7.13Introduction Airports at Level 2 and above should: in emissions from Scope 1 & 2 sources in order to attain or remain at Level 2 and above. Airports should decide on the emissions improvement metric – the choice being Absolute or Relative metrics (see section 7.14 below). Once an emissions improvement metric has been chosen, an accredited airport at Level 2 and above should also set a target level of emissions which it will work towards. The target should be a numerical value (tonnes of CO2 if absolute or tonnes of CO2/traffic unit, or similar, if relative) and should have a date associated with it. For example: “The target scope 1 & 2 emissions from airport X is 45,000 tonnes of CO2 by 2015, which represents a 10% reduction on 2007 emissions levels.” The programme strongly encourages airports to publish their emissions reduction targets. This is becoming increasingly common practice amongst the airport sector and the wider economy. However, targets set by airports which are advised to the Administrator when complying with the above requirement to set a target will be held in confidence. As stated in section 2.3, all data submitted to the Administrator will remain confidential. It is up to the airport to publish any performance or target data separately.
7.14Absolute vs Relative Emission Improvement Metrics/Targets Both absolute and relative emissions improvement metrics/targets are permitted. -
An absolute metric is a fixed level of emissions per year, expressed as tonnes of CO2.
-
A relative metric is expressed as emissions per unit of activity and should be expressed as tonnes of CO2 per passenger or tonnes of CO2 per traffic unit. A traffic unit is defined as 100kg of cargo or 1 passenger.
The GHG Protocol provides the following commentary on the merits of both types of target:
RELATIVE TARGETS reduce the ratio of emissions relative to a business metric over time (Example: reduce CO2 by 12 percent per tonne of clinker between 2000 and 2008)
Advantages
• Reflects GHG performance improvements independent of organic growth or decline
• Target base year recalculations for structural changes are usually not required (see step 4)
• May increase the comparability of GHG performance among companies
Disadvantages
• No guarantee that GHG emissions to the atmosphere will be reduced—absolute emissions may rise even if intensity goes down and output increases
• Companies with diverse operations may find it difficult to define a single common business metric
• If a monetary variable is used for the business metric, such as dollar of revenue or sales, it should be recalculated for changes in product prices and product mix, as well as inflation, adding complexity to the tracking process
ABSOLUTE TARGETS reduce absolute emissions over time (Example: reduce CO2 by 25 percent below 1994 levels by 2010)
Advantages
• Designed to achieve a reduction in a specified quantity of GHGs emitted to the atmosphere
• Environmentally robust as it entails a commitment to reduce GHGs by a specified amount
• Transparently addresses potential stakeholder concerns about the need to manage absolute emissions
Disadvantages
• Target base year recalculations for significant structural changes to the organization add complexity to tracking progress over time
• Does not allow comparisons of GHG intensity/efficiency
• Recognizes a company for reducing GHGs by decreasing production or output (organic decline, see chapter 5)
• May be difficult to achieve if the company grows unexpectedly and growth is linked to GHG emissions
Airport Carbon Accreditation recognises that airports may have existing targets that do not relate directly to the carbon footprint reported for Airport Carbon Accreditation purposes. For example, where airports have already been reporting their carbon emissions for a number of years (e.g. based on government requirements or Corporate Social Responsibility reporting), it may be the case that the organisational boundary of their footprint differs from the minimum requirements for Airport Carbon Accreditation. In addition, airports may have a series of targets relating to specific emissions sources within their carbon footprint. In such cases the targets will generally be accepted by the Administrator as long as suitable evidence of performance against those targets is available. In recognition of the unique circumstances at each airport this will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
7.16Use of the Three-Year Rolling Average In addition to setting a target, an airport must demonstrate a reduction in the chosen emissions metric each year. However, it is recognise that normal patterns of business mean that emissions fluctuate year-on-year, even where they show a downward trend. To allow for annual fluctuations the programme requires the emissions performance to improve in relation to a 3-year rolling average. This works as follows: -
The year being reported is Year 0.
-
The average which Year 0 should be reported against is the arithmetic mean (average) of Year -1, Year -2 and Year -3.
In the first three years of participation the programme recognises that an airport may not have complete historical data sufficient to enable it to calculate the full 3-year average. Therefore, an airport may compare its Year 0 emissions with Year -1 or the average of Year -1 and Year -2 where it does not have sufficient data to calculate the full 3-year average. After three years of participation an airport SHOULD compare its Year 0 emissions to the rolling 3-year average.
Contact Administrator for assistance
Accounting for Growth or Divestment
Adjusting the 3 year rolling average and the target is complex. It is strongly suggested that the airport contact the Administrator for assistance. The following principles will be applied.
Between the date when a target was set and the date when it is to be achieved it is possible that an airport will add new assets (e.g. terminals, etc…) and/or divest certain assets (e.g. baggage handling operations). It is necessary to show the effect of the new asset or the divestment.
Disposal/Divestment
In the case of a disposal/divestment the airport should re-calculate the footprint for the past 3 years excluding the emissions from the asset which has been disposed of. These new historical emissions should be used to calculate the average against which the current year’s performance will be compared.
New Assets
In the case of an acquisition or new asset the situation is slightly different. For three years after the new asset is in operation there will not be sufficient data to provide a 3-year historical average for that new asset. The programme wishes to see the impact of the new asset as early as possible. Therefore, from the time that the new asset is added to the airport’s operations the airport should adopt the principle of section 7.16 above.
As an example:
An airport has had one terminal (T1) for 20 years. In 2012 it opens T2. T1 remains open. For 2008 the calculation of the 3 year rolling average for T1 is not a problem, the airport has data for 2007, 2006 and 2005. The same is true for the calculations in 2009, 2010 and 2011. In 2012 it has emissions from T2 and T1, but no historical data for T2.
For 2012, when demonstrating its improvements the airport should report T1 against the 3 year average for T1 (2011, 2010 and 2009).
For 2013 it should compare the performance of T1 + T2 in 2013 against the performance of T1 + T2 in 2012 only (because it has no more history for T2). If T2 came into operation part way through 2012 it will not have a full year of data for T2 in 2012 to use in the calculation. In that case it can use T1 vs. the T1 3 year average in 2013 as well – but this will be for the last time.
For 2014 the airport should compare the performance of T1 + T2 in 2014 against the performance of T1 + T2 in 2013 only - i.e. only 1 year of history for the combined operation.
For 2015 the airport should compare the performance of T1 + T2 in 2014 against the average performance of T1 + T2 in 2013 and 2014 - i.e. only 2 years of history for the combined operation.
From 2016 the airport will be able to compare its performance of T1 + T2 against a full 3 year rolling average again. 7.16.2Adjusting the target The longer term target for emissions performance (see section 7.13) will need to be adjusted to account for the addition or divestment of any major assets. Disposal/Divestment For divestments the airport should calculate the emissions from the divested asset for the most recent full year. The target should be adjusted downwards by a proportion of the divested emissions, calculated as follows: Target, set in 2009, is 45,000 tonnes by 2015. Emissions in 2009 were 50,000 tonnes. An asset is divested in 2012. It emitted 2,000 tonnes in 2011 (the last full year of data). The emissions reduction that the target was to deliver was 5,000 tonnes from 2009 to 2015 with a baseline of 50,000 tonnes in 2009. In other words, a 10% reduction over 6 years. By 2011 (the last year of full data for the divested asset) the airport was 2 years into its 6 year reduction period and it should therefore have reduced emissions by 2/6 * 10% = 3.33%. Therefore the programme will expect that, if the airport had kept the asset, it would have made a further 6.66% reduction in that asset’s emissions by 2015. This implies that by 2015 the assets emissions would have been 2,000 * (100-6.66)/100 = 1,867 tonnes. Therefore the airport should adjust its target downwards by 1,867 tonnes from 45,000 tonnes to 43,133 tonnes. New Assets When an asset is added the airport should calculate the remaining % reduction from the date that it is added to the date of the target (as above). This remaining reduction should be applied to the first full year of emissions for the new asset and the result added to the long term target figure.
Share with your friends: |
