(22 pages) 

### COMMITTEE ON AVIATION ENVIRO NMENTAL PROTECTION (CAEP)

EIGHTH MEETING

Montréal, 1 to 12 February 2010



### AGENDA ITEM 2

PART TWO

The attached constitutes the report on Agenda Item 2 and should be inserted at the appropriate place in the yellow report folder. CAEP/8-WP/80 9/2/10CAEP/8-WP/80

Report on Agenda Item 2 2-25

Agenda Item 2: Review of technical proposals relating to aircraft engine emissions



## ...

2.6 EMISSIONS – OPERATIONS RELATED ISSUES

2.6.1 Prior to the discussion on Agenda Item 2, D/ATB briefly presented the role of ATB in support of CAEP activities and, in particular, on the ongoing coordination with ANB on operational measures to address aviation emissions, assuring the commitment of both herself and D/ANB to continue this coordination and cooperation between these Bure aux. D/ATB then introduced D/ANB who provided a presentation on overall initiatives undertaken under ANB and suggested next steps and specific areas where CAEP and the operational community c ould benefit from further collaboration.

2.6.2 She emphasised that Secretariat would do its part and presented concrete steps put in place to ensure coordination and transparency. She proposed next steps for pursuing the collaboration between the environmental and operatio nal “talent” and offered to brie f CAEP on the developments in the operational efforts that benefit environment. The main area where the support of the committee was sought was on the development of methods to assess e nvironmental benefits of operational measures. She proposed to establish a “measures” sub-group of the Regional Planning and Implementation Groups (PIRGS) and develop a training programme in this area.

2.6.3 A member stressed that ICAO has several panels, dedicated for safety, economic and security aspects but that there is a committee with the remit on environmental-related issues and that all environmental considerations are tasked within CAEP. She added that it was obvious that while performing these activities, coordination betw een the other panels was necessary.

2.6.4 Several members and observers welcomed the presentation made by D/ANB and stressed the importance of non-duplication, coordinatio n and cooperation among ATB, ANB and CAEP. A member suggested that ANB provide updates to CAEP and SG meetings on the operational work. An observer suggested that when discu ssing these issues under the Future Work agenda item, members from ANB attend the meeting.

2.6.5 The Chair summarized by saying that he heard many magic “Cs” in the presentation, i.e. commitment, collaboration, cooperation, coordination and CAEP, and that the Committee was pleased to hear that it could count on the support from ANB for th e development of some of its tasks. He further stated that the suggestions for next steps proposed by D/ANB would be brought to the attention of the meeting during the consideration of future work unde r agenda item 5. He also thanked both D/ATB and D/ANB for their contributions.

2.6.6 Next, a representative from the UNFCCC Secretariat provided the meeting with a brief update on the climate change negotiations under the UNF CCC, in particular the result of COP/15. He mentioned that, although bunker fuels were not di rectly addressed in the Copenhagen Accord, it recognized the scientific view to hold the increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius and that it would be important for ICAO and CAEP to explore wh at this goal meant for international aviation. He also referred to the Accord’s goals for mobilizing new and additional finance which would come from a variety of sources, including “alternative sources of funding” and that some might look to funding from international aviation in this regard.CAEP/8-WP/80

2-26 Report on Agenda Item 2

2.6.7 He informed that to date 38 Annex I Par ties provided information on their economy-wide emission reduction targets for 2020, but specific target s on international aviation were not included in the submissions. 23 non-Annex I Parties provided information on mitigati on actions, and seven of them mentioned the transport sector, but no specific activ ities on international av iation were mentioned.

2.6.8 He concluded that the year 2010 provides an opportunity for ICAO and UNFCCC to further advance their work on a robust and efficien t GHG regime for international aviation which will benefit the global environmen t and future generations.

2.6.9 Report of Working Group 2

2.6.9.1 The Co-Rapporteurs of WG2 presented the Group’s report on activities since CAEP/7. The detailed work of the Group had been undertaken by four Task Groups as follows:

a) Task Group 1 (TG1): Land use planning and noise management;

b) Task Group 2 (TG2): Air Traffic Management;

c) Task Group 3 (TG3): Operational measures; and

d) Task Group 4 (TG4): Local air quality.

2.6.9.2 Ad hoc activities on the update and conversion of ICAO Circular 303 into an ICAO guidance manual and on the ICAO carbon emissions calculation methodology were also undertaken.

2.6.10 TG1 – Land Use Planning and Noise Management Task Group

2.6.10.1 The group continued to develop updates to th e concept of a Balanced Approach to Aircraft Noise Management and to estimate the envir onmental impact of curfews on destination airports. It also investigated the use of Environmental Ma nagement Systems (EMS) among aviation organisations.

2.6.11 TG2 – Air Traffic Management Task Group

2.6.11.1 The group investigated approaches to envi ronmental impact assessment as applied to CNS/ATM. It began development of ICAO guidan ce on computing, assessing and reporting on aviation emissions at national and global leve ls and the development of environmental indicators (EI). It also supported the IE efforts to make recommendations for noise, NO x and fuel burn with respect to air traffic operational goals in the mid and long terms.

2.6.12 TG3 – Operational Measures Task Group

2.6.12.1 The group assessed the potential reductions of noise and gaseous emissions through the use of reduced takeoff thrust and deeper cutback and by the use of the Continuous Descent Operations (CDO). It contributed to the development of the CDO manual in cooperation with the IFPP and also studied the potential changes in noise e xposure associated with steeper approaches.CAEP/8-WP/80

Report on Agenda Item 2 2-27

2.6.13 TG4 – Airport Local Air Quality Task Group

2.6.13.1 The group completed development of new and updated chapters for ICAO Doc 9889, “Airport Air Quality Guidance Manual.” It also ha d coordinated with FESG and MODTF on aircraft times-in-mode, and developed a repor t to CAEP and web text on the role of market based measures in a management framework for local emissions.

2.6.14 Environmental Indicators

2.6.14.1 The WG2 TG2 Environmental Indicators Ad-H oc Group was tasked with conducting a review of the present guidance and practices in environmental performance indicators (EI).

2.6.14.2 While the guidance material is still not matu re, key findings have been made and the basis for the development of ICAO EI guidance has been identified. However, there was a lack of consensus within the group on if and how this ma terial should be used or further developed.

Findings

2.6.14.3 Differing purposes for EIs were identified:

• Regulatory and policy (decision support);

• Overarching environmental performance tracking (reporting);

• Support to (and harmonising of) local environmental performance tracking; and

• Support to and harmonising of confidential benchmarking

2.6.14.4 ISO environmental management system st andards (e.g. 14031 & 14032) offer a sound basis for any overarching EI work within aviati on and are the basis for the ICAO EI development. Consistency in the definitions of EI and in the qua lity of “feed data” collection and management are considered to be essential. The development and prom ulgation of simple EI tests would also help the industry to minimise unnecessary, poorly designed or inappropriate EI.

Proposed ICAO approach to Environmental Indicators

2.6.14.5 If EI guidance is to be developed through CAEP, it is proposed to:

a) only specify EIs to a level of detail that it (or its States or Institutions) wishes to monitor actively;

b) publish these EIs as those that Civil Aviation stakeholders are required to support;

c) publish generic aviation relevant Environm ental Performance Management guidance complimenting the guidance already develope d in the ISO international standards; and

d) establish a process to be led by WG2 – the existing EI ad-hoc group may suffice but an independent expert process may also be a possible solution, which would have a significant cost.CAEP/8-WP/80

2-28 Report on Agenda Item 2

Discussion and Conclusions

2.6.14.6 The meeting congratulated the ad-hoc group of this task on its effort and progress in spite of the complexity of the task, and several members e xpressed the need to continue this task, subject to taking into account the priority and resources necessa ry for various tasks. Another member commented that they learned a lot from the report; including th e complexity of indicators and that they are Statespecific. As such, the work can inform ICAO, but cannot be publishe d as is, and any potential future work needs to be weighed carefully given other pr iorities and lack of WG2 consensus – likely due to feasibility and lack of resources.

2.6.14.7 A member expressed the need to ensure non-d uplication with other tasks, and informed that CANSO has been working on a similar task from a global perspective and coordination with this work should be explored in the future work programme.

2.6.14.8 The Chair concluded that there was general support for the necessity of this task, and that the future work of this task, including further development of an ICAO EI guidance; development of specific EIs with a focus on operational fuel efficiency and CO 2 emissions; and development of EI inputs to the work of Circular 303 replacement, woul d be further discussed in Agenda Item 5.

2.6.15 Environmental Assessment of CNS/ATM

Background

2.6.15.1 The WG2 TG2 Lead noted that the different impacts of aviation, including sustainability and socio economics issues, can be classified as having either a Local or a Global effect on the environment. CNS/ATM programmes have already dem onstrated their capability in reducing significantly the environmental impact of aviation.

2.6.15.2 An agreed Environmental Impact Assessme nt methodology is needed to ensure the consolidation of the environmental studies that will be conducted in Research and Development programmes like SESAR and NextGen. It should be an integrated and systematic approach to assess how ATM programmes and improvements may impact the e nvironment and should cover all phases of flight operation (ground, climb, cruise and descent). The ab ility to assess, predict, measure and monitor any changes in environmental performance allows decision- makers to incorporate information relating to the likely environmental impact of a CNS/ATM measure as a complement to other criteria such as safety, capacity, security and cost-efficiency, etc.

2.6.15.3 At present, there is no global and commonly agreed high level framework for conducting environmental impact assessment for CNS/ATM activities.

Progress to Date

2.6.15.4 A draft text based on guidance that is bein g developed within Europe was presented, based on three sources:

1) Output from the European Commission project CAATS 1 II (WP1.5);

1 Co-operative Approach to Air Traffic ServicesCAEP/8-WP/80

Report on Agenda Item 2 2-29

2) European Operational Concept Validation Methodology (E-OCVM); and

3) EUROCONTROL internal guidance material.

2.6.15.5 The draft material covered background information and guidance in four areas:

1) Review of Existing Environmenta l Impact Assessment Methods;

2) Principles of Environmental Assessment;

3) Assessment of Environmental Impacts Methodology; and

4) Validation plan of the Environmental Impact Assessment Method.

Discussion and Conclusions

2.6.15.6 Several members expressed their appreciation for the progress made and strongly supported the continuation of this task toward a globally acceptable high-level guidance material.

2.6.15.7 With regard to future work, a member highli ghted the need to prioritize this task and suggested the scope of this task be clarified to en able specific inputs from more States in the future. Another member pointed out that the current repor t focused only on the assessment of climate change impact and suggested the future work should also in clude the assessment of noise impact. A member indicated that much of the material was based on Eu ropean input and work would be required to make it applicable to all States. The member recommended separating the descriptive material from guidance and to develop high level material as future work.

2.6.15.8 Another member commented that CNS/ATM would provide all aviation stakeholders with a win-win situation in terms of safety, effici ency and environment, and that CAEP should closely monitor the progress of this task in cooperation with ANB.

2.6.15.9 The Chair concluded that further discussion on th e future work and the priority of this task would be undertaken in Agenda Item 5, ta king into account the views expressed by members.

2.6.16 Update and Conversion of ICAO Circular 303 into an ICAO Manual

2.6.16.1 Following-up on the discussion of GIACC’s bask et of measures in the development of the ICAO Programme of Action on international avia tion and climate change, th e CAEP SG meeting in September 2008 agreed that WG2 should streamline and integrate some of its deliverables towards updating the material contained in Circular 303 “Operational Opportunities Minimize Fuel Use and Reduce Emissions”, concentrating efforts in one si ngle comprehensive document instead of producing stand-alone guidance.

2.6.16.2 A new task was subsequently added to WG2 requesting the group to “produce new guidance document replacing Circular 303 with extended scope covering environmental impact assessment of CNS/ATM, methods for computing av iation emissions and environmental indicators and update existing material, in particular on ATM.”CAEP/8-WP/80

2-30 Report on Agenda Item 2

Progress to date

2.6.16.3 Due to the heavy CAEP workload, the late add ition of this task to the work programme, and constrained resources, multiple States and Observer Organizations have indicated that they were unable to provide timely and substantial input and to complete a comprehensive review in advance of CAEP/8. As a result, in its current state, some chapters ar e limited in scope and not mature enough, and will be benefit from including more global perspective.

2.6.16.4 The ad-hoc group formed by the last SG meeting in June 2009 conducted a thorough review of the selected four chapters, as follows, which were presented to CAEP/8:

— Chapter 2 – Airport Operations;

— Chapter 6 – Air Traffic Management;

— Chapter 7 – Non-Revenue Flying; and

— Chapter 12 – The Effect of Load Factor on Fuel Efficiency.

2.6.16.5 While the whole of WG2 was involved in the original revisions to these chapters, only the ad-hoc group has participated in the detailed review. The meeting noted that the group received suggestions for additional revisions to some of the chapters. It was proposed that these comments, along with any other comments from WG2, be reviewed early in the CAEP/9 cycle.

2.6.16.6 The ad-hoc leader explained that the use of ad-hoc group and regular teleconferences proved to be an effective approach in progressing the discussions. He proposed that a similar approach be used for the work necessary to co mplete the review and expansion of the remaining chapters, and emphasized that the ability of key States and Observer Or ganizations to contribute to this task would be paramount to its completion.

Discussion and Conclusions

2.6.16.7 Several members appreciated the ad-hoc group for its leadership and substantial progress made in the selected chapters, and stressed the importa nce of this task in terms of providing States with updated guidance in this area. A member commented that Circular 303 is a very valuable material for use by all aviation stakeholders to reduce aviation fuel burn and welcomed the continuation of this task.

2.6.16.8 The Secretary added that Circular 303 was one of the bases for discussion of GIACC’s basket of measures in the development of the IC AO Programme of Action on international aviation and climate change, and CAEP has a timely opportuni ty to review the document and showcase the information to the world aviation community. She al so pointed out that the updated information could provide the basis for the preparation of States’ Acti on Plans in line with the outcome of the High-level Meeting.

2.6.16.9 The meeting recognized that commitments from key States and Observer Organizations would be paramount to establishing the timelines and milestones in the production of the guidance. The meeting also noted the proposal for the use of a sp ecialized group to continue the development of the guidance and that it proposed a web- based approach for its disseminati on. Further discussion on this task will be undertaken in Agenda Item 5.CAEP/8-WP/80

Report on Agenda Item 2 2-31

2.6.17 Effect of Takeoff Thrust and Deeper Cutback on Noise, Emissions, Fuel Consumption and Climb

2.6.17.1 WG2 presented at CAEP/7 the assessment on the effects of several variations of the PANS-OPS Noise Abatement Departure Procedures (NADP) on noise and emissions and produced guidance material ( Effects of PANS-OPS Noise Abatement Departure Procedures on Noise and Gaseous Emissions, Circ 317).

2.6.17.2 As a follow-up to this work, CAEP/7 request ed a study on noise and gaseous emissions effects from variations of takeoff thrust and from d eeper cutback for individual aircraft at the same takeoff weight using the same Noise Abatement Depart ure Procedure (NADP). Aircraft evaluated in the study include the Airbus A320-200, A330-200, A340-600, and A380-800; the Boeing 737-700, 767- 400ER, and 777-300; and the Bombardier CRJ900ER. The WG2 TG3 Lead presented the results of the study to the meeting.

Thrust Variation

2.6.17.3 ICAO PANS-OPS, Volume 1, Flight Procedures, Part I, Section7, Chapter 3 provides guidance with respect to noise abatement departure procedures. It discusses the conditions in which noise abatement procedures can be safely used and the envel ope within which main f light parameters defining the procedure can be safely adapted for airport noise mitigation. Examples of such flight parameters are the minimum height at which engine thrust can be reduced and the minimum height at which flap/slat retraction and acceleration can be initiated.

2.6.17.4 The guidance includes two examples of noise abatement departure procedures. One procedure, called NADP1, is designed to mitigate noise at relatively short distances from the brake release point; and another procedure, called NADP2, is designed to reduce noise at relatively greater distances from the brake release point. Takeoff thrust va riations and deeper climb thrust cutbacks for both NADP1 and NADP2 procedures were assessed in this study.

2.6.17.5 This study evaluates takeoff thrust effects at the same takeoff weight; and deeper cutback effect, with a minimum climb thrust, compared to the standard climb thrust.

2.6.17.6 For this study, the first case assumes a pe rformance-limited takeoff weight associated with a 10-12% reduced takeoff thrust setting. The reduced thrust setting should correspond to a case halfway between full takeoff thrust and maximum pe rmitted takeoff thrust reduction. According to an earlier study, this takeoff thrust setting value is believed to be close to the averag e thrust settings used in daily practice by the airlines.

2.6.17.7 The second case assumes a performance-limited takeoff weight associated with a 25% reduced takeoff thrust setting for some Airbus aircra ft. This case is considered more representative of short stage length A320 operations in Europe.

2.6.17.8 The WG2 TG3 Lead highlighted that the flight procedures studied for this task were included for comparative purposes only: not all respec tive manufacturer’s operations manuals include all the flight procedures presented in the study, and some of them therefore cannot be used in actual operations. Noise abatement flight procedures must be developed with advice from the appropriate manufacturer and approved by the State of the opera tor; and must comply with the safety criteria contained in PANS OPS. The specification of noise abatement procedures for a given airport requiresCAEP/8-WP/80

2-32 Report on Agenda Item 2

dedicated environmental and safety studies that determ ine the need for such procedures and ensure the required levels of flight safety are maintained.

2.6.17.9 An operational and safety assessment of the procedures was not incorporated in this analysis.

Assessment of Noise and Gaseous Emissions Effects

2.6.17.10 The study found that reduced takeoff thrust result generally in a small increase in “close-in” noise, a decrease in NO x , and in no change to CO 2 . The effect on “distant” noise is inconclusive and/or airplane depe ndent. The study found that climb thrust generally has an impact on noise away from the airport, but this impact varies fr om one airplane to another and from one weight to another. Emissions results, both in terms of NO x and CO 2 , were also inconclusive and generally very small in magnitude.

2.6.17.11 For the thrust variations included in this st udy, no single departure procedure minimized overall noise and emissions simultaneously. Tradeoffs ma y be required between noise impacts close-in or further away from the airport, levels of NO x versus CO 2 emissions, and finally noise abatement versus reductions in gaseous emissions.

2.6.17.12 An observer presented the view that the selec tion of takeoff thrust and deeper climb thrust cutback are not flight parameters that can be freely varied to optimise a NADP as stated in PANS-OPS. The observer explained that the selection of takeoff must balance economics, performance, maintenance requirements, aircraft status, weathe r, and runway conditions. Typically, the minimum takeoff thrust is used to relieve the engine from high combustion temperatures and reduce the maintenance overhaul costs while providing sufficient pe rformance margins. However, full takeoff thrust may be selected because of runway contaminants, airc raft dispatch status, onboard systems status, and the weather conditions.

2.6.17.13 The observer expressed a concern that take-o ff thrust restrictions and reduced climb thrust selection for environmental reasons will have a very severe interference with the flight execution and is likely to reduce margins to safety, and asked this task to be refrained from its continuation.

Discussion and Conclusions

2.6.17.14 The meeting expressed its appreciation to WG2 for their analysis of this task. Regarding the concern expressed by the observer, several member s were of the view that the scope of CAEP should continue to be for the environmental assessment aspec ts, while safety aspects should continue to be fully coordinated with other ICAO bodies and experts.

2.6.17.15 The Chair commented that safety is param ount for aviation and any safety concerns should be dealt with in the relevant bodies. CA EP should undertake the environmental assessment.

2.6.17.16 The Secretary clarified that ICAO is responsible for safety, security and environment of international aviation, and therefore all the work under ICAO must fully consider these three aspects before a final decision is made. CAEP was no ex ception and while CAEP is responsible for the environmental aspects, CAEP’s constituency includes e xperts representing all aviation stakeholders and it is expected that they would bring other specific conc erns to CAEP while participating in the development of the work. If any recommendation from CAEP could ra ise safety concerns, that should be properlyCAEP/8-WP/80

Report on Agenda Item 2 2-33

flagged and brought to the attention of the relevant groups at an early stage. That is how CAEP has always operated and will continue to operate.

2.6.17.17 The meeting took note of the concern of the observer on safety, however regarding his statement that to “note the near impossibility to develop effective environm ental operational procedures for close-in noise and emissions due to the inevitable safety implications and complex interaction with the dynamic state and operative limitations of the aircraft”, the meeting could only note that this was the view of the observer but there was no concurrence from the meeting to such a statement. The meeting decided that this task was fully accomplished without further work being envisaged and no further work should be conducted until safety concerns have been evaluated and eliminated.

2.6.18 Assess and validate noise and emissions reductions accrued from the use of Continuous Descent Operations (CDO)

2.6.18.1 The WG2 TG3 Continuous Descent Operations (CDO) 2 task leader explained that CAEP/7 was informed of the benefits from the us e of CDO and that these procedures were being developed locally on a widespread scale. CAEP/7 was al so informed that there wa s not an internationally agreed definition or concept of CDA, and therefor e the CAEP/7 requested the Secretariat to address it with ANC with a view to progressing this work in an appropriate ICAO body. As a result, work on a CDO manual was initiated by CAEP and a panel of the ICAO Air Navigation Commission: the Instrument Flight Procedures Panel (IFPP), and the draft manual will be submitted for approval of the ANC in 2010.

2.6.18.2 In addition, WG2 was tasked during CAEP/ 8 to update the assessment of noise and emissions reductions accrued from the use of CDO based on the definitions proposed by the IFPP. The results from early CDO trials in Europe and the US were previously reported and had identified environmental benefits from CDO that are of sim ilar orders of magnitude across several airports.

Estimated Global CDO Benefits

Global Fuel and CO 2 Benefit Estimation

2.6.18.3 The approach taken for this very high level assessment was to pro-rate the typical range of fuel and emissions benefits so far found in CDO trials, to th e calculated annual civil aircraft movements for 2006 for each aircraft category. The gl obal movement numbers for each aircraft type were extrapolated from data for a single day in 2006 to a full year. An assumption of a 50 per cent achievement of CDO was taken to reflect the current disparities in achieving CDO. The aircraft movement data used only included medium and heavy civil fixed-wing turbojet aircraft.

2.6.18.4 Results from the estimate of the potential fuel and CO 2 benefits were given for 27 million calculated annual global movements in 2006 as follo ws (respectively in the case of the low and high benefit scenarios): between 500 thousand and 2.3 million of global tonnes fuel saved, between $250 million and $1.1 billion of global fuel saved a nd between 1.5 and 7 million of global tonnes CO 2 saved.

2 Formerly continuous descent arrivals / approaches (CDA).CAEP/8-WP/80

2-34 Report on Agenda Item 2

Global CDO Noise Benefit Estimation

2.6.18.5 Most of the CDO noise benefits arise at approximately 10 to 25 miles from touchdown and vary depending on base-case and the location of population centres. The noise reductions range from 1 to 5 dB. Thus the noise benefits can therefore be considered important, but would not normally be critical to an airport’s mitigation regime.

Global NO x Benefit Estimation

2.6.18.6 Unlike CO 2 , NO x emission is not proportional to fu el burn and any reduction in thrust produces a larger reduction in NO x than from reduced fuel use alone. Since CDOs do provide a fuel burn reduction, a NO x savings can be assumed, but could not be quantified in this analysis.

Other CDO Assessment Aspects

2.6.18.7 Implementation of CDO is accelerating in the US, Europe, Australia and Asia-Pacific. This will be further facilitated by the forthcoming ICAO CDO guidance manual.

Global CDO Performance Monitoring

2.6.18.8 Although there was no consensus, it is believe d by some States and observers that ICAO should monitor CDO implementation and that CAEP should therefore consider adopting a performance monitoring role through its working arrangements and using one or more of the assessment approaches considered above.

Issues Identified

2.6.18.9 The group identified a number of issues rela ted to the global assessment of CDO. The baseline (pre-CDO case) is different at every airport, in particular the population distribution and the fact that some amount of CDO happens naturally at most airports. This makes the validation of the results difficult, especially combined with the lack of gl obal detailed information on CDO implementation. The task leader explained, however, that some local CDO assessments were made using data collected from actual operations, making those results reasonably consistent.

2.6.18.10 The task leader explained that local implementation of CDO is accelerating, which underscored the emerging need for a harmonized lo cal assessment methodology and capability. The task leader suggested the document be the initial b asis for further development of the harmonized methodology. In addition, some local, State, and inte rnational interests require a consistent performance monitoring capability.

Discussion and Conclusions

2.6.18.11 The meeting congratulated WG2 on the deve lopment of the CDO guidance manual in coordination with IFPP and the continued analysis of CDO. It noted the accelerated adoption of CDO procedures in many regions.

2.6.18.12 An observer enquired whether more inputs on the environmental benefits from CDO would be necessary and welcomed the possibility of havi ng a more global perspective, and the task leaderCAEP/8-WP/80

Report on Agenda Item 2 2-35

expressed appreciation for further inputs from worldwid e regions to assess the environmental benefits of global international aviation operations.

2.6.18.13 Another observer sought clarification regardi ng coordination between this task and the development of CDO guidance manual, which the obser ver believed to be very important, and the task leader confirmed that there was coordination and that the analysis was based on the definitions in the CDO Manual.

2.6.18.14 The meeting noted the assessment of environm ental benefits from CDO as a first order approximation and the different CDO performance assess ment options identified, and will consider the need to continue with the task on the future asse ssment and harmonization of assessment methodology of CDO in Agenda Item 5.

2.6.19 Computing, Assessing and Reporting Aviation Emissions

2.6.19.1 The WG2 TG2 Lead presented on the development of ICAO guidance for computing, assessing and reporting on aviation emissions at national and global levels.

2.6.19.2 A review of applications and methodologi es for computing, assessing and reporting civil aviation fuel burn and CO 2 emissions was presented and should be considered a work in progress. A refined version of the report could also serve as i nput material for the update of ICAO Circular 303.

2.6.19.3 Along with the different applications, methodol ogies were described for computing fuel burn (and hence CO 2 emissions) from operating aircraft on a gate -to-gate basis. Where appropriate the methodology included the turn-around phase to include APU fuel burn.

Development

2.6.19.4 Although the original geographical scope w as for national and global fuel burn, CAEP SG meeting in 2008 accepted to add the local leve l (fuel burn in the LTO phase below 3000ft) in the guidance on the basis that:

a) Local CO 2 emissions form part of the carbon inve ntory reporting applications such as EMEP 3 /CORINAIR 4 where CO 2 is reported for LTO and ‘Cruise’ 5 ;

b) Airport authorities need to be able to calculate their carbon footprint to demonstrate “their slice of the pie”; and

c) Quantifying the emissions that result from airports often being the constraining point in the air traffic system.

d) The guidance was not intended to rival othe r publications that address the subject of computing aviation emissions. Instead, this guidance drew on work developed, reported and promoted by industry, standard s organisations and international bodies. As such, there was some concern regardi ng the duplicative nature of the draft guidance.

3 EMEP - European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme
4 CORINAIR - The Core Inventory of Air Emissions in Europe ( http://www.eea.europa.eu/publ ications/EMEPCORINAIR )
5 Cruise: All phases of a flight above 3000f t with respect to Aerodrome Elevation.CAEP/8-WP/80

2-36 Report on Agenda Item 2

2.6.19.5 Guidance on the calculation of other categories of aircraft emissions, i.e. N Ox , HC, CO, SO x , PM from main engines, APU or brake/tire wear was outside the scope of this work for CAEP/8.

Scope and limitations

2.6.19.6 The scope of the task was restricted to the compilation of methods and tools for calculating and reporting aircraft fuel burn and CO 2 emissions and their possible applications. The term aviation could include all emissions from all sources re lated to air transport activities during all life-cycle phases. Other pollutants could be covered in a future issue.

2.6.19.7 The geographical scope of the guidance covers aviation CO 2 emissions at local (within the limits of the ICAO LTO certification cycle), State, and global (worldwide or ICAO region) scales.

2.6.19.8 The guidance document should allow a reader to choose the aircraft fuel burn calculation method that is most suitable for a particular application.

Report Structure

2.6.19.9 The global layout and structure of the draft guidance is as follows:

a) review of application themes: An invent ory of aviation emissions applications;

b) gap analysis;

c) methods catalogue; and

d) reporting.

2.6.19.10 The TG leader informed that the bulk of the material was had been developed (around 90 per cent) and that a few more items needed to be completed. The final review would still need to be undertaken. He suggested that the material could be used as part of the new guidance replacing Circ. 303.

2.6.19.11 An observer presented ACI’s new manual, pr oviding guidance material for airport operators wishing to manage greenhouse gas emi ssions. The document draws the threads of some guidance documents and should assist airport operators with allowing co mparisons of airport inventories and achievements.

Discussion and Conclusions

2.6.19.12 The meeting congratulated WG2 on the deve lopment of the draft guidance document. Several members commented on its usefulness and s uggested incorporation into the manual replacing Circular 303. A member suggested the continuati on of this task under MODTF. Another member commented that 90 per cent of the work was complete d with remaining 10 per cent of the work to be devoted to its review, and the material shoul d be left for inclusion in Circular 303.

2.6.19.13 In concluding, the Chair re-emphasized that 90 per cent of the work was completed, and that further discussion on the continuation of this task, including which working group would undertake this task and possible future work for Circular 303, would be undertaken in Agenda Item 5.CAEP/8-WP/80

Report on Agenda Item 2 2-37

2.6.20 Update of Airport Air Quality Guidance

2.6.20.1 The WG2 TG4 lead presented on the deve lopment of airport air quality guidance information to assist States in implementing best pr actices. This group was also tasked with providing continued coordination with FESG on “times-in- mode” in relation to modelling capabilities, and preparing a report and web material that describes the various technical, operational, mitigation and market-based measures available to address aircraft emissions impacting local air quality.

Coordination with FESG on “Times-in-Mode”

2.6.20.2 The use of performance based times-in-mode (TIM) versus the certification values task did not require coordination with FESG, but WG2 TG 4 did monitor the work of MODTF. Although no specific modification to the Guidance Manual wa s identified, the group noted that the MODTF NO x stringency policy assessment activity includes a sen sitivity test for performance based TIMs.

Develop and update the Airport Air Quality Guidance (Doc 9889) to include dispersion modelling, measurements, and revision of the inventory chapter

2.6.20.3 ICAO published a preliminary edition of Doc 9889 in 2007, including the Introduction, State Requirements, Emissions Inventory, and the Spatial and Temporal Distribution of Emissions.

2.6.20.4 Updates to the Aircraft Inventory and Road Ve hicle chapters have been prepared and two new chapters on Dispersion Modelling and Air Quality Measurements have been completed. The new text was presented to the meeting for approval.

2.6.20.5 The updated document provides detailed inform ation on regulatory air quality drivers, which aircraft and non-aircraft emissions sources to address, how to calculate the emissions, how to calculate the resulting air pollutant concentrations, an d how to measure airport ambient air quality and use modelling calculations to confirm the local air quality situation.

Development of remaining chapters

2.6.20.6 The task leader informed that the two remaining chapters: Mitigation and Interrelationships were proposed to be developed during the early part of CAEP/9, subject to resources.

2.6.20.7 An observer reported that a case study has been done for Zurich airport to investigate the effects of applying different levels of information for emission inventory calculations and concentration modelling. The results of this study could be used to inform any decision making process for users who would wish to conduct similar assessm ents. He informed that the developm ent of material for the chapters on Mitigation and Interrelationships had been initiated and that these final two key chapters of the manual are fundamental and to the usefulness of the document.

2.6.20.8 Two observers offered to provide resources to ensure the completion of this task. They also proposed to deliver a draft of these two chap ters to the first Steering Group Meeting of CAEP/9 expected in November 2010.CAEP/8-WP/80

2-38 Report on Agenda Item 2

Discussion and Conclusions

2.6.20.9 Two members expressed a concern regarding th e approaches and models used in Chapter 4 (Dispersion Modelling), and requested that another approach and model currently used by these States (PolEmiCa model) be incorporated in a balanced manner.

2.6.20.10 The Chair and the WG2 TG4 lead responded that, since the draft guidance manual was the outcome of three-year thorough discussions si nce CAEP/7 and all inputs were incorporated before reporting back to this meeting, additional inputs co uld be incorporated only if necessary in the future work.

2.6.20.11 An observer pointed out that the approaches described in Chapter 4 of the guidance do not refer to a specific model, instead, they only provi de a generic description, and therefore any model in use would be covered in this Chapter. The observer also pointed out that the TG4 only analyzed models that were already reviewed and in use within CAEP, and therefore prior to incorporation of a new specific model in the guidance, it would need to be sent to MODTF for review.

2.6.20.12 The meeting approved the additional and revi sed guidance manual chapters proposed by TG4, and decided to make the updated manual av ailable through the ICAO public website. It also concluded that the possible update of Chapter 4 in the future would be discussed in Agenda Item 5.

Recommendation

2.6.20.13 In light of the foregoing discussions the meeting developed the following recommendation:
Recommendation 2/4 — Update to Airport Air Quality Guidance Manual (Doc 9889)

That the ICAO Airport Air Quality Guidance Manual (Doc 9880) be updated with the material contained in Appendix C to the report on this agenda item, and that it be published on the ICAO public website free of charge.

2.6.20.14 Regarding the development of the Mitigation and Interrelationships chapters during the CAEP/9 cycle, several members and an observer e xpressed their support for the development of these new chapters. A member expressed concerns with the development of an Interrelationship chapter, in particular the relevance of addressing the interre lationship between LAQ and climate change, and reminded the meeting of the issue of resources for completion and review of the guidance material.

2.6.20.15 The Chair concluded that the development of new chapters would also be discussed in Agenda Item 5.

2.6.21 Environmental Management Systems

2.6.21.1 The WG2 TG1 EMS Task leader noted that at the last CAEP meeting in February 2007, WG2 was assigned a task under the CAEP/8 work progr amme to deliver a report providing informationCAEP/8-WP/80

Report on Agenda Item 2 2-39

on the use of EMS and, as appropriate, make reco mmendations on how the Committee could promote the use of EMS within the aviation system.

2.6.21.2 To complete these two tasks successfully, a questionnaire was proposed and developed to gather information for the report, to be distributed to aviation organizations worldwide. The Secretariat sent the questionnaire and an accompanying introductory State letter in May 2008. The questionnaire and letter were then widely distributed by States and i ndustry associations. The information collected through this questionnaire forms the basis of the report to CAEP/8.

Survey response and results

2.6.21.3 Over a six month time period, responses were received via mail, fax, e-mail, or through the questionnaire software program (interactive electr onic tool). At the end, all questionnaire responses were input into the questionnaire software program. Initially, 254 responses were received from organizations worldwide. As a result of the data validation process, whic h consisted in re viewing data and resolving inconsistencies, 233 responses were selected to form the basis of the report.

2.6.21.4 117 questionnaire respondents apply EMS Standa rds or guidelines, with the majority having an ISO 14001 v2004 certified EMS in place. Among them, 96 percent recommended that other organizations implement one. Many of the remaining 116 respondents use other types of environmental programs and procedures mainly because of unfamiliarity with EMS approaches. Among them, 79 plan to implement one.

2.6.21.5 As a result, EMS implementation guidance specific to the aviation industry was requested.

Task report and recommendations

2.6.21.6 Based on survey responses, TG1 develope d a Report on Environmental Management System Practices in the Aviation Sector that cont ains aggregated questionnaire responses and two recommendations agreed from WG2 TG1:

a) disseminate report information . Within the first year of the CAEP/9 cycle, ICAO should make the information contained in this report publicly available; and

b) develop EMS guidance . A standalone EMS guidance document should be developed for the end of the CAEP/9 cycle.

Report dissemination proposal

2.6.21.7 WG2 TG1 developed and presented a proposal for disseminating the final report to States, respondents, and the public in a manner consiste nt with the confidentiality statement provided in the questionnaire. It was recommended that the report be disseminated in the following ways:

a) publish on the ICAO public website free-of-charge; and

b) distribute by letter to CAEP States and observers, and to all survey respondents.CAEP/8-WP/80

2-40 Report on Agenda Item 2

Discussion and conclusions

2.6.21.8 The meeting welcomed the completion of th e report, approved the report, and accepted the dissemination proposal presented by WG2 TG1.

Recommendation

2.6.21.9 In light of the foregoing discussions the meeting developed the following recommendation:
Recommendation 2/5 — Report on Environmental Management Systems Practices in the Aviation Sector

That the report contained in Appendix D to the report on this agenda item be published as an ICAO document on the ICAO public website free of charge.

2.6.22 Creation of an AIRE-like Partnership to Focus on Main Traffic Flows and Reduce Emissions between Europe and South America

2.6.22.1 A member on behalf of four European CA EP members and an observer presented the European interest in encouraging the development of activities to reduce the environmental impact of aviation at international level and to broaden and extend the e xperience and benefits from ongoing initiatives such as AIRE and ASPIRE to other world re gions such as the Europe - South America oceanic routing areas (South Atlantic routes) with a further pe rspective to cover the entire trans-Atlantic area.

2.6.22.2 Several members welcomed and supported th is initiative, and the meting acknowledged the need for collaboration and estab lishment of synergies between diffe rent countries and authorities to improve aviation efficiency and reduce fuel burn hence CO 2 emissions.

2.6.22.3 The Secretariat suggested the presentation of the working paper to the South Atlantic Regional Group. The Secretary emphasized that, as more and more initiatives emerge, the global harmonization on the design, implem entation and environmental assessment of these initiatives would be crucial before we spread-out initiatives to diffe rent areas in order to obtain maximum synergy.

2.6.23 ICAO Carbon Emissions Calculator

2.6.23.1 The Aviation Carbon Calculator Support (A CCS) ad hoc group lead presented a review of the progress made in the development of an aviation carbon emission calculator methodology both by this group and its predecessor, the Aviation Carbon Estimation (ACE) ad hoc group, and a proposal for future enhancements.

2.6.23.2 The group successfully developed an impartia l, transparent methodology for computing the CO 2 emissions from passenger air travel. In June 2008, ICAO posted on their website a Carbon Emissions Calculator that estimates the CO 2 emissions from air travel based on this methodology for use in offset programs. The Calculator allows passengers to estimate the emissions attributed to their air travel through a simple interface that requires the user to enter only their origin and destination airports, and their class of service. The methodology used by the calculator applies the best publicly availableCAEP/8-WP/80

Report on Agenda Item 2 2-41

industry data to account for various factors such as aircraft types, route specific data, passenger load factors and cargo carried. The ICAO Carbon Emissi ons Calculator can be accessed through the ICAO website: www.icao.int by clicking the link labelled “ICAO Calculat or” on the left side of the homepage. The ICAO website provides the public with access to documentation of the methodology used by the Calculator and answers to a set of frequently asked questions.

2.6.23.3 The UN Environment Management Group (EMG), who is responsible for the Climate Neutral UN initiative, formally adopted the Calculator as the tool for computing CO 2 emissions from air travel. With a view to facilitating the use of the ICAO Calculator by other UN agencies and organizations, in August 2009, ICAO provided them with an enhan ced interface to the carbon emissions calculator, which has since received positive fee dback. To further facilitate inventory preparation, ICAO facilitated the integration of the Calculator directly into three UN Organizations’ travel approval systems.

2.6.23.4 The ACCS group also explored the development of a methodology to compute the CO 2 emissions from air freight. The group suggested that potential methodologies used to compute emissions from cargo carried onboard a passenger aircraft will n eed to be distinct from that used to compute emissions from cargo carried on a dedicated freight airc raft. It was noted that transport routes and modes for cargo are not always clear, hence, leading to potential inaccuracy in emission estimation. The following approach for developing a car go emissions calculator was proposed:

1) (For belly cargo only). Use the passenge r/cargo ratio with the existing passenger calculator methodology to attribute CO 2 emissions to the cargo being carried. This could initially be done on a weight basi s to be refined to incorporate a DIM (dimensional weight) factor, if appropriate. This will allow an initial calculator to be made available in the very near term. In support of this activity, IATA will investigate with its airline offset program partners their willingness to develop cargo carbon emissions (per freight weight) based on actual airline data and assess if they would be willing disclose these results as a means of refining these results. This level of information will also enable an ass essment of the margin of error associated with this approach.

2) (For dedicated freight aircraft only). In the near term, CAEP should develop a distance-based methodology for computing car go emissions. In doing so, it will seek support from IATA to help with an assessment of the level of accuracy achieved. An assessment of the range of errors from us ing this method should be undertaken, including an assessment of the errors associ ated with segments of the trip being carried by a mode of other than aviati on. When introduced to the public, the documentation of the errors and limita tions of the methodology should be transparent. The ACCS lead noted that the CAEP experts would be unable to comment on emissions from other transport modes and that another source for this information would need to be identified. It was also noted that this approach would allow for those shippers with more detailed information on the route/mode taken by their cargo to apply that information to refine their result. This approach was known internally to the ACCS group as “Option 1” of the cargo methodology.

3) (For belly cargo and dedicated freight airc raft). Over the longer term, develop a route and aircraft type independent methodology through the use of top-down modelled or measured fuel consumption data . This approach was known internally to the ACCS group as “Option 2.” Again, full disclosure regarding the accuracy of theCAEP/8-WP/80

2-42 Report on Agenda Item 2

result given the inability of the consumer to know the route taken by the cargo would be required before making the calculator av ailable to the public. IATA will pursue obtaining the necessary data from its member airlines, and noted that the ability to implement this approach will depend on data availability and airlines’ willingness to disclose it.

2.6.23.5 While the existing passenger methodology has been widely accepted, it is not without limitations. One area in particular is its current dependence on the CORINAIR da ta set for aircraft fuel consumption information. Because the CORINAIR data set has not been updated to reflect the latest generation of aircraft, improvement of the Calculator would be sought to compute CO 2 emissions for the Airbus A380, the current generation Boeing 737 airc raft, and the Embraer E190 and E195, among others.

2.6.23.6 With the objective of continuous improveme nt of the existing passenger methodology, the following approach for improvement was proposed that follows 3 parallel tracks:

Update the current database

— Incorporate city-pair level load factor data collected by ICAO and pursue filling gaps through IATA;

— Incorporate air carrier level seating configuration data, where available;

— Pursue obtaining CORINAIR-like data for the missing aircraft types from the aircraft manufacturers; and

— Consider refining the premium/economy multiplier used as well as its basis (space vs. weight).

Update the methodology and underlying data sources (modelled)

— Pursue obtaining flight-level global emissions inventories generated by AEDT/SAGE, AEM III, Aero2K, and FAST (the aviation GHG models evaluated by CAEP) on a regular basis. These results would be merged into a single ICAO database of modelled fuel consumption (or CO 2 emissions)

Transition from modelled estimates of fuel consumption/CO 2 to measured values

— Pursue obtaining measured fuel consumpti on (including type of fuel consumed – i.e. alternative fuels) data at the city pair level from IATA and IBAC, and other relevant bodies such as the European Lo w Fares Airline Association (ELFAA). In support of this step, IATA will be asked to confirm wh ether airlines are willing to disclose such information to ICAO, noting that any data sharing by IATA member airlines will be subject to an assessment of appropriate disclosure levels including data confidentiality i ssues and intellectual property rights.

2.6.23.7 An observer presented their views regarding va rious aspects of the ACCS activity on the Calculator, notably the proposed approach to enha nce the passenger methodology and the extension of this methodology to air freight. In addition, concerns were raised about the specific use of the Calculator by third parties.CAEP/8-WP/80

Report on Agenda Item 2 2-43

2.6.23.8 The observer believed that the ICAO passenger methodology for estimating CO 2 emissions presents a valuable tool provided it is used for its intended purpose and recognizing that it produces more accurate results when u sed in combination with more accurate input data. For this reason, the observer recommended that CAEP continue re fining and improving the passenger methodology, working with relevant industry bodies.

2.6.23.9 For the air freight methodology, the observer was unconvinced that either of the Options described in paragraph 2.6.23.4 could eventually lead to a useful product that would be sufficiently robust and transparent and recommended the development of non-binding guidelines that would enable interested parties to develop an air freight methodology based upon specific operational data.

2.6.23.10 The observer also expressed concern regarding the use of the Calculator for the purposes of presenting users with a tool to distinguish between airlines, aircraft types or flights or commercializing Calculator data.

Discussion and Conclusions

2.6.23.11 The Secretary pointed out that development of the Calculator was very successful and a good result of cooperation and harm onization among aviation stakeholde rs, serving as one of ICAO’s tangible results in addressing aviation emissions. She al so clarified that the agreement with Amadeus was not intended for commercial purposes but aiming at co st-recovery. In addition, she mentioned that ICAO would receive information on the amount of air-travel carbon offsets through these systems.

2.6.23.12 An observer noted that contrary to data requi rements for certification standards, data gaps can be filled by sources other than the manufacturers, so therefore requested the action item “ICCAIA to provide ICAO with compatible data to address the data gaps associated with the aircraft types” be changed to “compatible data or advice”, which was agreed upon.

2.6.23.13 A member expressed a concern with regard to the use of global emissions inventory data from the model of the State (AEDT/SAGE) in terms of associated resources that could be necessary to cooperate with the activity. Although clarification was made by the ACCS lead on his intention not to put burden on the State’s resources, the member was still of the view that providing support to the activities especially related to providing data on a regular ba sis would be unlikely, but she had no objection to further cooperation between ICAO, Stat es and the industry on the further development of the Calculator’s methodologies as resources permit.

2.6.23.14 Another member pointed out that future work could be accelerated considering the fact that the original Calculator was developed within a half year of intensive work; any update on Calculator should be conducted in a transparent manner; and the wo rk on Calculator would be important in terms of possible carbon offsetting schemes in the future. The memb er suggested these points be considered for the discussions of the Calculator’s future work.

2.6.23.15 An observer expressed the need to decide on the update of an average passenger weight of 100 kg assumed in the Calculator while MODTF assumed 91 kg.

2.6.23.16 The meeting confirmed that the purpose of th e ICAO Carbon Emissions Calculator is not to present users with a tool to distinguish be tween airlines, aircraft types, or flights.CAEP/8-WP/80

2-44 Report on Agenda Item 2

2.6.23.17 The Chair concluded that further discussion on future work on the Calculator would be undertaken in Agenda Item 5, while a small info rmal group would continue its discussion during the meeting, in particular on the issues of air freight methodology and STA/10’s fuel data collection form.

2.6.23.18 A member presented an overview of carbon footprinting work being carried out by his government. This work indicated robust carbon footpr inting of aircraft operational networks can be carried out using Great Circle computations. Valuable carbon footprint information can be obtained using relatively basic datasets and commonly available softwa re. Initial visualisation concepts to present a rapid transparent picture of carbon footprints have been developed. It was seen that over the FY 2008/9 the cumulative difference between actual and computed fuel use was just over 2%.

— — — — — — — —