Antalya Airport Verification – Level 3 Renewal 2014
Carbon Footprint Verification
CC20143762
Antalya Airport Carbon Footprint
Verification – Level 3 Renewal
Carbon Footprint Verification
Client Name
ICF Airports
Client Representative
Musa Gungoren
Name of Consultant
Bryony Karsenbarg
Consultant email
[email protected]
Clouds Product ID
CC20143762
Date of Verification
April 2014
Page 1
Report produced by Clouds Environmental Consultancy Ltd
April 2014
Antalya Airport Verification – Level 3 Renewal 2014
Carbon Footprint Verification
CC20143762
Administration Record
Issue
Modification
Approved
Approved Date
1.0
Internal QA
Alan Bish
11/04/2014
2.0
Modification from QA
Bryony Karsenbarg
11/04/2014
Prepared by
Approved by
Consultancy
Bryony Karsenbarg
Alan Bish
Clouds Environmental Consultancy Ltd
T: 02392 639 858
F: 02392 639 859
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
Report produced by Clouds Environmental Consultancy Ltd
April 2014
Antalya Airport Verification – Level 3 Renewal 2014
Carbon Footprint Verification
CC20143762
Executive Summary
The Carbon Footprint report provided for verification sets out total Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 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 2013- 31 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 Protocol 1 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 98892

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 CO2 emissions for which ICF are directly responsible at Antalya Airport were
16,613.6 tCO2, a significant reduction of 659.96 tCO2 compared to the revised 2012 figure of
17,273.56 tCO2, and a reduction against the new three year average emissions’ value (17,068.21
tCO2) of -454.61 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 0.692 kgCO2 per passenger to 0.622 kgCO2 per passenger in 2013 (10.16%).
As required by the ACI Scheme guidance measured against the revised 2010-2012 average emissions
per passenger value, a significant reduction has been achieved in 2013 reported emissions,
representing a value of -12.48%, from 0.711 kgCO2 to 0.089 kgCO2 per passenger in 2013. 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
Report produced by Clouds Environmental Consultancy Ltd
April 2014
Antalya Airport Verification – Level 3 Renewal 2014
Carbon Footprint Verification
CC20143762
Having verified the CFR in accordance with the latest DEFRA Guidance on how to measure and report
your greenhouse gas emissions1 and according to the principles set out in BS ISO 14064 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
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/206392/pb13944-env-reporting-guidance.pdf
Page 4
Report produced by Clouds Environmental Consultancy Ltd
April 2014
Antalya Airport Verification – Level 3 Renewal 2014
Carbon Footprint Verification
CC20143762
Verification requirements
In accordance with BS ISO 14064-3:2006, 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 14064-3:2006:
 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
Report produced by Clouds Environmental Consultancy Ltd
April 2014
Antalya Airport Verification – Level 3 Renewal 2014
Carbon Footprint Verification
2
CC20143762
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 14064-3:2006, 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 14064-3:2006, Terms and definitions, 2.29
Page 6
Report produced by Clouds Environmental Consultancy Ltd
April 2014
Antalya Airport Verification – Level 3 Renewal 2014
Carbon Footprint Verification
4
CC20143762
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 CO2, CH4 and N2O 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 20133 CCFs were
included in the calculations to maintain transparency of the CF reporting procedure.
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
http://www.ukconversionfactorscarbonsmart.co.uk/
Page 7
Report produced by Clouds Environmental Consultancy Ltd
April 2014
Antalya Airport Verification – Level 3 Renewal 2014
Carbon Footprint Verification
CC20143762
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 20.3.14’.
In line with the above ICF have appropriately re-calculated the 2010-2012 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 2010-2012 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 CO2 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 2010-12
Page 8
Report produced by Clouds Environmental Consultancy Ltd
April 2014
Antalya Airport Verification – Level 3 Renewal 2014
Carbon Footprint Verification
4.1
CC20143762
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 GHGP5;
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 CO2 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 12.2.1 of the CFR all of which have been verified as part of this report (Section 4).
5
6
7
GHGP – Chapter 4
Guidance Manual: Airport Greenhouse Gas Emissions Management p.30
CFR p.13 6.2
Page 9
Report produced by Clouds Environmental Consultancy Ltd
April 2014
Antalya Airport Verification – Level 3 Renewal 2014
Carbon Footprint Verification
CC20143762
Data Sources and responsibility:
The CFR8 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 System9 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
4.2.1
Boilers (m3)
The raw data has been provided in m3 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.
4.2.2
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.
4.2.3
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
9
CFR Section 4
Please see Carbon Management Plan detail
Page 10
Report produced by Clouds Environmental Consultancy Ltd
April 2014
Antalya Airport Verification – Level 3 Renewal 2014
Carbon Footprint Verification
CC20143762
Mobile Sources
4.2.4
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 mileage10 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.
4.2.5
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.
4.2.6
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.
10
http://www.world-airport-codes.com/
Page 11
Report produced by Clouds Environmental Consultancy Ltd
April 2014
Antalya Airport Verification – Level 3 Renewal 2014
Carbon Footprint Verification
4.3
Scope 2
4.3.1
Purchased Electricity
CC20143762
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
4.4.1
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
Report produced by Clouds Environmental Consultancy Ltd
April 2014
Antalya Airport Verification – Level 3 Renewal 2014
Carbon Footprint Verification
4.5
CC20143762
Stakeholder Scope 3 emissions
Mobile Sources
4.5.1
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
workbook11.
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.
4.5.2
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
12
Passenger Access Journeys 2013 AFL 6.3.14
Staff Access-2013-Mehmet At AFL 6.3.14
Page 13
Report produced by Clouds Environmental Consultancy Ltd
April 2014
Antalya Airport Verification – Level 3 Renewal 2014
Carbon Footprint Verification
CC20143762
Aircraft Movements:
4.5.3
LTO Emissions
ICF have used a valid, robust and repeatable methodology as described under the CAP 9889 Guidance
document13 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.
http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=96 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:
http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=23, 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 9889.
13
http://www.icao.int/publications/Documents/9889_cons_en.pdf
Page 14
Report produced by Clouds Environmental Consultancy Ltd
April 2014
Antalya Airport Verification – Level 3 Renewal 2014
Carbon Footprint Verification
CC20143762
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
Report produced by Clouds Environmental Consultancy Ltd
April 2014
Antalya Airport Verification – Level 3 Renewal 2014
Carbon Footprint Verification
CC20143762
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 2010-2012 average emissions
per passenger value, a significant reduction has been achieved in 2013 reported emissions,
representing a value of -12.48%, from 0.711 kgCO2 to 0.089 kgCO2 per passenger in 2013. 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
Report produced by Clouds Environmental Consultancy Ltd
April 2014
Antalya Airport Verification – Level 3 Renewal 2014
Carbon Footprint Verification
CC20143762
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 place15. 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
2015. Investment in continued environmental and energy awareness has also been approved by top
management.
15
16
CFR Figure 13 Stakeholder engagement plan
CFR P.35
Page 17
Report produced by Clouds Environmental Consultancy Ltd
April 2014
Antalya Airport Verification – Level 3 Renewal 2014
Carbon Footprint Verification
CC20143762
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
Report produced by Clouds Environmental Consultancy Ltd
April 2014
Antalya Airport Verification – Level 3 Renewal 2014
Carbon Footprint Verification
5
CC20143762
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 0.692 kgCO2 per passenger to 0.622 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
Report produced by Clouds Environmental Consultancy Ltd
April 2014
Antalya Airport Verification – Level 3 Renewal 2014
Carbon Footprint Verification
5.1
CC20143762
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 6.3.14’ 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 6.3.14’ 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
Report produced by Clouds Environmental Consultancy Ltd
April 2014
Antalya Airport Verification – Level 3 Renewal 2014
Carbon Footprint Verification
5.3
CC20143762
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 CO2 only) and BS ISO 14064-3:2006;
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
Report produced by Clouds Environmental Consultancy Ltd
April 2014
Antalya Airport Verification – Level 3 Renewal 2014
Carbon Footprint Verification
6
CC20143762
References
Acronyms
ACI
Airport Councils International Europe
ACA
Airport Carbon Accreditation
CFR
Carbon Footprint Report
Clouds
Clouds Environmental Consultancy Ltd
CMP
Carbon Management Plan
DEFRA
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
GHG
Greenhouse Gas
GHGP
Greenhouse Gas Protocol
ICAO
International Civil Aviation Organization
ICF
ICF Airport Inc.
IMS
Integrated Management System
LTO
Landing and Take Off
PDF
Portable document format
tCO2
Tonnes carbon dioxide
tCO2e
Tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent
Page 22
Report produced by Clouds Environmental Consultancy Ltd
April 2014