revised value in 2012 of kgco 2 per passenger to kgco 2 per passenger in 2013 ( %). As required by the ACI Scheme guidance measured against the revised average emissions per passenger value, a significant reduction has been achieved in 2013 reported emissions, representing a value of %, from kgco 2 to kgco 2 per passenger in This should be commended. Analysis of the emissions reductions have been provided with clarity and reason within the Carbon Footprint Report provided by ICF. As part of this verification ICFs Carbon Management Plan has also been verified as required under a Level 3 ACI application. The verification of a carbon footprint ensures credibility of the data collected. Furthermore, verification acts to reassure regulators, customers, employees, shareholders, potential investors, environmental groups, the media and competitors, of the integrity, completeness and transparency of the carbon footprint calculations that have been completed. In addition to the footprint verification, Clouds have made several observations and recommendations to improve future carbon footprint reports. Page 3 April 2014

4 Having verified the CFR in accordance with the latest DEFRA Guidance on how to measure and report your greenhouse gas emissions 1 and according to the principles set out in BS ISO Part 3:2006, Specification with guidance for the validation and verification of greenhouse gas (GHG) assertions, Clouds can confirm that, based on the data provided, the CFR provided by ICF is accurate for the total Scope 1 and 2 carbon footprint within the 5% materiality requirement. Clouds role as verifier was to review the CFR, methodology, data collection techniques, calculation process and evidence supporting calculation methodologies of GHG emissions arising from their Scope 1-3 emissions and updated details of the airports Carbon Management Plan. 1 Page 4 April 2014

5 Verification requirements In accordance with BS ISO :2006, Clouds, as the verifier of the CFR: Has demonstrated competence and due professional care consistent with our role and responsibility to ICF. This can be supported by Clouds accreditations BSEN ISO9001:2008 and BSEN ISO14001:2004. Clouds further credentials are noted in Section 1 of this report; Is an independent energy consultancy; Has avoided any actual or potential conflicts of interest with the intended users of the GHG information; Has demonstrated ethical conduct throughout the validation and verification; Has reflected truthfully and accurately validation and verification activities, conclusions and reports; Over and above requirements as laid out by BS ISO :2006: All information provided by ICF has and will be treated with the strictest confidentiality; Clouds have not assisted in any way with the development of the CFR. 1 Qualifications & Accreditations Clouds Environmental Consultancy Ltd ISO9001:2008 ISO14001:2004 CHAS and SAFEcontractor Accredited Constructionline Approved FGAS Accredited Low Carbon Consultants (CIBSE) Low Carbon Energy Assessors (LCEA) Carbon Management approved EU ETS Verifiers NDEA Level 3 and 4 to provide DECs, EPCs and AC Inspections Sterling Accredited Add CiBSE Approved by the Communities and Local Government (CLG) for EPBD services Carbon Trust consultants since 2001 Carbon Trust Standard assessors Page 5 April 2014

6 2 Materiality As outlined by ACI, materiality refers to the concept that individual or the aggregation of errors, omissions and misrepresentations could affect the GHG assertion and could influence the intended users decision 2. Therefore, materiality is used to identify information that, if omitted or miss-stated, would significantly misrepresent the footprint as a whole and ensure that such material discrepancies are omitted/minimised. As outlined within ACI guidance and also within BS ISO :2006, Clouds consider that an error is materially misleading if its value exceeds 5% of the total inventory for ICF. It can be confirmed that no material discrepancy greater than 5% has been identified within the data that would lead to misinterpretation of the information provided. 3 Scope The scope of the verification included the following items: Confirmation that the data collection process provides assurance that all material sources within the defined organisational and operational boundaries have been included in the statement of GHG emissions and that all material items outside the system boundaries have been excluded from the GHG emissions; Confirmation on the justification and accuracy of any re-calculated emissions following DEFRA reporting methodology changes; Confirmation that the sources of emission factors (scope 1-3), conversion factors and greenhouse gas potentials are accurate and have been documented; Confirmation that the emission factors have been used within their limits of applicability; Confirmation that the stated emission factors, conversion factors and greenhouse gas potentials used correspond with those stated in the specified sources; Confirmation that the documented calculation method has been checked for logical and arithmetical errors; Confirmation that uncertainties in the data and calculations are not likely to cause a material error in the published quantification; Stakeholder Engagement Plan; Evidence of stakeholder engagement. Verification involved a desktop review of the CFR, Microsoft Excel workbook and all supporting evidence provided. 2 BS ISO :2006, Terms and definitions, 2.29 Page 6 April 2014

7 4 Methodology and Verification All emissions included for all scopes will be scrutinised for accuracy and dependability of data and regarding information. The areas of interrogation are: Scoping verification Raw Data; completeness and accuracy Emission Factors; relevance and source Calculations and methodologies; correctness Totals; accuracy In this verification process recommendations and conclusions will notify any incorrect use in Workbooks or data. Data Collection Process and Emissions Methodology: As in previous year s analyses of ICF s Scope 1 and 2 emissions at Antalya Airport, DEFRA guidelines on greenhouse gas conversion factors have been used to calculate CO 2, CH 4 and N 2 O emissions. Emissions were calculated by ICF using AFL s Airport Footprinter model, which applies calculation coefficients and appropriate emissions factors contained in the DEFRA 2013 database to raw data collected and added by ICF. ICF have identified approved methodologies for calculating complex Scope 3 emissions (LTO, APU emissions etc.), details and justification of calculation methodologies used for Scope 3 emissions were provided in relevant Excel documents as provided alongside the CFR all (excluding APU emissions) have been verified as part of this report (Section 4). Data Sources and responsibility: The CFR provided outlines the data sources of all emissions included in the CF. Where assumptions made by ICF are within their control all appropriate efforts to ensure accuracy of data have been taken, details of which have been verified as part of this report (Section 4). Carbon Conversion Factors (CCFs): To achieve an accurate and uniform approach to emissions calculations DEFRA included in the calculations to maintain transparency of the CF reporting procedure. CCFs were All emissions factors have been cross checked and calculations have been manually checked and verified with no material errors found. Acknowledgment of the above information provides confirmation that the data collection process provides assurance that all material sources within the defined organisational and operational boundaries have been included in the statement of GHG emissions and that approved methodologies of data collection and calculations have been used throughout the reporting process. 3 Page 7 April 2014

8 Re-Baselining Data: To re-baseline ICF have revisited their historic electricity data, removed the average conversion factor and replaced it with the newly stated 1 year average conversion factor applicable to the previous reporting years, this has been carried out to recalculate each of ICFs reported emissions totals, each of which have been pulled through to the ICF 2013 Scopes 1 and 2 emissions FINAL In line with the above ICF have appropriately re-calculated the emissions and separated the emissions associated with Generation of electricity from the subsequent losses in Transmission and Distribution between the point of generation and the airport itself. These have been split into Scope 2 and Scope 3 emissions respectively. ICF has restated each of their carbon footprints, across each relevant historic reporting period, to compensate for this change; this has allowed all future reporting to be comparable. ICF have annotated the reasons for restatement to ensure transparency for stakeholders. Each of the above calculations and Emissions Factors 4 have been manually cross checked and verified and can be confirmed to be accurate within the DEFRA 2013 reporting requirements. The Table 1 Revised Analysis of summarises the changes and these can be confirmed to match each of the revised emissions calculations. Through reporting T&D ICF ensures that they are accounting for the full impact of their purchased electricity. Carbon Management Policy Carbon Management Plan: ICF have a carbon management policy signed by top management which is publically available and defines a commitment to reducing its CO 2 emissions, this has been provided in support of the CFR. ICFs Carbon Management Plan extended to include further stakeholder engagement and demonstration of on-going emissions reductions. This has been verified as part of this report (See Section 4). 4 DEFRA Carbon Conversion Factors Page 8 April 2014

9 4.1 Airport Operational Boundaries The ACI ACAS follows accepted Greenhouse Gas Protocol standards for the organisational reporting of greenhouse gas emissions. As such Scope 1 emissions are those emissions for which the reporting entity (in this case ICF) has direct operational control or ownership. Scope 2 emissions are those associated with the purchase of electrical energy from grid supplies (less T&D losses) and Scope 3 emissions are those associated with supply chain activities, over which the reporting entity has no direct operational control or ownership, but over which they may exert some influence. Emissions boundaries for the CFR have been identified appropriately as required by the ACI scheme and as outlined by the GHGP 5 ; Scope 1: Direct GHG emissions (Control) Energy Stationary Sources On-site Stationary Combustion Facilities Business Travel Process Emissions (Wastewater Treatment) Ground Vehicles Scope 2: Energy indirect GHG emissions (Control) Emissions from purchased grid electricity, less T&D losses, metered electricity sold to tenants and DHMI electricity consumption in terminal buildings. Scope 3: Other Indirect Emissions The LTO cycle as defined by the ICAO Airport Air Quality Guidance Manual (Doc No. 9889) and all ground running operations including auxiliary power units (APU), fixed ground power and ground service equipment Surface (passenger and airport company staff) access Airport company staff business travel Other significant CO 2 emissions sources which the airport may be able to guide or influence, for example emissions from metered electricity that is sold on to tenants at the airport It can be confirmed that the inventory refers appropriately to the defined list of obligatory emissions source components to be included in a Level ACAS application ( to include at least aircraft LTO, APU, surface access and corporate travel ) 6. Activities Excluded from the CF Justification for all excluded emissions has been noted for completeness in both the CFR 7. Data Collection Process and Emissions Methodology: It can be confirmed that ICF has followed the methodology requirements of Airport Carbon Accreditation, the GHG Protocol and ISO14064:1 in compiling this CFR. ICF have identified approved methodologies for calculating complex Scope 3 emissions (LTO, APU emissions etc.), details and justification of calculation methodologies used for Scope 3 emissions are provided in Section of the CFR all of which have been verified as part of this report (Section 4). 5 GHGP Chapter 4 6 Guidance Manual: Airport Greenhouse Gas Emissions Management p.30 7 CFR p Page 9 April 2014

10 Data Sources and responsibility: The CFR 8 outlines the data sources of all emissions included in the CF including the emissions Sources: Departmental Function and Management Responsibility. Within the airports Integrated Management System 9 ICF have an embedded process for data collection, monitoring and targeting thus providing further assurance of the accuracy of the raw data used in the CF. 4.2 Scope 1 Stationary Sources Boilers (m 3 ) The raw data has been provided in m 3 of Natural Gas consumed on-site. The data source has been referenced in the CFR. The correct DEFRA 2013 emissions factor has been applied, sourced reliably and referenced appropriately within the worksheet. Calculations have been manually checked and verified and it can be confirmed to match those provided in the workbook and included in the CFR Emergency Diesel Generator (Litres) The raw data has been provided in litres of Diesel. The data source has been referenced in the CFR. The correct DEFRA 2013 emissions factor has been applied, sourced reliably and referenced appropriately within the worksheet. Calculations have been manually checked and verified and it can be confirmed to match those provided in the workbook and included in the CFR TRIGEN Combined Heat and Power plant LNG (kwh) The raw data has been provided in kwh consumed on-site. The data source has been referenced in the CFR. The correct DEFRA 2013 emissions factor has been applied, sourced reliably and referenced appropriately within the worksheet. Calculations have been manually checked and verified and it can be confirmed to match those provided in the workbook and included in the CFR. In addition to this supplies passed on to tenants have been measured as sales to tenants and metered DHMI consumption and totals removed from the kwh value of gross LNG consumption to identify a net ICF consumption figure. Calculations have been manually checked and verified and it can be confirmed to match those provided in the workbook and included in the 2013 CFR. 8 CFR Section 4 9 Please see Carbon Management Plan detail Page 10 April 2014

11 Mobile Sources Business Travel Flights Business flight data is complete and accurate. Flight mileage was identified using an appropriate and accurate source. A sample of 30 flight calculations and their destinations were manually checked in the referenced tool to verify mileage 10 used in the workbook calculations, no errors were found within the 5% materiality threshold. The identified flight mileage was used to ascertain if flights were long or short haul based on 2013 DEFRA guidelines, in order to identify the appropriate carbon emissions factor to apply. All Emissions factors and methodology were sourced reliably and are subject to a 108% km uplift factor and flight class. The correct DEFRA 2013 emissions factors have been applied, sourced reliably and referenced appropriately within the worksheet. Calculations have been manually checked and verified and it can be confirmed to match those provided in the workbook and included in the CFR Process Emissions Waste Water treatment, on-site (Mlitres) The raw data has been provided in Mlitres of waste water. The data source has been referenced in the CFR. The best available emissions factor has been applied in the absence of Turkey-specific emissions factors, this has sourced reliably and referenced appropriately within the worksheet. Calculations have been manually checked and verified and it can be confirmed to match those provided in the workbook and included in the CFR Ground Vehicles One owned ICF vehicle (Litres) The raw data has been provided in litres of petrol. The data source has been referenced in the CFR. The correct DEFRA 2013 emissions factor has been applied based on fuel type, sourced reliably and referenced appropriately within the worksheet. Calculations have been manually checked and verified and it can be confirmed to match those provided in the workbook and included in the CFR Page 11 April 2014

12 4.3 Scope Purchased Electricity The raw data has been provided in kwh of electricity consumed on-site. In addition to this supplies passed on to tenants have been measured as sales to tenants and metered DHMI terminal building electricity consumption and totals removed from the kwh value of gross grid electricity consumption to identify a net consumption figure for ICF. ICF have followed the most recent DEFRA 2013 methodology for calculating emissions associated with electricity, through separating the emissions associated with Generation of electricity from the subsequent losses in Transmission and Distribution between the point of generation and the airport itself. These have been split into Scope 1 and Scope 3 emissions respectively. The data source has been referenced in the CFR. The correct DEFRA 2013 emissions factor for separate Generated and Transmission and Distribution losses have been applied to the relevant and appropriate scope, sourced reliably and referenced appropriately within the worksheet. Calculations have been manually checked and verified and it can be confirmed to match those provided in the workbook and included in the CFR. All comparisons included within this CFR have been based on the re-base lined historic reporting data and new 3 year rolling average figure as calculated accurately by ICF. 4.4 Voluntary Scope 3 Emissions Fire fighting exercises (DHMI) The raw data has been provided in litres of Gasoline/Diesel/Kerosene. The correct DEFRA 2013 emissions factor based on fuel type per litre has been applied, sourced reliably and referenced appropriately within the worksheet. Calculations have been manually checked and verified and it can be confirmed to match those provided in the workbook and included in the CFR. Calculations have been manually checked and verified and it can be confirmed to match those provided in the workbook and included in the CFR. Page 12 April 2014

13 4.5 Stakeholder Scope 3 emissions Mobile Sources Passenger Surface Access Emissions This emissions source and data methodology has been detailed in the CFR and relates primarily to bus services as this represents a clear majority of the travel vehicle type (99%) as ICF operates a fleet of passenger transport buses to ferry international holiday passengers to and from their holiday resorts. All other assumptions have been included for reference in the Assumptions tab of the relevant Excel workbook 11. All calculations and assumptions made for journey mileage have been included for justification and shows a robust methodology is in place for capturing this emissions source information. The correct DEFRA 2013 emissions factor has been applied to the total litres of fuel type as detailed in the workbook. Emissions factors have been sourced reliably and referenced appropriately within the workbook. Calculations have been manually checked and verified and it can be confirmed to match those provided in the workbook and included in the CFR Staff Surface Access Emissions This fuel source has been provided as total consumed diesel in litres for ALL STAFF. This emissions source and data methodology has been detailed in the CFR and relates primarily to a fleet of buses provided by airport third party service providers to and from the airport; this represents a clear majority of the travel vehicle type (97%). Calculations for other vehicle type used by staff are based on a number of appropriate assumptions that have been detailed clearly in the ICF +ICF Suppliers Staff tab 12. These assumptions are considered as appropriate and effective for this emissions reporting type and provide a robust methodology for accounting for these vehicle types. The correct DEFRA 2013 emissions factor has been applied to the total litres of fuel type as detailed in the workbook. Emissions factors have been sourced reliably and referenced appropriately. Calculations have been manually checked and verified and it can be confirmed to match those provided in the workbook and included in the CFR. 11 Passenger Access Journeys 2013 AFL Staff Access-2013-Mehmet At AFL Page 13 April 2014

14 Aircraft Movements: LTO Emissions ICF have used a valid, robust and repeatable methodology as described under the CAP 9889 Guidance document 13 to calculate LTO emissions. The total number of flights for each aircraft type has been provided and used in these calculations. An example aircraft code was chosen as a random sample to test the methodology applied to calculate LTO emissions included within the CFR. was used to identify Engine potential configurations and number of engines. These have been cross checked and verified with those used in the Code 320 aircraft emissions calculations, there were a total of 61 movements of this aircraft during the reporting year for this footprint. Fuel Burn: As required under the CAP 9889 Approach the fuel flow per second for each engine type has been identified. Engine fuel burn per second values have been derived from separate ICAO engines fuel burn database, details for the randomly chosen aircraft code were provided for reference as part of the verification process and cross checked against the calculation included in the CFR. Where different engine types/configurations may be in place on an aircraft, an average fuel flow has been calculated to provide a best fit configuration. Please note that this detail has been reviewed at: at the time of this CFR there were two potential engine configurations on this aircraft, since then additional information has been added however based on the available data at the time of the CFR the included configurations are considered appropriate to use within the calculation. Associated carbon emissions relating to the LTO cycle have been calculated by determining the fuel flow during the 4 portions of the LTO (taxi out, take-off, climb out, approach and taxi in) available from the ICAO databank data, a sample of which was provided as part of this verification relating to the sample aircraft 320. Time in Mode: These figures have been multiplied by the Time in Mode (TIM in seconds) of each LTO portion relating to the engine configurations type for aircraft code 320, as laid out within the CAP 9889 Guidance document. Total figures have then been multiplied out from this information for the Full LTO cycle from individual engine types. Total number of aircraft movements was then multiplied out to identify a total fuel burn per engine type over the CF period. Emissions factors have been sourced reliably relating to litres of fuel type, in this instance Kerosene. The 2013 total calculated LTO figures as provided in the Sample Aircraft emissions model snapshot 2013 have been cross checked and verified and can be confirmed to be accurate in line with the methodology used and calculated outcome. The figures used in the verified aircraft example have been calculated according to accepted ICAO engine specific per second fuel use data and standard aircraft times in mode listed in the ICAO Airport Air Quality Guidance Document Page 14 April 2014

15 Materiality Check: It is accepted that there are various approaches, or methodologies, to quantify aircraft emissions each with a degree of accuracy and an inverse degree of uncertainty 14. Given the complexities that emerge through LTO emissions reporting and the data available to ICF, it can be confirmed that ICF have identified appropriate and approved methodologies, source documents and datasets and used these appropriately to allow for a robust and repeatable model for calculation of Scope 3 aircraft emissions and that no material data errors have been identified within the provided Excel spread sheets or accompanying referenced sources. It has been appropriately recognised by ICF that in line with ACI requirements, where assumptions have had to be made improvements to data collection methodologies will be sought after by way of continual data collection improvements. Moving forward this will improve the accuracy of the CF data. 14 ICAO Doc 9889: Section 4 Page 15 April 2014

16 4.6 Carbon Management Plan In line with ACI ACA scheme ICF provide supporting evidence to demonstrate that the carbon management plan is being implemented effectively and evidences, including stakeholder's engagement in the carbon strategy. Identification of carbon management processes has been included within this report. As required by the ACI Scheme guidance measured against the revised average emissions per passenger value, a significant reduction has been achieved in 2013 reported emissions, representing a value of %, from kgco 2 to kgco 2 per passenger in This reduction can be regarded as quantified and qualitative evidence of improved carbon management practices by ICF in the first instance. Justification of the reduction can be attributed to a number of reasons that have been set out within the CFR and CMP, for example lighting upgrades and the use of the TRIGEN CHP exhaust waste heat used for heating. These initiatives will be continued moving forward specifically following the development of an Energy Management Unit (EYB) at the airport along with ICFs continued commitment to carbon reduction at the airport and its policy for a stakeholder engagement policy. The airport has a fully operational ISO14001 Environmental Management System (EMS) and Quality Management System (QMS) which are run as an Integrated Management System (IMS) and as such this is a good starting point as evidence of embedding environmental management and achieving continual improvement within ICFs operations. This is set out in the ICF adopted carbon policy statement to climate protection and the limitation of the output of greenhouse gases. The IMS provides a systematic approach to continual improvement of carbon management at ICF, including policy setting, setting of targets, monitoring and targeting, managing legal compliance, document and control and improvement strategies. The airport has been considered as an example of best practice in carbon management and has been invited to lead on the carbon management agenda and guide other airports in Turkey (p.39 CFR). This can absolutely be considered to serve as assurance of ICFs influence on carbon management and reporting extending beyond the scope included within the sites boundaries to other Turkish airport operators and stakeholders. Recognition of the above has been recognised in the media and again provides proof of the continued commitment to carbon management and stakeholder engagement (CFR p.41). Responsibility: The responsibility of energy management is distributed amongst a number of appropriate parties detail of which has been included in P.8 CMP. Responsibilities lie at each stage of the operations at the airport including the planning processes, day to day control of the building/ facility, metering and monitoring responsibilities and the EMS specialist with responsibility for ensuring that all ICF staff and third parties are appropriately trained in carbon emissions reduction. Perhaps of key importance for the development and continued implementation and success of carbon management is the development of the EYB, responsible for the company wide policy for reducing energy consumption, and moving forward the development of renewable energy sources projects. Page 16 April 2014

17 Communication of Carbon reduction commitments and Airport Verifications: Information on the carbon policy along with achieved and future targets, carbon footprints and verification reports are published via intranet and internet (reference. P.9 CMP) and through staff and stakeholder training initiatives, stakeholder training requirements form part of the IMS which ensure a continued improvement approach to carbon reduction communications. Engagement with third party operators: ICF have a clear and robust stakeholder engagement plan in place 15. Details of engagement methods with stakeholders, and where applicable, frequency of communication and responsibility of engagement have been included in the CFR. These include: Airlines and aircraft operators, Service providers such as independent ground handlers, catering companies, air traffic control, Airport users, Wider stakeholders e.g. other airports. The CFR and CMP detail ICFs on-going liaison and engagement with stakeholders. Achieved carbon reductions following stakeholder engagement initiatives have been identified and included in the CFR 16, these include emissions from ground support vehicles and staff access busses. It can be confirmed that strategic steps have been taken by ICF in order to develop, implement and maintain effective engagement with third party operators to reduce wider airport-based carbon emissions. Future Carbon Management Targets and Implementation Plans: ICF has set appropriate targets to support the main carbon management strategies and have been included in the P.12 - CMP. As part of the internal processes, these targets are split into divisions with defined responsibilities, monitored and any deviations noted and corrective action plan developed, backed by ICFs IMS. ICF have implementation plans that are informed by their monitoring of lighting and HVAC systems by the EYB to analyse potential opportunities to reduce/improve allocation of resources and energy management through the BMS, amongst others. Steps have already been taken to utilise less carbon intensive fuels (with the aim of utilising a new gas pipeline moving forward from 2015), where possible. Past and Planned Investments: ICF have committed to allocating 1 million EUR to environmental and energy improvements until 2014 end. Previous investments include the TRIGEN power plant and moving forward one of the benefits of the New Domestic Terminal is to provide auxiliary energy power to aircrafts to allow for shutdown of engines on the ground thus directly resulting in a reduction in energy usage. Another significant planned opportunity moving forward is the completion of the natural gas pipeline to be completed in Investment in continued environmental and energy awareness has also been approved by top management. 15 CFR Figure 13 Stakeholder engagement plan 16 CFR P.35 Page 17 April 2014

18 Training and Awareness: The ICF CFR and CMP provide details of responsibilities for communication and training to all staff and relevant stakeholders. Training is provided on how the ICF employees can support the reduction of CO 2 emissions across the organisation in the form of training sessions and seminars (courses include environmental awareness and waste management). Examples of training slides have been included in the CFR. Those with key carbon responsibilities received specialised training which has included in the past ISO50001 training. Training plans and awareness are inherently supported by ICFs IMS Training Requirement procedures. Other, extensive initiatives on engaging staff and stakeholders in practical initiatives of energy management include an Environmental Week Event and engagement with specialist to offer information to employees on energy management opportunities. The above detail provides assurance that robust and significant steps have been taken to embed continued training and awareness requirements across the workforce and other stakeholders in operation at the site. Page 18 April 2014

19 5 Carbon Footprint Performance Comparison In accordance with ACA requirements, the 2013 Carbon Footprint of ICF has been compared to the rolling average of the previous three year s footprints. The Carbon Footprint, i.e., the summation of all relevant totals from the emission sources has been calculated and included in the CFR. All calculations for percentages, totals and graphs are correct having been manually calculated, verified and cross checked with figures included in the CFR. Passenger numbers in 2013 grew by 1,761,549 (7.06%). As such the relative emissions metric chosen by ICF against which to measure its emissions reduction performance (emissions per passenger) fell from the revised value in 2012 of kgco2 per passenger to kgco2 per passenger in 2013 (-10.16%). Comparisons between Scope 1 and 2 emissions show majority contribution of emissions lie with Scope 2 Electricity emissions. ICF have identified this reduction has been achieved primarily through a combination of a reduction of emissions from on-site combustion for heating in 2013 and through carbon emissions from electricity consumed on-site. Continued carbon reduction is likely to be achievable moving forward based on the airports embedded Carbon Management Plan, stakeholder engagement initiatives and extensive work in promoting carbon management across and beyond the airport itself. Page 19 April 2014

20 5.1 Recommendations/Observations Observations Errors, omissions and misrepresentations along with their associated level of risk have been identified within these comments. No material data errors have been identified within the provided Excel spread sheets, CFR, graphs or accompanying referenced source documents or websites. Please note that the Scope 1 emission data Boilers (LNG) has been provided as m 3 Natural Gas and therefore ensure that the labelling is as such in the Excel worksheet. Please note that the calculations in Ground Vehicles-2013-Musa Gungoren AFL for Other Companies (Airlines, Representatives Tab): The figures pulled through are a combination of petrol and gasoline however the emissions factors have not been split out. Please note that the calculations in Ground Vehicles-2013-Musa Gungoren AFL for SANCAK Catering Row F7: The quantity of LPG here is in kg but the emissions factor is in litres of LPG. No material errors are derived from the above errors. Certain limitations do exist due to the complexities of capturing all Scope 3 emissions data. Where assumptions made are within the ICF control all appropriate efforts to ensure accuracy of data should continue to be made. In line with ACI requirements data collection methodologies relating to this emissions source should be sought after by way of continual data collection improvements. This should be ensured through continued stakeholder engagement and has already been highlighted as a continual measure in the CFR. In addition to this continued investigation into emissions data and methodologies that are made available is vital, moving forward this will further improve the accuracy of the CF data particularly in reference to Scope 3 emissions sources 5.2 Format and Presentation The writing of the report and accompanying documents are provided in an exceptionally clear and professional manner and formatted to the highest quality standard. The detail of methodologies and data sources provided has allowed for an auditable, robust and accurate assessment and verification of emissions data used in the CF. Page 20 April 2014

21 5.3 Conclusions and Evaluation Based on the process and procedures conducted, and on the evidence provided, Clouds concludes that the methodology used to calculate the information presented in this CFR: is materially correct; is a fair representation of GHG data and information; has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the ACI scheme; BS ISO14064:1 (reporting on CO 2 only) and BS ISO :2006; Date: April 2014 By taking into account the guidance from the GHGP, statements made in correspondence and assumptions made in consumption, the Carbon Footprint in the ICF report is verified. The recommendations included in this report (Section 5.1) should be followed to improve accuracy of results, lowering assumptions made, as in following years as situations and procedures change any assumptions will become less reliable. This is especially true for continued monitoring of Scope 3 emissions sources. This has been noted in the ICF CFR and should be commended. The primary aim of verification is to provide confidence, to users that the reported information and associated statements represent a faithful, true, and fair account of a company s GHG emissions. Ensuring transparency and verifiability of the inventory data is crucial for verification. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol: A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard Page 21 April 2014

22 6 References Acronyms ACI ACA CFR Clouds CMP DEFRA GHG GHGP ICAO ICF IMS LTO PDF tco 2 tco 2 e Airport Councils International Europe Airport Carbon Accreditation Carbon Footprint Report Clouds Environmental Consultancy Ltd Carbon Management Plan Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Greenhouse Gas Greenhouse Gas Protocol International Civil Aviation Organization ICF Airport Inc. Integrated Management System Landing and Take Off Portable document format Tonnes carbon dioxide Tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent Page 22 April 2014