0

YE2017_BNE

ACHIEVING SUSTAINABILITY FOR

AIRPORTS IN ASIA-PACIFIC

Maddalena Gabrielli Brisbane Airport Corporation

YE2017_BNE

1

“Settinganexampleisnotthemainmeansofinfluencingothers;itistheonlymeans”.-AlbertEinstein

Sustainable development and operations are crucial to ensuring long-term economic growth and prosperity.

The Airport Council International (ACI) defines airport sustainability as1:

“A holistic approach to managing an airport so as to

ensure the integrity of the economic viability, operational

efficiency, natural resource conservation, and social

responsibility of the airport.”

Airport operations involve a large number of different activities and assets 2 (refer to Figure 1). Key environmental impacts from these activities and asset operation are based around discharges to water, air and land, and fuel and electricity consumption.

While the airport industry has long has had a focus on improving noise, air and light pollution for regulatory and health reasons, there is now an increasing focus on greenhouse gas management and climate change.

In fact, the aviation industry has recently committed to a series of very ambitious goals in response to climate change. In October 2016 the ICAO Assembly ratified CORSIA3, the “Carbon Offset and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation” with almost 90% of international air traffic volunteering for the 2021-2026 pilot phase.

It is a remarkable achievement for international airlines to be coming together to respond to the challenges of climate change in a manner that respects the need for ongoing aviation growth, and is an example that airports should seek to emulate.

Given that airports are effectively the public face of aviation, a major employer and often a point of local pride, they are leading by example through both their action and inaction.

This influence provides a unique opportunity for airports to act as role models for sustainability

leadership in their local community. As Albert Einstein stated, “setting an example is not the main means of influencing others; it is the only means”.

The establishment in 2011 of the Airport Carbon Accreditation program and the recent signing of the Airports Sustainability Declaration in Amsterdam have started airports on the path towards coordinated industry action on sustainability.

While this progress is promising, there remain a number of challenges specific to airports, in particular for those operating in the Asia-Pacific.

This paper first presents a concept of what it could mean to be a sustainable airport in the Asia-Pacific region.

It then assesses some of the obstacles to achieving this vision, and concludes with suggestions for how they might be overcome.

Figure 1: Typical airport activities and assets2

Introduction

YE2017_BNE

2

In order to identify in which aspects of airport sustainability could be achieved, it is first necessary to determine the characteristics of Asia-Pacific that can influence environmental performance.

These characteristics can then be used to determine It is then possible to describe what a sustainable airport would look like and how its sustainability performance would be measured.

Characteristics of Asia-Pacific

The criteria for environmental sustainability need to account for the fact that the Asia-Pacific region is highly diverse. It contains numerous governments and regulatory bodies, including nations from different stages of economic development. While this diversity represents a challenge for a holistic vision of sustainability, it also provides unique opportunities for regional knowledge sharing and innovation.

There is an extensive range of different climates, and more than 20,000 individual islands. As a result, a large proportion of Asia-Pacific airports are in coastal regions, and actively exposed to the impacts of climate change including sea level rise.

Asia-Pacific includes 14 of the 36 currently recognised world biodiversity hotspots, and is one of the most geologically active regions in the world.

It is also one of the fastest growing, both in terms of population and aviation activity. In 2004, Asia-Pacific airlines accounted for just 255 million airline passengers, or about 21% of global market share4.

10 years later revenue has tripled to US $176 billion, while passenger numbers have more than quadrupled to 1.106 billion, representing 31% of global passenger traffic5. Over the next 20 years, Asia-Pacific is expected to account for about two-thirds of global aviation growth6.

This continuing growth puts strain on existing infrastructure; air quality ratings are some of the worst in the world, and water stress is high in many areas.

The combination of these factors present a unique combination of challenges to attaining sustainability, namely the question of how to balance the demand for more

passengers and more infrastructure against the need to be increasingly responsible for reducing environmental impacts and supporting global environmental protection measures.

A sustainable airport

The definition of an environmentally sustainable airport will be constantly evolving as new technologies emerge. Based on current technical capabilities, a sustainable airport would meet the following nine criteria (Figure 2).

These criteria have been based on the major environmental impacts resulting from airport activities (see Figure 1 for a summary of activities). They are selected due to their significance in Asia-Pacific and alignment with the UN Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDG)7.

Each one is presented with an explanation of its significance, how it would be quantitatively measured and benchmarked, and what steps an airport needs to take to become a sustainable enterprise in regards to the criteria. Some of the criteria do not yet have sufficient quantitative historical data in the public domain to set an absolute performance target, so the performance evaluation is based on degree of management instead of benchmarked performance.

Chapter 1: Defining a sustainable airport

Figure 2: Criteria for a sustainable airport in Asia-Pacific based on the 2030 UN Sustainable Development Goals

YE2017_BNE

3

Ultimately, a sustainable airport would not only maintain but improve on the state of its natural environment.

The role of ESD in a sustainable airport

As the population in the nations of the Asia-Pacific nations continues to grow at rates outstripping most other regions, their airlines continue to expand, increasing demand for growth in aviation infrastructure.

This need for ongoing development presents unique opportunities for the region’s airports to become sustainability showpieces. After all, buildings alone (excluding roads, utilities and other infrastructure) are estimated to use about 40% of global energy, 25% of global water, 40% of global resources, and they emit approximately 30% of GHG emissions8.

Measuring ESD

The integration of ESD principles are best measured by achievements under green infrastructure rating frameworks.

There are a number of internationally-recognised rating schemes such as the LEED and BREAM frameworks, but many countries in Asia-Pacific have also established their own (refer to Figure 3).

Using ESD to develop sustainable airports

Historically, airports have not often made use of infrastructure certifications due to the lack of a broad, industry-adopted and airport-specific system.

As a result, a staged approach is recommended. The first step is to incentivize the use of local green infrastructure rating tools for airport developments. The second should be to gather data from these trials, followed by the development of an airport-specific rating tool. Ideally there would be a single airport industry standard in use across Asia-Pacific.

The final stage should be benchmarking to continue to challenge the definition of “best practice”. Some countries have begun this process independently: as of 2016, all new terminal buildings proposed under the Airports

Authority of India must achieve a minimum 'three star' GRIHA rating. Singapore also has a mandatory minimum standard for new buildings.

The role of procurement in a sustainable airport

Responsible procurement refers to organisations meeting their needs for goods and services in a way that achieves value for money on a whole life basis for the organisation, society, the economy and the natural environment. It is of particular importance in the aviation industry due to the large supply chains and significant trend trending towards outsourcing.

Airlines and airports directly employ 4.3 million people, and support 5.8 million indirect jobs through

purchases of goods and services9.

Outsourcing of non-core services including legal, accounting, security, firefighting, maintenance, landscaping and waste management is a cost-saving measure often introduced following airport deregulation and privatization. Outsourcing is often the second largest operating expense for airports, at around 20%10.

Measuring responsible procurement

Environmentally preferable goods and services are defined as those that have a lower impact on the environment over its life cycle compared with competing goods or services serving the same purpose11. Integration of responsible procurement can be measured by:

“Best Practice” Environmentally Sustainable Design (ESD)

Figure 3: Country-specific green infrastructure rating schemes in Asia-Pacific

Responsible procurement

YE2017_BNE

4

Ø Proportion of procurement from suppliers with green qualifications and/or based on environmental performance criteria e.g. life cycle analysis

Responsible procurement in sustainable airports

There are a number of steps that airports take in integrating responsible procurement. These include:

1. A purchasing and procurement policy

2. Selecting suppliers based on environmental performance

3. Engaging with suppliers to achieve continuous environmental performance improvements

The role of biodiversity in a sustainable airport

Biodiversity potential is specific to an individual airport based on its size, location, indigenous species and wildlife control regulation. Although all airports have the potential to support local biodiversity, airports in Asia-Pacific have more opportunity than most, as indicated by the number of world biodiversity hotspots spread throughout the region (see Figure 4).

Figure 4: World biodiversity hotspots in and around Asia-Pacific. Originals are in green, more recent additions are in blue.12

Measuring biodiversity

Overall biodiversity levels are measured by:

Ø A direct calculation of the species diversity (e.g. Simpson Index)

For sustainable development purposes, this is based on a measurement of the change after construction or operational changes. There is no requirement in existing environmental reporting frameworks for quantitative biodiversity measures, although some

green infrastructure rating tools do use it e.g. ISCA (see Figure 3).

Managing biodiversity as a sustainable airport

The desire for increased biodiversity needs to be managed against the risk of aircraft wildlife strikes and the possibility to invest in off-site areas. An example of practices that are linked to increasingly sustainable airport performance is as follows:

1. A policy statement

2. Regular environmental monitoring

3. Wildlife impact studies, including airport zoning and protective measures for any endangered or protected species

4. Target of an overall increase in biodiversity levels compared to pre-development

5. Investment to protect and enhance biodiversity in the local community

The significance of pollution for sustainable airports

When combined with forecast 20-year average growth rates of 4.6% per annum5 and ongoing infrastructure developments, balancing the benefits of enhanced global connectivity with the needs of the people living under and around airport flight paths continues to be of high importance.

The Asia-Pacific currently has some of the worst air quality ratings in the world. On the other hand, Asia-Pacific airports benefit from a significantly lower proportion of night flight restrictions, or curfews, than many other regions. In 2013 only 21 airports in the Middle East and Asia-Pacific reported some form of night flight restrictions, compared to 126 in Europe and 81 in North America13.

Measuring pollution

Sustainability of air and noise emissions can be measured through a combination of:

Ø Numbers of community complaints per aircraft movement

Ø Exceedances of agreed levels above ambient conditions on aprons

Managing pollution as a sustainable airport

Progress toward sustainability could be managed through the following commitment levels:

Maximise biodiversity

Minimal air, noise and light pollution

YE2017_BNE

5

1. Noise and air quality management policies and master planning

2. Regular noise and air emissions measurements made available to the public

3. Aircraft fees & charges scaled for air and noise impacts

4. Community investment to reduce noise impacts and improve air quality

Targeting zero waste to landfill

Quantities of solid waste generation in the Asia-Pacific region have more than doubled since 2012. Of this, approximately 51% of waste goes to open dumps, 31% to sanitary landfills, 8% to recycling and 5% to incineration14.

Measuring waste to landfill

Two measures that may be used for the evaluation of airport sustainable waste management are:

Ø The proportion of recycling

Ø The proportion of avoided landfill compared to total waste volumes

Effective zero waste to landfill is already achievable and economically feasible with current technologies. For an airport to be considered to have attained sustainability, it would need to achieve >95% landfill diversion, and ideally also >70% recycling. There are several airports that target or have already achieved this, including Incheon, Zurich and Heathrow.

Managing waste as a sustainable airport

Airports generate significant quantities of waste. As a result, there are many opportunities for waste reuse and recycling, as per the waste hierarchy (Figure 5).

Initiatives implemented by airports around the world for waste diversion include:

Reduce Ø Paperless operations Ø Delivery pallet storage and collection

Reuse Ø Construction waste reuse as landfill topper Ø Food rescue from airport catering operations

Recycle Ø Recovery of cardboard and paper waste from

offices and buildings Ø E-waste and metal collection and recycling

Recover Ø Organics and greasetrap waste composting

Ø Anaerobic digestion of woody biomass, organics and hazardous waste.

Figure 5: Waste management hierarchy

Waste-to-energy incineration is a preferred disposal method over direct landfill, as it can reduce the waste disposal volume by up to 90%. It is used by more than half of the world’s top 10 airports (refer to ‘Sustainability Case Study’ below).

One of the biggest remaining areas of waste recovery that can be targeted is organics and recyclables from aircraft cabins. Waste on international aircraft is currently subject to quarantine restrictions and disposal requirements, which vary between countries.

Significance of water use at sustainable airports

Nearly 1.7 billion people in the Asia-Pacific region do not have access to improved drinking water and sanitation. Water quality suffers from the impacts of rapid industrial development and urbanization: the Asia-Pacific is home to 60% of the world’s population, but it has only 36% of its water resources15.

Airports are large and visible consumers, putting them in a position to support the development of alternative water sources and provision of infrastructure for water recycling, particularly in their local communities.

Measuring water use

Water use can be measured and benchmarked by:

Ø Per-passenger consumption (L/pax)

Ø Proportion of water sources (% non-potable)

Based on reviewing current airport performance (Figure 6) a level of >20% non-potable requires substantial use of at least one non-potable source, generally recycled water.

Zero waste to landfill

Minimal use of potable water

Div

ersi

on

Dis

posa

l

REDUCEREUSERECYCLERECOVER

INCINERATIONLANDFILL

YE2017_BNE

6

Figure 6: Numbers of non-potable water sources used by airports compared to ratio of non-potable to potable water consumed. Bubble size indicates the relative volumes of airport water consumption.

More than 40% non-potable requires multiple sources or complete substitution of a potable use (toilet flushing, equipment cooling).

Based on current technology and given that:

1. There will always be a need for potable drinking water at airports

2. Airports may have water processing on site or alternatively handled by a nearby local utility

An achievement of >70% potable water substitution could be considered as having substantively achieved sustainability.

Managing water use at a sustainable airport

Examples of airport initiatives to reduce potable water use include:

Ø Use of seawater or recycled water for cooling systems and toilet flushing

Ø Purchase of recycled municipal water Ø On-site wastewater or sewerage treatment plant Ø Collection and reuse/recycling of greywater Ø Waterless urinals and tap flow regulators Ø Rain and storm water run-off collection through

lakes, dams and tanks. Ø Water efficient landscaping

Importance of renewable electricity

The Asia-Pacific energy demand is forecast to increase by 67% between 2010 and 2035. By 2035 it will account for more than half of global

consumption, with more than 80% of this currently predicted to come from coal and fossil fuels16.

As a result, many nations in Asia-Pacific are setting renewable energy targets. In fact, in November 2016 48 developing nations (including 19 from the ACI Asia-Pacific region) from the Climate Vulnerable Forum (CVF) committed to targeting 100% domestic renewable energy production17.

Measuring sustainable energy use

There are two main aspects to a sustainable airport in regards to energy use. The first is the relative rate of consumption (efficiency), and the second is the supply of alternative and renewable fuel sources.

A sustainable airport would:

Ø Generate or purchase 100% renewable energy

Electrical energy efficiency can be benchmarked by:

Ø Energy consumption per area (kWh/m2) or per passenger (kWh/pax)

Managing sustainable energy use

The most accessible forms of renewable energy for airports are usually solar, geothermal and biomass. Airports with large areas of empty or agricultural land in proximity can install large-scale solar farms, such as Indianapolis International Airport (20 MWp generating 36.1 GWh/year), or Cochin Airport, the world’s first completely solar-powered airport with a 12 MW solar farm. India’s Civil Aviation Ministry is planning to build 146MW of solar capacity across 143 airports18.

Airports with less available land and/or lower energy demand can install rooftop solar or purchase green power from a utility provider. Dallas Fort-Worth purchases enough green energy credits to cover its entire electricity consumption (~85 GWh) while Munich purchased 28% green energy in 2015 (23 GWh).

Significance of alternative fuel vehicles

The visibility of airport equipment and infrastructure and scale of operations allows them to inspire local communities and support the development of local suppliers of alternative fuels and alternative energy vehicles, which is of particular significance in a region with widespread air quality issues.

The global ground handling industry is estimated to be worth $100 billion, compared to airports at $124 billion and airlines at $700 billion10.

SELMUN

HKG

ZRHLHR

KIX

DOH

BNESYD

DFW

NRT

0

1

2

3

4

0% 50% 100%Non

-potablewaterso

urces

Percentagenon-potablewater

Impactofairportwatersourcesonnon-potablewateruse

100% green or renewable energy

Fossil fuel-free vehicle fleet

YE2017_BNE

7

Measuring alternative fuel use

The simplest metric for measuring and benchmarking alternative fuel use at airports is:

Ø Percentage of vehicle fuel from non-fossil fuel sources

Managing alternative fuel use at airports

Electric vehicles are becoming available for most airside operations, and hydrogen, biodiesel and bioethanol are produced in many areas of Asia-Pacific. Aviation biofuel was first used in commercial flights in 2011, and industry groups are working towards its widespread use post-2020.

Whilst not every country can economically produce biofuels, Asia-Pacific does have opportunities for import/export; for example Malaysian biodiesel plants are operating at about one-third of their total capacity.

Table 1: 2015/16 Asia-Pacific biofuel production19

Country Biodiesel (ML) Bioethanol (ML)

Australia 50 250

China 1,140 3,150

India 140 2,085

Indonesia 2,450 100

Malaysia 833 -

Philippines 222 204

Thailand 1,330 1,305

Significance of airport carbon neutrality

The global airport industry committed to reducing its carbon emissions in a special resolution passed at the ACI World Annual Congress & Assembly in 2007. To achieve to the global commitments of no more than 2°C temperature rise, the global objective is for carbon neutrality by 205020.

ACI Europe has been leading the way, with the foundation of the Airport Carbon Accreditation (ACA) program in 2009 to standardise airport emissions mapping. In 2015 they further committed to achieving 50 carbon neutral airports by 2030.

Asia-Pacific airport per-passenger emissions levels are significantly higher than the other major aviation

regions currently reporting – 90% more than the European average, and 50% higher than North America21.

Measuring carbon emissions

Carbon emissions provide an overall perspective of airport carbon and energy management. They are best presented as:

Ø Per-passenger and total Scope 1 & 2 (and trend over time)

Ø Total Scope 3 emissions (airlines, airport tenants and contractors)

Managing carbon emissions as a sustainable airport

As the only global and standardised airport carbon emissions measurement tool, the Airport Carbon Accreditation program (ACA) is the simplest method to benchmark and track progress towards the goal of airport carbon neutrality by 2050.

Summary: Airport evaluation criteria

Based on the proposed definitions of an environmentally sustainable airport, there are a set of criteria that can be used to provide a holistic evaluation of an airport’s progress towards sustainability. The criteria suggested have been compared against existing data availability and reporting methodologies, of which the leading environmental reporting standard is the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI).

Not all of the suggested quantitative measures are currently reported. As a result, criteria are currently separated into quantitative (water, waste, energy) and qualitative data (ESD, procurement, biodiversity).

A matrix has been set up to evaluate current progress towards airport sustainability (Table 2) based on whether an airport can be considered to have committed to sustainability, implemented it, embedded it, moved on to value creation or become a sustainable enterprise.

Airports are expected to perform better in the more established areas of environmental reporting (wildlife, air, noise) than the more recently established one (carbon, renewable energy, ESD).

Carbon neutral by 2050

8

YE2017_BNE

Table 2: Airport sustainability criteria evaluation matrix

Criteria Commitment (1) Implementation (2)

Embedding (3)

Value creation (4)

Sustainable (5)

Policy ESD applied >1 rating Achieving minimum rating

Achieving maximum rating

Policy Monitoring Retention targets Improvement targets Community investment

Policy 1 supplier >1 supplier Target all supply contracts Work with suppliers

Policy Monitoring Mapping Reduction targets Community investment

>0% >5% >20% >50% >70%

>0% recycling >5% recycling >20% recycling >50% recycling >70% recycling + >95% diversion

>0% >5% >20% >50% >95%

Planned ACA ACA L1 ACA L2 ACA L3 ACA L4

CASE STUDY: Sustainability performance and reporting of the world’s best airports

The sustainability performance of the 2016 Skytrax World Top 10 Airports has been compared based on their environmental sustainability reporting. Only 3 airports do not publish an environmental sustainability report; overall, Incheon, Munich and Kansai provide the most comprehensive level of detail.

The reporting indicates that airports perform best in the more established areas of biodiversity, air and noise management; moderately well in water and waste management, and not as well in the more recently established areas of carbon and renewables, sustainable infrastructure and responsible procurement. Based on this analysis, the most sustainable airports are currently Hong Kong, Incheon and Heathrow.

Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Airport SIN SEL MUN HND HKG NGO ZRH LHR KIX DOH

5 2 - - 5 - - 2 2 2 - 5 5 - 5 - 5 5 5 2

- 4 4 1 5 4 - 5 - 1

2 4 3 2 4 2 4 5 3 3 - 5 4 - 2 - 3 3 2 3

- 5 2 - 5 - 3 2 3 3 - 1 3 1 1 - 1 2 2 -

- 1 1 1 1 - - 1 1 1 2 4 4 - 4 - 4 4 1 3

Source Web22 GRI23 GRI24 Web25 GRI26 Web27 Annual28 Annual29 Annual30 Annual31

Matrix score 20% 69% 58% 11% 71% 13% 44% 64% 42% 40% GRI environment reporting score32

- 100% 87% - 46% - 59% 62% 48% 44%

9

YE2017_BNE

The major challenges for the effective implementation of sustainability is the lack of a sufficient driving force, given that consequences are often shared or delayed.

A popular method of analysing the forces driving and restraining change is Lewin’s Force Field Analysis. In Lewin’s model, change is the result of dissatisfaction or discomfort with the present, and a vision for a better alternative. The desired change can only occur when the driving force exceeds the restraining force.

The US Transportation Board and ACI North America have previously surveyed airports to identify some of the main drivers of sustainability33, many of which are applicable to airports in Asia-Pacific.

Based on this analysis (see Figure 7), while stakeholders including airlines, customers and investors are an important driver for sustainability, there are a series of factors that can act as both drivers and restraining forces for sustainability in Asia-Pacific airports:

1. Policy and regulation

2. Information

3. Economics

Policy and Regulation

Compliance with local, state and national government directives is among the leading factors forcing airports to improve their sustainability performance, while unpredictable legislative changes and disconnect between policy and implementation act as restraining forces.

For example, the EU introduced their “2020 Climate Change Package” in 2007, which legislates 20% renewables, 20% increase in energy efficiency and 20% emissions reduction. This was swiftly followed by a Resolution from the ACI Europe General Assembly to target carbon neutrality. In North America, the 2009 FAA airport reauthorization legislation allocated funding and included requirements for airport pilot programs and environmentally tailored research and development funding 34 . It also required airports to address the feasibility of solid waste recycling and minimization in their master plans.

In contrast, Asia-Pacific airports are lacking a clear policy direction at the regional level to define the level of urgency and where the priorities lie between various environmental impacts. Where policies do exist, they are only applicable to their country or locality. For example:

Ø Hong Kong: Aircraft auxiliary power unit (APU) use banned from 2014/1526

Ø Eighteen different green building rating systems in use in Asia-Pacific (refer to Figure 3)

Figure 7: Driving and restraining forces for airport sustainability,

Chapter 2: Challenges for airport sustainability

YE2017_BNE

10

One of the problems with relying on each country to develop their own policies is the sovereign risk of disadvantaging their nation’s airports compared to others in the region.

Another is that while well-intentioned, if the policy exists in a unpredictable political environment it can provide too much uncertainty to justify investments.

This is currently evident in Australia, where the disagreements between the two major political parties on environmental targets and continual regulation amendments inhibit effectiveness of legislation. For example, the introduction (2011) and repealing (2014) of the carbon pricing mechanism, which directly impacted Brisbane Airport’s initial business case for solar power.

There is one additional issue that may need to be addressed by the airport sector if a sustainability policy is to be developed and uniformly implemented: institutional logic driving resistance to change.

The institutional logic around environmental issues at airports is historically focused on maintaining a regulatory and/or social license to operate. Airports in regions with stricter regulation or more environmentally-active populations can therefore be expected to have a higher base sustainability performance. Institutional logic of when and why environmental impacts should be managed needs to progress beyond this towards “achieving sustainable operations”.

Information Lack of information or uncertainty inhibits implementation of many sustainable technologies, while access to information can be a major driver for the success of sustainability initiatives.

When information on a newer technology’s lifetime costs is uncertain or unavailable, it can be considered ‘safer’ to choose a better known and more traditional alternative. Examples of airport scenarios where a lack of information can lead to resistance or fear are:

Ø Resistance of insurers to new technologies due to uncertainty of it meeting existing standards.

Ø Resistance to approving business cases due to uncertainty in the factors contributing to project returns

Ø Resistance to alternative energy and water sources due to uncertainty of network resilience

Ø Resistance due to uncertainty of procedures required to safely rescue and redistribute unused airline food

Other issues around informational uncertainty are based in political unpredictability or insufficient communication, such as: Ø Longevity of non-bipartisan regulatory schemes Ø Long term government planning regarding the

introduction of national emissions trading schemes or carbon pricing mechanisms

Ø Long-term utility costs Without sufficient information any investment in sustainability initiatives comes with an attendant risk.

Aviation is a notoriously risk-averse industry, and so where environmental sustainability improvements touch on safety or security issues and lack information, they will struggle to succeed.

Economics For airports with private shareholders, sustainability capital expenditure projects are often approved the same way as other capital projects. Airports will only invest in projects that meet required payback periods and yield a minimum of a required rate of return, the hurdle rate.

Samples of real payback results from projects undertaken from 2012-2015 as part of the Brisbane Airport Energy Efficiency program (shown in Table 3) demonstrate the significant variability possible in the size of investment and length of payback, even between very similar projects.

Table 3: Example of Brisbane Airport energy efficiency initiatives and range of payback periods

Project Investment Payback (years)

A/C set point drift $25k - $32k 1.6 - 3.2

A/C zoning and shutdown $10k - $25k 1.2 - 4

BMS energy monitoring $300k 3 - 4

Chilled water system upgrades $80k - $220k 11 - 22

Lighting control systems $15k - $65k 2.5 - 8

Rooftop solar $30k – 300k 8 - 50

Street LED lighting $15k - $65k 5 - 25

Terminal LED lighting $300k - $630k 1.2 - 4.6

YE2017_BNE

11

These paybacks are based only on savings from operational expenditure, which is another reason why developing a business case for sustainability projects can be challenging.

There is no global or industry-accepted criteria to account for costs and benefits to reputation, society and the environment; the only commonly existing example is a price on carbon.

Sustainable development requires a balance between environmental, operational, economic, and social dimensions. For airports, this means that action on climate concerns, infrastructure growth and customer experience need to be managed in such a way as to avoid impairing each other’s progress.

The challenges around legislation, economics, and access to information all need to be addressed to achieve sustainability for airports in Asia-Pacific. Potential solutions include:

1. Setting consistent regional policy and objectives through pro-active leadership

2. Increasing access to information between airports

3. Developing new funding mechanisms

Together, they would go a long way towards overcoming the existing challenges to environmental sustainability in airports in Asia-Pacific and supporting the region in meeting the 2030 UN Sustainable Development Goals.

1. Regulatory guidance and pro-active leadership

To respond effectively and equitably to the current sustainability imperatives, Asia-Pacific airports need a collaborative, regionally-based set of sustainability objectives, priorities and guidelines. This approach has been previously successful, such as with the ICAO Balanced Approach to Aircraft Noise Management35.

The advantage of minimal existing legislation is that there is an opportunity to develop harmonised regional practice. One of the key policy elements should be a set of clear and enforceable staged objectives. These objectives would need to be SMART (refer to Figure 8: SMART objectives).

Examples of potential policy objectives in key areas are suggested and explained. These areas are:

Ø Sustainable infrastructure Ø Carbon Ø Air quality and noise

Figure 8: SMART objectives

Sustainable infrastructure

Ø All new terminal developments to target the minimum green building rating of either their local program or a designated international option (e.g. LEED)

Terminals are one of the biggest energy consumers of airports, and are often noteworthy developments. Many new airport terminals in Asia-Pacific already have plans for ESD certification (Delhi, Singapore).

At least 13 countries in Asia-Pacific currently have access to a local rating scheme, and most have had projects completed in the locality under the LEED international certification scheme or similar.

Ultimately, the use of these certification schemes is intended to benefit the airport through a reduction in long-term operational costs and public recognition for the use of innovative design.

Carbon

Ø Carbon neutrality of airport operations by 2050

It is globally acknowledged that to limit global temperature rise to no more than 1.5°C, carbon neutrality needs to be achieved between 2045-2050.

Ø Ten Carbon Neutral airports in Asia-Pacific by 2030

Europe has a target of 50 carbon neutral airports by 2030. However, each region has issues and the targets need to reflect this. Ownership structure is an important difference in setting this target. European commercial airports tend to be partially-privatised

SPECIFICBeappliedtoa

specificenvironmentalarea

MEASURABLE Provideameansoftrackingprogress

ACHIEVABLEMutuallyagreedandrealisticgivenexistingresourcesandgrowth

RESULTS-FOCUSED

Measurementofoutcomesnot

activities

TIME-BASED Atimeframeforachievement isset

Chapter 3: The future of airport sustainability

YE2017_BNE

12

with government controlling interest36, and many are part of larger airport owner groups including ENAIRE/AENA (46), Finavia (22), Aéroports de Paris (14), and Swedavia (10). This arrangement has helped to expedite the European target; for example, Swedavia with its 10 airports has already declared itself a carbon neutral organisation.

Asia-Pacific has a diverse set of ownership arrangements and degrees of government oversight. For example in Australia, they are privatised, while in China they are majority-owned by local governments.

However, Asia-Pacific airports have what may be one major advantage over Europe in the attractiveness of targeting carbon neutrality: due to the range of states of economic development of member countries, Asia-Pacific have much more scope to invest in high quality (e.g. CDM-certified) and affordable offsets to the benefit of their own economic region – for example through wildlife, deforestation and nature conservation projects in support of the UN Sustainable Development Goal on managing “life on the land”7.

The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) Certified Emissions Reductions (CERs) are some of the most recognised carbon offsets. Of the completed and planned CDM CER projects up to 2020, more than 80% were from the Asia-Pacific region37.

Figure 9 depicts the breakdown of CER projects within Asia-Pacific countries.

Figure 9: CDM projects in Asia-Pacific by location up to 2020

Air quality and noise

Setting regional policies around air quality restrictions on aprons would encourage the use of alternative fuels. This would facilitate the introduction of electric ground service equipment (GSE), ground power (GPU) and pre-conditioned air (PCA), all of which not only demonstrate air quality improvements but which also contribute to fuel and emissions reductions.

Ø 20% reduction in aircraft emissions during aircraft Landing and Take-off Cycle (LTO) by 2030 compared to BAU

BAU would be defined based on the average airport operation: namely taxi in, APU on gate, taxi out. Based on LTO cycle emissions estimates from Brisbane Airport 2014-16, introducing GPU/PCA to replace the use of Aircraft auxiliary power units (APU) could reduce the LTO cycle emissions by approximately 22%.

It has been demonstrated at several airports that an overall use of GPU/PCA of 80-100% is achievable, and increasingly efficient aircraft will burn less fuel while taxiing. Reduced-engine taxi and increased towing can provide further reductions along with airline involvement in CORSIA3 from 2021.

Ø Recommendation for minimum Euro VI standard for new airport vehicle purchases

Setting minimum emission and fuel efficiency standards is one way to support the transition towards a lower emission economy. Many countries have restrictions on the performance of new vehicles; for example, the EU requires Euro compliance from September 2015, while the US has even stricter requirements under its Tier 2 system. Most of Asia currently has Euro IV standards, with only Australia (2017) and India (2021 intending to introduce Euro VI standards in the near future38.

2. Access to information

The most effective ways to resolve the issues presented by the current lack of information are:

Ø Research

Ø Information sharing

Airports and airport industry bodies should work towards transparency of environmental performance data to enable benchmarking, seek to identify and resolve data gaps, and actively share knowledge.

Research

Data gaps for sustainable technologies and programs in Asia-Pacific can be identified and shared through the ACI regional environment committee.

In this way, airports with similar interests are able to unite to fund research into and development of desirable technologies and processes, in a similar manner to the US Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) report.

Information sharing

YE2017_BNE

13

Ø Publication of GRI-equivalent environmental indicators

Reporting on environmental indicators encourages airports to map their resource consumption footprint and assists in identifying opportunities for improvement by enabling information sharing and benchmarking against similar organisations. Reporting transparency also empowers stakeholders through increased performance awareness.

Ø Knowledge-sharing platforms

There are existing knowledge-sharing platforms that could be expanded upon, such as the SAGA (Sustainable Aviation Guidance Alliance) database which was launched in the USA in 20092. SAGA is a coalition of aviation associations that includes Airports Council International – North America (ACI-NA), Airport Consultants Council (ACC), American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE), Air Transport Association (ATA) and the FAA.

The database is intended to provide a library of airport sustainability initiatives that others can refer to for

inspiration or assistance.

Ø Secondment and exchange programs

Secondments enable an airport to obtain particular skills and experience that they require on a temporary basis from specialists in the area of interest.

For example: the design of a new runway, development of new strategies around PFOS/PFOA management, implementation of a new certification, or site assessments for the installation of new technologies.

Ø Inter-airport mentoring

Inter-airport mentoring can take the form of mentoring opportunities between staff of varying experience levels and across aviation companies.

This provides opportunity for networking and sharing of ‘best practice’ achievements. It would also increasing linkages between key airport stakeholders, particularly in areas where an airport authority relies on outsourcing or is a company within a larger operational group.

The objectives of the Brisbane Airport Corporation (BAC) International Development Program are to share ‘best practices’, provide employees with the opportunity to broaden skills and experience, and work with partner airports on innovative projects. Placement types include familiarisation (< 1month); international placement (4 offered each year to Amsterdam and Shanghai, generally for 6-8 weeks); Secondment; and long-term exchange or senior management placement (>1 year).

The exchange experience has provided valuable learnings for Brisbane Airport in a number of different business departments. In regards to the sustainability space, recent outcomes include:

Ø Assistance in developing priorities for new sustainability actions

A Schiphol staff member visited for a month in 2013 to undertake an analysis of potential sustainability initiatives at Brisbane Airport. Outcomes from this collaboration included feasibility studies on biogas and large-scale solar, the purchase of 2 Nissan Leaf electric cars, the installation of solar panels on 4 BAC office building roofs, and the founding of the BNE Innovation Hub based on the model of Schiphol’s “The Grounds”.

Ø Tour of Schiphol sustainability projects

Two BAC Environment & sustainability staff have toured Schiphol in 2016, one as part of an 8-week international placement. The exchange gave BAC the opportunity to observe Schiphol sustainability initiatives and their challenges in practice, including their electric bus fleet and aircraft ground power equipment.

Ø Overview of the Schiphol SMART energy management program

In 2016 visiting Schiphol staff have shared their process and methodology for making energy management a shared responsibility, including their process for setting specific annual energy targets for each activity (baggage handling, lighting, HVAC, ICT, etc) and a history of actions that have been taken to achieve them.

CASE STUDY: Brisbane Airport and Amsterdam Schiphol Airport exchange program

YE2017_BNE

14

3. Economics

Ultimately, sustainability projects cost money. Some will pay for themselves, but even relying on operational savings there will be a point where although an airport can identify numerous improvements, they are not considered economically feasible. There are a number of possibilities to overcome this obstacle:

1. Sustainability expenditure targets

India has legislated a 2% minimum spend on corporate social responsibility 39 , while Incheon airport spends 2% of revenue on environmental investment23. This is one option, but it could be challenging for rapidly expanding airports in developing countries to have to raise capital for projects that they will not see a substantial initial return on.

2. Government subsidies

ARENA (Australian Renewable Energy Agency) Australia funds innovative applications of renewable energy, while biofuel subsidies are in place across Asia (China, Thailand, Philippines, Malaysia).

Targeted green funding is available, for example through the “Green Financing Platform for Accelerated Air Quality Improvement in the Greater Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Region”. ACI could work with governments to clarify and communicate which subsidies exist and may be relevant.

3. Self-funded sustainability

Airports could develop a process to reserve some of the operational savings from energy and resource saving projects – for example, the savings above the investment hurdle rate or from a time period after a project has been paid off. These savings could then be placed into a central “sustainability fund” that can then be used to subsidise new projects.

4. Social and environmental return on investment (SROI and EROI)

In a similar manner to Social Impact Bonds, SROI uses financial proxies and monetization of the value to stakeholders of the company’s efforts, while EROI uses financial proxies and monetization of value of company efforts to protect and restore ecological systems and services40.

Existing versions in Asia-Pacific primarily take the form of a tax or rebate for carbon and do not consider other benefits like marketing value, improved waterway or air quality, and ecosystem restoration.

It would require significant research to develop a proposal, but there may be an opportunity for airports to work with government and regional environmental conservation and health groups. If an airport could prove their projects produce outcomes that a group is funding, they could then arrange to apply to those groups for supplementary funding. This would be used as a cost offset similarly to carbon credits.

Airports in Asia-Pacific are role models for their local communities, with their new developments acting as national showpieces of design, architecture and technology.

This paper has presented nine aspects of airport environmental performance that Asia-Pacific airports can use to evaluate their progress towards sustainability, and suggested metrics for future performance benchmarking.

Reviewing the reporting of the world’s best airports shows that there is a better sustainability performance in more established and better regulated aspects, such as noise and air quality. The areas that require particular focus going forward are responsible procurement, green infrastructure design, renewable energy and alternative fuels.

The key drivers and restraining forces for improvement in these areas are regulation, information, and economics. There is also a need for airports to aim for “sustainable operations” rather than focusing on satisfying minimum regulatory and community requirements.

Technology has and will always have a significant role to play in making sustainability attainable, but in order to successfully integrate new technologies into airport operations and realise their potential, there needs to be strong focus on information sharing and regulatory and procedural evolution.

This involves setting a policy with achievable regional airport sustainability objectives, improving levels of information sharing between airports through mentoring, staff exchanges and data availability, and the development of alternative funding mechanisms to support airport initiatives. Ideally, one of these mechanisms would be to access wider funding through measurement of the complete environmental and social value of each initiative.

Conclusion

15

YE2017_BNE

References

1www.aci-na.org

2http://www.airportsustainability.org/sustainable-practices

3http://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/Pages/A39_CORSIA_FAQ2.aspx4http://www.aapairlines.org/resource_centre/AAPA_WillisInsuranceConference_16_Feb_2005.pdf

5http://www.aapairlines.org/resource_centre/AAPA_SP_AP59_DG_Presentation_13Nov15.pdf6http://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/Pages/2014-11-19-01.aspx

7http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/

8http://www.unep.org/sbci/AboutSBCI/Background.asp

9http://www.icao.int/Meetings/wrdss2011/Documents/JointWorkshop2005/ATAG_SocialBenefitsAirTransport.pdf10http://www.aci.aero/News/Releases/Most-Recent/2012/01/12/Announcing-the-Airport-Council-International-Airport-Economics-Survey-

201111http://www.hpw.qld.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/ProcurementGuideIntegratingSustainability.pdf12http://www.cepf.net/

13http://www.icao.int/Meetings/atconf6/Documents/WorkingPapers/ATConf6-wp008-rev_en.pdf

14WorldBank,2016,“WhataWaste:AGlobalReviewofSolidWasteManagement”

15http://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/asia.shtml16http://qz.com/135082/asia-pacific-nations-will-consume-more-than-half-the-worlds-energy-by-2035/17http://www.thecvf.org/marrakech-vision/18https://cleantechnica.com/2016/07/18/india-plans-148-mw-solar-capacity-airports/

19USDAhttp://www.fas.usda.gov/data/search?f[0]=field_commodities%3A5&f[1]=field_countries%3A38

20IPCC2013report

21AirportCarbonAccreditation2015-16AnnualReport

22http://www.changiairport.com/corporate/csr.html

23IncheonGreenInsight–IncheonInternationalAirportCorporationGreenReport201524http://www.munich-airport.de/en/general/presse/pub/index.jsp

25http://www.tokyo-airport-bldg.co.jp/company/en/activity/environment/energy_saving.html

26https://www.hongkongairport.com/eng/media/publication/sustainability-report/index.html

27http://www.centrair.jp/en/initiatives/28https://www.zurich-airport.com/the-company/noise-policy-and-the-environment/environmental-management

29http://www.heathrow.com/company/community-and-environment/responsible-heathrow/reports-and-further-reading

30http://www.kansai-airports.co.jp/en/efforts/environment/kix/smart-island/report.html

31http://www.qatarairways.com/us/en/csr.page

32https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/GRIG4-Part1-Reporting-Principles-and-Standard-Disclosures.pdf

33ACRPSynthesis10:AirportSustainabilityPractices(TransportationResearchBoard,2008)

34https://etd.ohiolink.edu/rws_etd/document/get/kent1337798314/inline

35http://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/Pages/noise.aspx

36http://www.aci-asiapac.aero/services/main/14/upload/service/14/self/55cc63b597535.pdf

37http://www.cdmpipeline.org/index.htm

38http://www.unep.org/Transport/new/PCFV/pdf/10gpm/10GPM_AsiaRegionalUpdates.pdf39https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/india-csr-law-debate-business-ngo

40http://www.csrwire.com/blog/posts/566-how-would-we-know-a-business-case-for-sustainability-if-we-saw-one