ICF Airports Ltd. - Antalya Airport Carbon Footprint Report 2017 activity Fraport IC IÇTAŞ Antalya Airport Terminal Investment and Management Inc.

Transcription

1 ICF Airports Ltd. - Antalya Airport Carbon Footprint Report 2017 activity Fraport IC IÇTAŞ Antalya Airport Terminal Investment and Management Inc. Report in support of ICF Airports (Antalya Airport) renewal application to the Airports Council International (Europe) Airports Carbon Accreditation Scheme, Level 3+ (Carbon Neutral), May 2018.

2 Executive Summary Airport Footprints Ltd. (AFL) presents the Carbon Footprint Report of ICF Airport Inc. (ICF) 2017 activities at Antalya Airport, Turkey, in support of its obligations towards its three year rolling application at Level 3+ (Airport Carbon Neutral) to the Airports Council International, Airports Carbon Accreditation Programme (ACI ACA). The Carbon Footprint sets out total Carbon Dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions (and additional greenhouse gases Methane and Nitrous Oxide emissions where applicable, reported as a voluntary exercise though not required for ACA) for all activities over which ICF had direct operational control at Antalya International Airport in In line with ACA guidance for Level 3+ accreditation this Carbon Footprint Report includes all Scopes 1 and 2 emissions sources, as defined by The Greenhouse Gas Protocol 1 falling under the operational control of ICF, along with the following Scope 3 emissions sources: Fire-fighting exercises carried out by the State Airport Authority (DHMI) Electricity losses in transmission and distribution from the power station to the airport Business travel Flights taken by ICF employees 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 Scopes 1 and 2 CO 2 emissions for which ICF were directly responsible at Antalya Airport were 17,150tCO 2, an increase of 2,702tCO 2 on the 2016 value (18.7%), and an increase of 963tCO2 (5.9%) against the historic three year average value ( ). Passenger numbers in 2017 recovered significantly from an extremely challenging year in 2016 where political circumstances had seen a fall in passenger numbers of almost 8.5 million on Air Traffic Movements 3 (ATMs) saw a commensurate increase in 2017, from 63,377 in 2016 to 79,027 (24.7%). The relative emissions metric chosen by ICF against which to measure its ongoing emissions performance (emissions per passenger) fell from kgco 2 per passenger in 2016 to 0.651kg in The key value for successful accreditation on the Airports Council International Airports Carbon Accreditation Scheme beyond Level 1 is relative emissions per passenger compared to the average of the three previous years. The The Greenhouse Gas Protocol: A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard (2001) 2 International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) Airport Air Quality Guidance Manual (2011) 3 For the purpose of the carbon footprint only arrival Air Traffic Movements are recorded; ICF s officially reported annual aircraft movements will be approximately double the number of arrivals 2

3 2016 average CO 2 emission value was 0.663kg per passenger and this fell to 0.651kg in 2017 (-1.8%). As would be expected from a return to pre-2016 activity at the airport, aggregate Stakeholder Scope 3 emissions rose significantly from 223,473tCO 2 in 2016 to 315,326 tco 2 in ICF continued to prioritise its creative and ambitious policy to encourage airlines to use Fixed Electrical Ground Power (FEGP) supply to power critical aircraft systems whilst they are parked at stand in 2017 rather than using aircraft Auxiliary Power Units and this produced significant aircraft emissions savings of 14,850tCO 4 2. Aggregate emissions savings from the policy since its introduction are now 81,721tCO 2, equivalent to 81.9% of ICF s Scope 1 & 2 emissions in the same period 5. 4 Compared to savings made in 2011 in the year before ICF introduced incentives for airlines to use FEGP to power aircraft whilst parked at stand 5 Emission savings from reduction in aircraft APU usage at Antalya Airport since 2011 are 81,721tCO 2. ICF s Scope 1 & 2 emissions in the same period are 99,771tCO 2. 3

4 Contents Page Introduction 6 1. Definitions 7 2. Airport Organisational Structure ICF Internal management structure 8 3. ICF Carbon Management Policy Emissions sources: Departmental function and management responsibility Airport Operational Structure Landside operations: ICF operated areas Airside operations: DHMI operated areas Scope/Boundary Setting Activities included in the carbon footprint Activities excluded from the carbon footprint Baseline Year Greenhouse Gas Assertion Company information Reporting period Summary Report Methodology ACI ACA Guidance Emissions calculations Scopes 1, 2 emissions, T&D losses and voluntary Scope 3 17 emissions from DHMI fire-fighting exercises ATMs in the LTO cycle Passenger access journeys Employee access journeys Ground support vehicles Detailed Carbon Footprint Materiality Raw data confidence and assumptions 2017 carbon footprint Emission factors Process emissions (Waste-water treatment) 23 4

5 15. Emissions - results analysis Scope 1 and 2 emissions Observations Scope 3 emissions Business conditions in Carbon Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan Conclusion 27 Appendix A: Table and figures 28 5

6 Introduction In May 2009 the Airports Council International (Europe) launched its Airport Carbon Accreditation Programme (ACI ACA), the industry s first coordinated programme for measuring, reporting and reducing greenhouse gas emissions in a systematic way. The Programme has since been adopted by all regions of the ACI, including Asia Pacific, North and South America and Africa and has become the industry Gold Standard for airport carbon management. Senior managers at ICF Airports have been aware of the threats posed by climate change for some time, but have been equally aware of the inherent opportunities available from engagement in high quality carbon management. The company has developed its carbon management programme since 2010, rising from Level 1 ACA accreditation in 2010 to Level 3 in ICF s three year rolling application to the highest level attainable (Level 3+ carbon neutral ) in 2015 marked the fruition of efforts to embed industry best practice carbon management systems in to its wider Environmental Management System. This Carbon Footprint Report of 2017 activities at the airport supports ICF s formal Level 3+ re-application in ICF s other environmental and quality management systems include: Environmental Management System accredited to ISO 14001, Quality Management System accredited to ISO 9001, Occupational Health and Safety Management System accredited to OHSAS TS 18001, Customer Satisfaction and Complaint Management System to ISO and the Turkish Airports Green Airport Company award by the Turkish Civil Aviation General Directorate. Additionally, the company accredited for Information Security Management System ISO in Antalya Airport also won the ACI (Europe) Best Airport award in 2011 (5-25m passengers). 6

7 1. Definitions The Airports Council International (Europe) Airports Carbon Accreditation Programme is informed by a set of guidance notes which draw upon the Greenhouse Gas Protocol and ISO14064 to provide cross-sector consistency in organisational greenhouse gas reporting. The guidance documentation provides definitions for a range of potential stakeholders in carbon footprint projects. The following definitions apply to stakeholders in this project: Client and Intended User State Airport Authority Responsible Party Scheme Administrators Scheme Operators Fraport IC IÇTAŞ Antalya Airport Terminal Investment and Management Inc. (We refer to the client as ICF Airports or ICF in the report for simplicity) DHMI Airport Footprints Ltd. (AFL) WSP Environmental Ltd. (WSP) Airports Council International (Europe) Additionally we refer to the following acronyms throughout the report: ACI ACA Airports Council International Airports Carbon Accreditation Programme GHGP Greenhouse Gas Protocol DEFRA/DECC Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs /Department of Energy and Climate Change (UK) CHP Combined Heat and Power plant APU Auxiliary Power Unit FEGP Fixed Electrical Ground Power 7

8 2. Airport Organisational Structure Antalya Airport is regulated by the Turkish Civil Aviation Authority, a function of the Turkish Transport Ministry. The following schematic explains the aviation reporting framework in Turkey and illustrates ICF s position in the framework. Turkish Transport Minister (Industry Policy) Turkish Civil Aviation Authority (Regulation and policy implementation) Antalya Airport DHMI (State Directorate) Airside operations ICF Airports (Terminal Operator) Landside and terminal bridge operations 2.1 Figure 1 ICF Internal Management Structure 8

9 ICF Airports Ltd. is a joint venture company formed by IC ICTAS Holdings Ltd. (Turkey) and Fraport AG Ltd. (Germany), specifically to manage terminal operations at Antalya Airport. An explanation of the rationale for concentrating on ICF s emissions as terminal operator in Airport Carbon Accreditation is provided in Section 5 (Airport Operational Structure, p.12) and Section 6 (Scoping/Boundary Setting, p.13). Figure 2 ICF s ownership structure The management structure of ICF gives equal representation to IC ICTAS Holdings and Fraport AG. As such there are parallel general managers; Mr Serhat Soğukpınar from IC Ictas Holdings and Mr Holger Schaefers from Fraport AG. They have given full backing to the Airport s ACA applications and assigned internal responsibility for managing the process to the company s Quality Manager Mr Musa Gungoren. Mr Gungoren is also responsible for the Airport s Environmental Management System, Quality Management System, Occupational Health and Safety Management System, Customer Satisfaction and Complaint Management System and Turkish Airports Green Airport Company certification. 3. ICF Carbon Management Policy Senior managers at ICF have made a public commitment to reducing CO 2 emissions in future years. Figure 3 contains the company s Integrated Management System policy where the commitment on CO 2 emissions can be found under Objectives. Figure 3 ICF Integrated Management System Policy (referenced to company website select Integrated Management System link on the webpage referenced below)

10 10

11 4. Emissions sources: Departmental function and management responsibility The following persons are responsible for each of the emissions sources included in the 2017 Carbon Footprint Report. Scope 1 On-site combustion facilities (Heating and Cooling) Function: Technic/Electric & electronic Manager/ Electric and energy power plant chief Responsible person: Mr Cuneyt Guler Business travel Function: Assistant General Managers-Operation/Administration department Responsible person: Mr Mehmet At On-site waste water treatment Function: Technic/ mechanic manager/ mechanic engineer Responsible person: Mr Emin Kılıç ICF airside car Function: Operation/ Duty managers Scope 2 Grid electricity purchases Function: Technic/ Electric & electronic manager Responsible person: Mr Cuneyt Guler Scope 3 Coordination and communication of 3 rd parties Function: Quality Management Responsible person: Mr Musa Güngören (IMS manager) Aircraft movement LTO-cycle & 400hz aircraft ground power supply Function: Assistant General Managers-Operation/Administration department 11

12 Responsible person: Mr Rifat Atasoy/Seyda Bodur Passenger access journeys Function: Commercial and Marketing department/ Purchasing unit Responsible person: Mr Kemal Türe Staff access journeys Function: Assistant General Managers-Operation/Administration department Responsible person: Mr Mehmet At Ground service vehicles Function: Quality Management Responsible person: Mr Musa Güngören (IMS Manager) 5. Airport Operational Structure Antalya International Airport is the main gateway for the Turkish Mediterranean Riviera, situated 30 km north-east of the Mediterranean coastal town of Antalya. The airport has seen significant growth in recent years. Due to extremely challenging circumstances and associated political tensions in the region in 2016 passenger numbers fell significantly by 30.7% to 19,027,504. However 2017 saw an equally significant upturn at Antalya Airport with passenger numbers recovering to 26,345,520, just below pre-2016 levels. The Airport has three terminals and three runways, with one dedicated to military use only. The Airport s operational structure can best be understood by dividing operations into terminal facilities and airside activities. The Turkish State Airport Authority DHMI has overall control of airside operations included ATC, whilst ICF secured the contract in 2007 to operate all three terminals until Daily operational responsibility can therefore be explained as follows: 5.1 Landside operations: ICF operated areas Operation and maintenance of terminal buildings, including passenger boarding bridges and aircraft ground power supply, landside car parks, the TRIGEN Combined Heat and Power (CHP) electricity generation and distribution centre, the heating & cooling centre, waste water treatment plant and waste separation facility; operation and maintenance. 12

13 5.2 Airside operations: DHMI operated areas DHMI has operational responsibility for the Air Traffic Control tower, air navigation systems, runways, taxiways, aprons, aircraft remote parking positions, planning and other airside facilities. The ACA Programme operates a financial control approach whereby the organisation with direct financial control over greenhouse gas emissions under the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, Scopes 1 and 2 at the operational site is responsible for accounting for these emissions. 6. Scoping/Boundary Setting ACA 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 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 guidance or influence. For the purposes of an ACI ACA Level 3+ application the reporting entity is obliged to report emissions from Scopes 1 and 2, and include additional Scope 3 emissions. ICF s Scope 3 emissions sources are defined in Section 6.1 below. Acknowledging the shared operational responsibility inherent at Antalya airport, initial scoping exercises in 2010, the first year in which ICF applied for ACA accreditation at Level 1 (Mapping), established that the company has direct operational responsibility over the majority of operations falling under the requirements of the Programme. The only exception to this was (apron-side) fire fighting exercises. These exercises at Antalya are carried out by DHMI. The greenhouse gas emissions resulting from this component are considered relatively insignificant compared to ICF s wider footprint but they have been reported since 2009 for completeness as a voluntary Scope 3 emission in the ICF footprint, i.e. activities over which the reporting organisation may have some influence but no direct control. Furthermore DHMI has a significant office space presence in the terminal buildings. Whilst the terminal buildings sit within the operational control of ICF, the DHMI space is treated for the purposes of this report as tenanted space, and the metered emissions from electricity purchased by DHMI have been deducted from the total terminal building emissions, as have electricity purchases from other tenants, as permitted by the ACA guidance notes. 6.1 Activities Included in the Carbon Footprint The emissions sources included in the carbon footprint are as follows: 13

14 Scope 1 Energy Stationary Sources On-site Stationary Combustion Facilities Refrigeration leaks Process Emissions (Waste water Treatment) ICF owned ground vehicle Scope 2 Grid-purchased electricity, less metered electricity sold to tenants and DHMI Since 2014 emissions from electricity losses in Transmission and Distribution (T&D losses) from power generation sites in Turkey to the airport have been excluded from those associated with ICF according to new ACA guidance. T&D losses have since been reported under Scope 3 emissions as they are now deemed to be beyond the responsibility of the reporting entity. Scope 3 Fire-fighting exercises (DHMI) Electricity losses in the transmission and distribution of power from generation facilities to the airport (T&D losses) Business Travel Flights by ICF employees 7 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 employee) access journeys Stakeholder ground support vehicles 6.2 Activities excluded from the carbon footprint The following list itemises additional activities listed in the ACA guidance manual as potential Scope 1 emissions sources which were not relevant to ICF at Antalya airport in 2017, with accompanying explanations: On-site solid waste management - All solid waste was treated off-site in 2017 Flares Data not applicable Fire suppression - There were thought to be no emissions from dry chemical products reported as used in fire suppression 7 Flights by ICF employees have hitherto been reported as a Scope 1 emission. However in line with latest ACA Programme guidance they are now reported as a Scope 3 emission. 14

15 7. Baseline Year 2017 emissions are compared to the average of the last three years; Greenhouse Gas Assertion 2017 The Responsible Party asserts that the aggregated Scopes 1 and 2 emissions for ICF Airports Ltd. at Antalya Airport was 17,150 tco 2 (17,158 tco 2e ). This figure includes all the activities over which ICF has direct control or ownership at Antalya Airport and all grid electricity purchased by ICF. It excludes electricity sold on to tenants, and that purchased by DHMI in terminal building office space. 9. Company Information Fraport IC IÇTAŞ Antalya Airport Terminal Investment and Management Inc. (ICF) Registered address: Antalya Havalimanı 1.Dış Hatlar Terminali Post Code: Antalya-TURKIYE 10. Reporting Period 1 January December

16 11. Summary Report 2017 Table 1 Carbon Footprint Summary Report tco tco 2e 3 year average tco /- 3 year average Scope 1 4,292 4,300 2,175 +2,117 Scope 2 12,858 12,858 14,013-1,154 Total Scope 1 and 2 emissions 17,150 17,158 16, Voluntary reporting of Scope 3 emissions from DHMI Fire fighting exercises, tenant electricity consumption, business travel and obligatory electricity Transmission &Distribution losses Carbon Offsets (to be purchased after verification) 2,448 2,449 2, N/A N/A N/A Green Tariff Total Scope 1 & 2 emissions after offset (TBC) 0 N/A N/A N/A Stakeholder Scope 3 emissions 315, , ,489 +3,837 Total Scopes 1, 2 and 3 emissions preoffsets 334, , ,309 +4,617 Passenger numbers 26,345,520 24,843,108 +1,502,412 Relative Scopes 1, 2 emissions KGs of CO2 per passenger 0.651kg 0.651kg kg Methodology 12.1 ACI ACA guidance AFL has followed the ACA Guidance Document Issue 10 (September 2016) in compiling this Carbon Footprint Report. ACA guidance requires that the report content complies with ISO14064 Part 1. 16

17 12.2 Emissions calculations Scopes 1, 2 emissions, T&D losses and voluntary Scope 3 emissions from DHMI firefighting exercises As in previous years analyses of ICF s Scope 1 and 2 emissions DEFRA/DECC guidelines on greenhouse gas conversion factors have been used to calculate CO 2, CH 4 and N 2 O emissions. Emissions were calculated using AFL s Airport Footprinter model, which applies calculation coefficients and appropriate emissions factors contained in the DEFRA/DCFCarbonFactors, August 2017 database to raw data collected by ICF ATMs in the LTO cycle Emissions from ATMs in the LTO cycle were calculated using AFL s Aircraft Footprinter model, 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 Emissions from aircraft auxiliary power units (APUs) used by airlines at Antalya in 2017 whilst aircraft were parked at stand (and not connected to ground power supply) were also calculated using the model, based on ICAO per second APU fuel-burn data and average aircraft times at stand provided by ICF. In Table 3 on page 26 an analysis is presented of Scope 3 emissions savings made in 2017 as a result of ICF s policy of incentivising airlines to use FEGP instead of aircraft APUs Passenger access journeys The methodology proposed at Antalya Airport has been submitted by ICF as the most appropriate for its business. In terms of its international passenger throughput the Airport caters largely to the Turkish Mediterranean tourist market and data supplied by ICF suggest that the overwhelming majority of international passengers (97.4%) use transfer buses operated by ICF s partner organisations to reach their holiday destination when they arrive at the airport. A greater proportion of domestic passengers however use private vehicles and taxis to access the airport. ICF provided the following breakdown of vehicle access for 2017, according to international and domestic passengers respectively: 17

18 International passengers International passengers modal split distribution Domestic passengers Bus and midi-bus transfers 63.0% Minibus 33.0% Hire car/private car 0.7% Taxi 1.6% Tram 0.8% Other 0.9% Domestic passengers modal split distribution Bus transfer 33.1% Private car 39.8% Hire car 3.5% Taxi 10.4% Tram 13.2% The method employed to estimate emissions from international passenger access journeys relies largely and necessarily on an analysis of total distances travelled by the transfer buses operating under contract at the airport. Estimated total consumption values were provided for each of the transfer buses from specific fuel consumption test data provided by the bus operating companies. Emissions were then calculated by AFL by extrapolating CO 2 emissions from total fuel consumption. Passengers travelling by car and taxi were assumed to travel to Antalya city centre (25km). For domestic passenger access modal split data was provided based on detailed vehicle car park records kept by ICF which monitor all vehicle activity in the airport car parks. Average journey distances for domestic passengers were estimated to be 25km, this being the distance between the airport and Antalya city centre Employee access journeys Employees working at Antalya Airport have access to a fleet of transfer buses provided by airport third party service providers to travel to and from the airport. These buses cover a comprehensive network of 32 routes in and around Antalya enabling an estimated 97% of staff to access the airport this way. Aggregated fuel use data were provided to AFL for all shuttle buses operating in 2017 and emissions were calculated based on total fuel consumption. 18

19 Ground support vehicles Data was provided to enable AFL to analyse aggregated fuel consumption from all baggage handling, in-flight catering, aircraft re-fuelling, airlines, representative companies and state authority ground control vehicles in Fuel consumption for this comprehensive list of vehicles enabled AFL to provide an accurate assessment of emissions for ground support vehicles. 19

20 13. Detailed Carbon Footprint 2017 Table 2 Carbon Footprint Analysis 2017 GHG emissions: 2017 in tco v 2016 tco 2 3 year rolling average tco v 3 year average tco 2 Voluntary reporting of additional ghgs: CH 4 & N 2 O tco 2eq Scope 1 emissions Energy: Stationary Sources Boilers (LPG) Boilers (LNG) , , Boilers (Fuel Oil) 1, , Boilers (Diesel) Emergency generators Diesel TREGEN Power plant NG (Electricity) 2, , , Sales to tenants Metered DHMI consumption Refrigeration leaks R134a/HFC134a R R410A R407C Process emissions: On-site waste water treatment Ground vehicles: ICF owned car Total Scope 1 emissions 4, , , ,

21 GHG emissions: 2017 in tco v 2016 tco 2 3 year rolling average tco v 3 year average tco 2 Voluntary reporting of additional ghgs: CH 4 & N 2 O tco 2e Scope 2 emissions Purchased energy: Total purchased electricity (Generated emissions) 24, , , , Metered sales to tenants -4, , Metered DHMI electricity purchase emissions -7, , Net Scope 2 emissions 12, , , Total Scope 1 and 2 emissions 17, , , Offsets required (including business travel) 17,221 N/A N/A N/A Green tariffs Net ICF Scope 1 & 2 emissions after offset purchase 0 Passengers 26,345,520 7,318,016 24,843,108 1,502,412 Relative Scopes 1 & 2 CO 2 emissions per passenger 0.651kg kg Voluntary Scope 3 emissions Fire-fighting exercises (DHMI activity) Business travel - flights Scope 3 losses in transmission and distribution (T&D losses) Grid purchased electricity T&D losses 4, , Sales to tenants T&D losses DHMI purchases T&D losses -1, , Net T&D losses 2, , Total ICF Scope 1,2, T&D losses & voluntary Scope 3 emissions 19, , ,

22 Scope 3 emissions 2017 tco 2 +/ tco 2 3 year rolling average Scope 3 emissions tco 2 +/- 3 year average tco 2 Voluntary reporting of additional ghgs: CH 4 & N 2 O tco 2e Stakeholder Scope 3 emissions ATMs in the LTO cycle Approach 44, , , , Taxi 99, , , , Take-off 27, , , , Climb out 71, , , , APU 9, , , Net savings from 2012 APU policy -14, , , , Total ATM emissions 253, , , , Total number of ATMs For the purposes of emissions calculations only arrival aircraft in the ICF ATM record have been modelled as the aircraft emissions model calculates emissions for the full Landing and Take-off cycle. Were departing aircraft emissions also calculated this would lead to double-counting. 79,027 15,650 79, Passenger access journeys 57, , , Staff access journeys Ground support vehicles 4, , Total stakeholder Scope 3 emissions 315, , , , Total Scopes 1, 2 and 3 emissions 334, , , ,

23 14. Materiality 14.1 Raw data confidence and assumptions 2017 carbon footprint ICF s data management systems have been fine tuned since the calculation of the first carbon footprint in 2010 and are considered to be robust. The managers listed on pages 10, 11 and 12 have a good understanding of which data to collect for each of the areas they supervise and data for all scopes 1, 2 and 3 components were provided to AFL in April Emission factors In all cases throughout the compilation of the carbon footprint DEFRA/DCF Carbon Factors emissions factors (August 2017) were applied with the exception of the Scope 3 analysis presented for ATMs in the LTO phase where emissions factors from the ICAO engines emissions database were applied, based on assumed aircraft times in mode in the standard four phases of the LTO cycle as defined by the ICAO Airport Air Quality Guidance Document This is in line with current best practice in airports organisational greenhouse gas emissions reporting Process Emissions (Waste Water Treatment) In the absence of any Turkey-specific emissions factors from either the Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHGP) or DEFRA/DCF, UK waste water treatment emissions factors were applied as in previous years. 15. Emissions - results analysis 15.1 Scope 1 and 2 emissions Absolute Scopes 1 and 2 CO 2 emissions for which ICF are directly responsible at Antalya Airport were 17,150tCO 2, an increase of 2,702tCO 2 compared to 2016 and an increase of 963tCO2 (5.9%) against the three year average emissions value of 16,188tCO 2 ( ). Passenger numbers in 2017 rose against the three year average ( ) by 1,502,412 (6.0%). As such the relative emissions metric chosen by ICF against which to measure its emissions reduction performance (emissions per passenger) fell from 0.663kgCO 2 ( ) to 0.651kgCO 2 in 2017 (-1.8%). 23

24 Figure 4 ICF Scopes 1 & 2 carbon footprint comparison; average to 2017 ICF Scope 1 & 2 emissions compared to 2017 tco Energy - stationary sources Refrigeration lakes Waste water treatment ICF ground vehicle Purchased electricity Total Scope 1 & 2 emissions 15.2 Observations Figure 5 illustrates passenger numbers between 2010 and Having shown a steady increase between 2010 and 2015 to over 27.5 million they fell rapidly in 2016 to just over 19 million, due to extremely challenging operational circumstance that saw a large reduction in the number of passengers using the airport from Russia. In the 8 years since it has been reporting and managing its greenhouse gas emissions under the ACA Programme the airport had previously grown by over 50% and its infrastructure had been geared to accommodate this growth. Such dramatic reductions in passenger numbers in just twelve months therefore resulted in the need for urgent operational responses from the airport operator and stakeholders to gear operations appropriately. The number of Air Traffic Movements in 2016 was 26.1% lower than in 2015 for example. Naturally ICF sought to respond to such significant changes. This included assessments of terminal and other airport infrastructure use as well as energy demand. It was able to reduce its energy demand by 12% in 2016 compared to the previous year (and by 16% compared to the three year average of 2013 and 2015). In total aggregate Scope 1 & 2 emissions were 14.4% lower than the three year average. In 2017 however operations largely recovered from the 2016 reduction. This necessitated a return to pre-2015 airport operations including energy consumption and the carbon footprint rose again as would be expected. However in August 2017 the long-awaited natural gas pipeline that connects Antalya Airport to the main Turkish gas grid was officially opened. It has long been anticipated that the opening of the pipeline that has been delayed for a number of years would facilitate greater use of the 24

25 Trigen electricity generation facility at the airport which was built in 2011 and which to this point had only been used intermittently due to the fluctuating price of the liquefied natural gas required hitherto to operate the facility. Trigen uses relatively low carbon natural gas to produce electricity (as well as heat & cooling) compared to electricity produced by the Turkish grid and it is anticipated that increasing use of the facility now it is connected to the main Turkish gas grid will contribute to ICF s reducing carbon footprint going forward. Figure 5 Passenger numbers at Antalya Airport; Antalya Airport passenger numbers 2010 to Scope 3 emissions Figure 6 ICF Stakeholder Scope 3 emissions v 2017 Stakeholder Scope 3 emissions v 2017 tco average 2017 Scope 3 emission source ICF s stakeholder Scope 3 emissions (including losses from electricity transmission and distribution) are reported as 317,774tCO 2 in This compares to the average of 314,120tCO 2. 25

26 ICF continued its successful policy of encouraging airlines to use Fixed Electrical Ground Power for aircraft parked at stand in 2017 instead of aircraft Auxiliary Power Units. This had the effect of reducing emissions by 14,850tCO 2 compared to pre-policy levels. Details are provided in Table 3 below. Table 3 Estimated savings from ICF FEGP policy in 2017 tco 2 Gross APU emissions savings from all aircraft using FEGP in ,968 Assumed deductions from aircraft already using FEGP in ,528 FEGP supply emissions in Net 2017 reductions in emissions as a result of the FEGP policy 14,850 These calculations are based on data provided by ICF which highlighted the number of aircraft using FEGP. The net benefit of the policy is calculated by subtracting estimated savings from aircraft already using FEGP prior to the policy s introduction in 2011 along with emissions from FEGP in 2017, from gross APU emissions savings in 2017, measured by AFL s Aircraft Footprinter model. 16. Business conditions in 2017 As was reported in the 2015 Carbon Footprint Report (published in May 2016) in November 2015 there was a significant change in the political landscape in Turkey due to events surrounding the civil war in Syria and in particular regarding deteriorating political relations between Turkey and Russia. This led to an immediate reduction in passenger numbers at Antalya Airport, with large reductions in the numbers of Russian passengers, Antalya s largest market hitherto saw the easing of these tensions and Antalya Airport benefitted from the resumption of large numbers of passengers from Russia once again. Passenger numbers in 2017 recovered from 19m in 2016 to 26.3m, only 1.2m fewer than in Carbon Management Plan and Stakeholder Engagement Plan ICF has updated its Carbon Management Plan and its Stakeholder Engagement Plan in support of its 2018 Level 3+ ACA re-application. These will be provided to the independent verifier who will assess them along with this report and the calculations underpinning ICF s carbon footprint prior to the application. 26

27 18. Conclusion In the eight years since it embarked on its carbon management programme ICF has amply demonstrated its determination to engage in high quality carbon management practices and has moved swiftly through the levels of Airport Carbon Accreditation to Level 3+ (carbon neutral). It has also demonstrated its determination to achieve emissions reductions from the widest possible sources at the Airport through meaningful and successful initiatives to reduce emissions from Scopes 1, 2 and 3 activities. This Carbon Footprint Report of 2017 emissions at Antalya Airport supports the continuation of the company s strategy to consolidate its leadership role in the field of airport carbon management in the region. Appendix A: Tables and Figures: Page Table 1 Carbon Footprint Summary Report Table 2 Carbon Footprint Analysis Table 3 Estimated savings from ICF FEGP policy in Figure 1 ICF Internal Management Structure 8 Figure 2 ICF s ownership structure 9 Figure 3 ICF Integrated Management System Policy 10 Figure 4 ICF Scopes 1 & 2 carbon footprint comparison; average to Figure 5 Passenger numbers at Antalya Airport; Figure 6 ICF Stakeholder Scope 3 emissions v