ࡱ>     %` bjbjٕ 02D$      $Kz,,BBB*y,y,y,y,y,y,y$|hw~Py29"2929Py  BBeyHLLL29 BB*yL29*yLL6gziB  `y Ch^jyKzh^K4ziziZI@ L)41uPyPyL^Kz29292929$$ ĺC$$ $$$  Adding Capacity at Heathrow Airport West London Response to Government Consultation by West London Friends of the Earth Contents Introduction Executive summary Consultation process, document and questions Noise Air pollution Climate change Public safety Surface access Biodiversity Economics Summary and conclusions Appendices 1 to 7 (climate change) 27th Feb 2008 Contact: 020 8357 8426; nic@wlfoet5.demon.co.uk 1. Introduction West London Friends of the Earth (WLFOE) is a network of local Friends of the Earth (FOE) groups, comprising Brent, Ealing, Kensington, Chelsea & Westminster, Harrow, Hillingdon, Hounslow, Kingston and Richmond & Twickenham groups. The network was set up to address issues which have impacts across several boroughs in West London, such as Heathrow. Evidence on specific issues affecting particular areas is being submitted by a large number of local people and organisations. WLFOE does not feel the need to elaborate on these, but we fully endorse their concerns. We believe that quality of life is crucial and that protection of the environment is critical to that aim. We reject the implication, which runs throughout the consultation and the pro-expansion campaign, that our environment and our quality of life should be sacrificed for economic benefits. In any case, we are totally unconvinced by the economic arguments, as is almost everyone else who has studied the matter. This submission concentrates on the broader aspects of noise, air pollution and other impacts, affecting West London, west of London and beyond. Although economics is critical, we do not address this issue in detail because it is covered by the national FOE response. A number of abbreviations are used in the response: CD consultation document CO2 carbon dioxide dB decibel (sound level) FOE Friends of the Earth GHG Greenhouse gases MM mixed mode Mt megatonnes (million tonnes) NO2 nitrogen dioxide NOx nitrogen oxides NO2 and/or NO R3 Runway 3 RF Radiative forcing RFI Radiative forcing index WLFOE West London Friends of the Earth 2. Executive Summary 1. West London Friends of the Earth position West London Friends of the Earth (WLFOE) strongly opposes the further expansion of Heathrow and in particular, the introduction of mixed mode and the building of a third runway and sixth terminal. 2. Consultation process, document and questions WLFOE has great concerns about the nature of the consultation, the partial nature of the information presented and the questions posed. We believe that the consultation was designed in this way to minimise opposition to expansion or at least to enable the government to interpret the answers in a manner favourable to its policy of Heathrow expansion. 3. Noise 1. The direct consultation unfairly excluded many people who are already affected noise or who would be. 2. The single noise condition (16-hour 57dB contour) is completely inadequate. 3. Leq is an inappropriate metric for assessing noise around Heathrow. 4. A 57dB threshold seriously under-states the area or population affected. About 4 times as many people would be enclosed within a 50dB contour as a 57dB one. 5. The base year of 2002 is inappropriate. 6. There should be a policy of improving the noise climate, not increasing flights and thereby negating potential improvements. 7. No recognition is given to the significant effects of aircraft noise on childrens learning. 8. No recognition is given to the health impacts of aircraft noise, including deaths. 9. Figures for the economic cost of noise used by the government are absurdly low. The real figure could be 14 times or more higher. 10. It is unsatisfactory for a consultation to be based on indicative flight paths. 4. Air pollution 1. There has been insufficient time to evaluate the conclusions on air pollution. 2. Air pollution is major health and environmental issue and Heathrow is a major polluter. But the impacts have been ignored. 3. EU limits are not the only consideration 4. The objective should be to reduce air pollution, not just remain within EU limits. 5. A considerable number of properties are forecast to be very close to the EU limit for NO2. 6. Air pollution estimates can never be accurate and full sensitivity tests have not been not been done. 7. Given 5 and 6 above, the government cannot be confident about meeting EU limits. 8. Optimistic assumptions have been made about how aircraft and road vehicles will become cleaner. 9. No control mechanisms are proposed to ensure that air pollution does stay within limits. 10. The government appears to be planning to use EU derogation, which is a gross misuse of the facility. 11. Consideration should be given to areas well away from Heathrow where relatively proportionately small effects add to a big societal impact. 12. The economic cost of air pollution has been ignored. 5. Climate change Climate change is the most important issue on earth. Climate change is of great relevance to aviation because aviation already contributes some 10% of the UKs greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions and it is a very rapidly rising source. Scientists agree that 80% cuts in emissions are needed by 2050 to avoid the worst effects of climate change. Emissions from Heathrow represent nearly half of the UKs aviation emissions. An increase in capacity and emissions of nearly 50%, as proposed by the government, is thus of great significance in the context of climate change. It is reprehensible that the CD says virtually nothing about climate change itself. The DfT estimates that by 2050, aviation will contribute 20% of total UK CO2 emissions and 29% of GCG emissions. These assume cuts of 60% in emissions compared with a 1990 baseline. FOE considers there are 3 major flaws in the DfT calculations: a) The 2050 aviation emissions imply a complete about-face in government policy in which predict and provide is abandoned and no new capacity is added after 2030. b) The target 60% cut is only applied to emissions other than international aviation and shipping c) There are no calculations on the basis of 80% cuts. FOE has re-calculate aviations proportion of UK emissions, correcting for a,b and c above. The result is that by 2050, aviation will contribute 51% of total UK CO2 emissions and 87% of GCG emissions. If emissions are apportioned according to the proportion of UK passengers instead of a 50%/50% split between the UK and distant country, the figures are 79% of UK CO2 emissions and 122% of GCG emissions. Heathrow accounts for nearly half of the UKs aviation emissions. By 2050 it would account for some 17% of the UKs total allowed CO2 emissions if just a third runway was added, but if it were expanded to meet probable demand the figure would increase to about 27%. For all GHGs, the figures are 28% and 42% of the total UKs allowed emissions. These are very large figures and they show that it would be impossible for the UK to meet its climate change commitments. An urgent change in UK aviation policy is therefore needed. The EU Emissions Trading System, while it may have role to play, cannot address the problems raised by the rate of aviation growth forecast by the government and supported by its policies. The Climate Bill does not recognise the issue because it omits international aviation from its targets. 6. Public safety (danger) There is no substantive mention of public or third-party safely in the consultation. Heathrow is already by far the most dangerous airport in the country in terms of total or societal risk. Expansion would increase that risk, very approximately by 50%. It is reprehensible that this issue is not covered in the consultation and no comment is invited from the public. 7. Surface Access There are no plans for new railways and only a slight increase in modal share of public transport is expected. This will lead to increased traffic and congestion. There is no coherent, sustainable plan for surface access. The issue is not covered properly in the consultation and no comment is invited from the public. 8. Wildlife, habitats and biodiversity Loss of biodiversity is the second greatest environmental issue, after climate change. Nothing of substance is said in the CD or associated documents. Runway 3 would destroy part of Harmondsworth Moor, which contains public open space and has considerable wildlife value. 9. Economics Almost the entire justification for expansion of Heathrow is the claimed economic benefits. We are totally unconvinced by the governments calculations which have major errors and omissions. National FOE covers the issue in its response. The claimed Net Present Value over 70 years is miniscule compared with other relevant economic figures. The wider economic benefits have not been demonstrated in any way. The consultation uses unsubstantiated assertions, spurious facts, false logic and facts from the aviations industrys consultants to try and convince the reader. 3. Consultation process, document and questions 3.1 Introduction WLFOE has great concerns about the nature of the consultation, the partial nature of the information presented, issues omitted and the questions posed. We believe that the consultation was designed in this way to minimise opposition to expansion or at least to enable the government to interpret the answers in a manner favourable to its policy of Heathrow expansion. The specific issues are described in 2.1-7 below. 3.2 Key issues omitted from consultation A number of key issues were omitted or were barely addressed in the consultation Climate change Public safety Public health Biodiversity The nature and reasons for demand at Heathrow Demand for a 4th runway and 7th terminal These matters are considered in subsequent sections of this response. 3.3 Consultees selected too narrowly The consultation was drawn too narrowly. Only those households which currently suffer 57dB leq or just below were consulted directly, ie by post. There is unequivocal evidence that people are affected by in areas with an leq much less than 57dB. Many people will be affected by the air pollution, traffic, development pressures, etc even if they are not within particular noise contours. They should be consulted. Boroughs significantly affected by Heathrow, such as Ealing, were not given a DfT exhibition and the DfT refused to attend public meetings. 3.4 Main consultation document (CD) dense and difficult to understand. We recognise that the issue is complicated and that simplifying the issues such that the public can understand and comment is a challenge. Nonetheless, there are some basic shortcomings. For a detailed document of over 200 pages, the contents page is inadequate and there is no indexing. For example, App B occupies over 80 pages and covers a wide range of issues and several options. It is unreasonable to expect people to have to search 80 pages to find a section on, say, heritage or on Option 2. Unlike most pdf documents, the consultation document could not be searched and text could not be extracted. This makes finding material of interest more difficult and makes responses more time-consuming. 3.5 Questionnaire does not ask the basic questions The most important of such questions would be .. do you support the removal of Mixed Mode (MM) and do you support the building of a third runway (R3). We are aware that the government is entitled to consult on whatever it wants and ask what questions it wants. We are also aware that the government could argue that it has already consulted on the principle of Heathrow expansion in the aviation White Paper. However, we do not consider there are adequate reasons. A large number of people responding are opposed to MM and R3. They should have the opportunity to say so. If they are not given the opportunity, it engenders a feeling of mistrust and alienation. The words charade and done deal are commonly heard. It engenders cynical, but justifiable, comments about the planning, consultation and democratic systems. For example Your new terminal goes here. What colour would you like the departure gates? Another vital area is on economics. The main argument used by the government for expanding Heathrow is the claimed economic benefits. There are many statements about these in the main text and further statements and quantitative work in Annex B. Yet despite the evident importance of these, no questions are asked or comment invited. The approach on economics appears to be make a series of unproven, unreferenced and questionable assertions about the economic benefits. Points which might cast doubt on the benefits or the scale of them are excluded, the huge areas of uncertainly are not mentioned and comment is not invited. It adds up to what is colloquially called a stitch up. It might be argued by the government that the economic issues are complex and it would therefore be difficult for the public to make comment. We would not accept this for the following reasons. Firstly, many of the public are sophisticated and can understand the arguments. Most certainly their representatives in councils, NGOs etc can understand the arguments and respond. Secondly, the consultation asks questions such as whether the respondents believe the air pollution limits can be met. But air pollution analysis is at least as complex and technical as economics. Finally, this document is a consultation. If the subject is not being consulted upon, it should not be discussed (in any detail). The assertions about economic benefits without invitation to comment make the document look like a lobbying or PR document as opposed to a genuine consultation. 3.6 Questions in the main consultation document difficult to answer or leading Q1 (Terminal 6) Insufficient information is given as to why a further terminal (T6) is needed. It is widely known that T5 is far large than necessary to handle passengers from R1 and R2. Indeed, it has been called a great shopping mall. A cogent argument is needed as to whether the space in T1-5 can or cannot be used more effectively before building T6 needs to be presented. Q3 (can air quality limits be met with R3 ?) This is almost impossible for respondents to answer in an informed manner. Air pollution forecasting is a complex and technical subject. The calculations were carried out behind closed doors by the government and BAA other parties were denied access. The results were not published until the consultation was published, giving consultees just 14 weeks to analyse. This makes it almost impossible for them to reach a fully informed and considered view. The ability to go ahead with MM/R3 hinges on air pollution. The process of estimation should therefore be undertaken with the utmost transparency. There should have been a rigorous peer-review process which the public would be able to see (as there was with first stage of the work on methodology). There should also have been a guide to the issues to enable the non-technical reader and readers who not have days to spare studying air pollution to understand the key results, issues and uncertainties. These would have enabled the public to answer the question meaningfully Q4 (can noise condition be met with R3 ?) This is almost impossible for respondents to answer in an informed manner. Sound level forecasting is a complex and technical subject. The calculations were carried out behind closed doors by the government and BAA we understand that other parties were denied access. The results were not published until the consultation was published, giving consultees just 14 weeks to analyse complex technical information. This makes it almost impossible for them to reach a fully informed and considered view. Q5 (can noise condition be met with MM ?) Same comments as Q4 Q7 (can noise condition be met with MM ?) Same comments as Q3 3.7 Questions in summary consultation leading or impossible to answer properly Question A3 To what extent do you agree or disagree that the environmental conditions are still appropriate for the revised BAA proposal for a 2,200m runway The question states and the responses allowed range from Strongly agree to strongly disagree. On the surface this appears to be normal, however closer inspection shows that there is significant ambiguity here. For example, what is Strongly disagree actually supposed to mean? Many residents may strongly disagree because they believe that the environmental conditions are wholly inadequate and need strengthening, whereas an airline might strongly disagree because they felt that the environmental conditions were too harsh. So, respondents with diametrically opposed views would end up ticking the same box! As there is no facility on the form to state why the respondent gave that view, there is no meaningful information that can be inferred from the answer given. Therefore the DfT is able to interpret any disagree or strongly disagree in any way it chooses, which makes the question invalid. Question A4 See comments on Q1 Question A6 See comments on Q3 Question A7 See comments on Q4 Question B6 There are two questions here but only one tick is allowed. One question relates to what is a worthwhile increase and the other to air pollution. See also comments on Q3. 3.8 Misleading and partial statements in the consultation document There CD is full of partial and misleading statements, clearly designed to elicit support for, or acquiesence to, Heathrow expansion. A selection, taken from just the first 48 pages (plus one in Annex B), is given here. References to the item are to paragraph numbers or section titles in the CD. Introduction chapter 2. Heathrow is crucially important to the UK, as our premier international airport. No evidence is given for this assertion. 3 .. given the economic benefits .. Not demonstrated in the White Paper Executive summary Background, para 1. .. given the strong economic benefits .. Not demonstrated in the White Paper Background, para 4. .. revised proposal for adding a third runway .. 2,200 operational length compared with the original length .. Although a correct statement, it misleads because the total length, including the non-operational part has gone up to 2,500m (only explained many pages later). This real increase, reflecting land-take, has therefore gone up by 25% ( {2500 - 2000 / 2000} x 100 ), not 10% ( {2200 - 2000 / 2000} x 100 ). This misleading impression is repeated in Q4 (page 114). Chapter 1, para 1. This is an attempt to associate in the public mind factors that are not correlated. The assertion about the important contribution of aviation to the UK economy may be correct, but it simply does not follow that the number of routes has any significance in this context. London has done rather well compared with many cities; meanwhile Heathrows routes have declined while other have increased. Taken to its logical conclusion, we should get rid of all Heathrows routes! Chapter 1, para 7. .. with no additional environmental benefit. It is manifestly untrue to say that more constraints on aviation would not give more environmental benefits than less constraints. We have not checked if Eddington actually said it, but even if he did, that is no excuse to make untrue statements in a consultation document. 1.1. This contains unproven assertions and hype. 1.2 Schiphol .. has 5 runways .. This is a totally misleading comparison. Schiphols runways cannot all be used together the 5th runway was built to reduce noise impacts, not to increase capacity. 1.2 70% of foreign companies first location is Britain is within one hour of Heathrow. This may be true, but is irrelevant. 70% of businesses locate within one hour of the Tower of London, but that does not show that we need to expand it! 1.2 .. hub airport .. damaging UK interests .. more widely across the economy . This is false logic. If aviation is important to business in the UK, it can only be for business travellers wishing to travel to or from the UK, especially London. A hub airport specifically caters for passengers changing planes, ie not visiting Britain and so not contributing to its economy. (Some travellers may wish to travel on from Heathrow to other destinations in the UK. But they would better travel direct to, say, Manchester, or get a get a high-speed train.) 1.10 It is not lack of capacity per se that causes these problems. It is the business decision of BAA to run more flights than it can reliably cope with that causes delays, threat to reputation, more fuel burn and associated emissions. 1.15, etc Throughout the document the expression air quality is used. This is a euphemism, intended to play down the issue, which is air pollution. Chapter 3 3.34 .. We believe that decisions on Heathrow should be based on the best evidence .. The best evidence is from studies from around the world in the last 20 years, accepted by the WHO and others, which show that people are significantly affected by noise levels below 57dB leq. This was confirmed by the governments own ANASE study. The fact that the government is ignoring all this and using the 20 year old ANIS study shows clearly that the government is not using best evidence. Instead, it is selecting evidence in order to claim the minimum impacts of noise. 3.33 the valuations coming from the study are not reliable and specifically counselled against using the detailed results .. This is extremely misleading because this caveat was about valuations or economic cost, not about annoyance per se, which is what is discussed in 3.33. 3.41 .. sustainable development. The need to strike a balance .. The governments policy on sustainable development is that we need to achieve economic growth and protect the environment simultaneously. It is not about trading off the environment for economic benefit or balance as it is euphemistically called. Annex B 2.52 With 90 of businesses in the SE rating Heathrow as either vital or very important to their business .. This is grossly misleading. This statement is based on a survey carried out by Oxford Economic Forecasting (OEF), paid for mainly by the aviation industry. Only a very small fraction of firms around Heathrow were consulted and only a very small fraction of those responded. The 90% figure therefore derives from a meaningless OEF-selected and self-selected sample. 4. Noise 4.1 Introduction FOE does not find that all the questions are chosen or framed in a manner that facilitates responses on the issue of noise. We therefore give structure our response is a way that is most convenient. However, 3.14 addresses briefly each of the noise questions and refers, as appropriate, to other paras. 4.2 The consultation We consider the range of people consulted was unfairly limited. People were only consulted directly, by means of documents in letter boxes, in areas where the noise is 57dB or just over. As explained below, 57dB is palpably not the cut-off for noise nuisance - people within the 50DB contour, and perhaps some outside, should have been consulted. 4.3 Wrong environmental measures and conditions FOE considers that the environment conditions presented in the consultation are fundamentally flawed. The 57dB contour does not in any way include all or most of the people who are significantly affected by aircraft noise and those who would be significantly affected with Mixed Mode or a 3rd runway (MM/R3). It is doubtful if a single simple metric such as 16-hour Leq averaged over a season can be an adequate measure on which to base a decision affecting so many lives. But if a single measure is to be used, a contour for 57dB 16-hour Leq averaged over a season is palpably not the best. The flaws in the use of this measure are described in 4.5-9. The whole principle underlying the condition is wrong. Noise is already a serious issue which affect people lives and also health (see 4.11). A primary objective should therefore be to improve the noise situation. But the thrust of the approach is to use any potential improvements from quieter aircraft or re-aligning flights as an opportunity to increase flights and therefore restore noise. We note that 2.17 of the consultation document states that the addition of a third runway might provide the opportunity to increase movements in the night period (although a decision on this would be a separate exercise nearer to the 2012 when the restrictions cans be amended. The Government said it would bear down on night noise, a commitment included in the 2003 White Paper, but this expansion is seen as opportunity to do exactly the opposite. The one and only noise condition refers to day noise, so there is no constraint whatever on increasing night noise. 4.4 Flaws in the Leq measure The statistic used by the government for assessing exposure of residents to aircraft noise is called Loudness Equivalent or Leq. This takes the sound energy from each aircraft in decibels or dB. The sound is averaged over a day of 16 hours and over a whole season. Based on the official noise output of each aircraft type and historical data on aircraft movements and flight paths, the Leq is calculated for a wide area around Heathrow. The results are shown by means of noise contour maps. The only noise condition proposed by the government refers to a 57dB contour and the area enclosed within. A single 57db contour is demonstrably not an adequate means of assessing noise exposure and acceptability and is therefore not a satisfactory basis for environmental conditions for MM/R3. While the 16-hour Leq is a commonly used metric, and one that is accepted by the EU, it has the major shortcoming that, like any single metric, it cannot represent the complexity of noise and its impacts on people. In this context of Heathrow there are several reasons why this is particularly significant. Leq is an average of the noise energy of a number of aircraft averaged over a period. However, perception of noise is not closely related to noise energy. An increase of 3dB means doubling of the noise energy, but the ear only hears a very slight difference. (The response is roughly logarithmic.) Two aircraft with a particular noise level have the same average noise energy as one aircraft which is 3dB noisier. But the human ear hears twice as many aircraft which each sound nearly as loud. Thus the disturbance or annoyance is far greater with two aircraft. This was confirmed by the ANASE study (see below), which indicated that a metric related to NNI (Noise Number Index) was a better predictor of annoyance than Leq. The upshot of this is that more aircraft annoy more, even when the Leq is unchanged. The proposal for MM/R3 increase the number of flights and therefore noise annoyance is likely to increase, even though there may be no or little increase in Leq. Another reason why Leq is an inadequate measure is the averaging period. The government calculates contours by averaging noise over a whole day and over a whole season. With the current system of runway alternation, aircraft fly overhead most people for half a day and for the other half of the day there is relative quiet. If planes fly over for half a day and the average over that half day is, say, 59dB, people will be annoyed because the noise level is over the 57dB that has been show to cause annoyance. But if planes do not fly overhead for the other half of the day, the average over the whole day is only 56dB. Being below 57dB, it can be claimed people are not affected which is obviously not correct. A common sense approach would be say that people are half as much affected or half as much annoyed by the pattern of noise lasting half the day corresponding to 59dB over that half day as they would be affected by the same pattern of noise lasting all day and corresponding to 59dB over the whole day. A more sophisticated relationship could probably be established with a modest amount of research. It is well known that residents affected by aircraft noise plan their day around Heathrow. Some choose the timing of their barbecue for before or after 3pm so that they can have it free from aircraft noise. Others will go to Kew Gardens or choose the time to sit in their own garden with reference to runway alternation. By this means, residents are able to ameliorate the impacts of noise. With Mixed Mode, amelioration will be impossible and it may therefore be the case that the annoyance due to a full day of noise is more than double annoyance due to half a day. A similar effect occurs by averaging over seasons. Flight paths alter according to the direction of the wind. People may therefore be overflown with, say, easterlies but not westerlies. The noise level on days with easterlies could be 60dB, which is clearly annoying. But when averaged with all the days of westerlies, which occur about 70% of the time, the average is about 55dB. Being below 57dB, it is claimed and when not claimed, implied by the use of a 57dB contour that people are not affected. This is obviously not valid. A particular issue with easterlies v westerlies is that easterly wind usually occurs in fine weather when people want to be out of doors, for example on a sunny summer afternoon. The people under an easterly take-off path are thus more affected than the 30% occurrence might suggest. More people are overflown by the easterly paths because the population is much denser over West London ie east of Heathrow than the area west of Heathrow. 4.5 Flaws in using 57dB as a threshold Setting aside the problems that Leq does not take proper account of the numbers of planes or the averaging over days and seasons, there remains a fundamental issue. The 57dB figure was decided upon following an study published 23 years ago called ANIS. This was interpreted by government to show that community annoyance generally becomes significant at around 57dB. However there were flaws in the study and it was not peer-reviewed. More recent work had led the World Health Organisation (WHO) to recognise 50dB as a realistic level for onset of annoyance and 55dB for serious annoyance. In some cases, eg at night or in countryside, lower levels of 45dB or even 40dB can be annoying. The EU has recognised 50dB and 55dB in its legislation on noise mapping. The ANASE study Attitudes to noise from aviation sources in England was a 6-year study set up by the government and was finally published in Nov 2007. ANASE shows there is no sharp cut-off level such that noise of less than that level figure does not annoy. However, the research indicated that 50dB was a reasonable figure for onset of annoyance. This corresponds with what other researchers internationally have concluded and the levels that EU and WHO recognise. However, the government refuses to accept the 50dB figure or use it when discussing airport expansion. It uses the lamest of excuses that there is no sudden upturn in annoyance at 50dB or cut-off below. This argument is untenable because there is no reason whatever to believe that there should be some sudden threshold below which people are not annoyed and above which they are. All the empirical evidence, backed up theoretical arguments and the real experience of people, suggests that noise annoyance will rise very slowly per dB from low noise levels and will rise gradually faster per dB at higher levels. That is, there is no real cut-off or sharp upturn. Indeed, there was no sharp cut-off shown by the earlier ANIS study, so this argument provides no grounds for staying with the 57dB figure. 4.6 The effect of using a 50dB threshold Any meaningful and relevant method of measuring noise nuisance must include noise down to 50dB. The simplest method would be to draw a noise contour enclosing the area suffering over 50dB. The CAA has refused to calculate such a contour, but there is a broad-brush relationship which enables the impact to be seen. Examination of published contours show that the area enclosed by one contour is typically about 1.8 times higher than the area enclosed by a contour for an Leq 3dB higher. Therefore, by extrapolating from 57dB, the area enclosed by 50dB contour will be about 3.9 times larger than the 57dB contour. (It should be noted that although the lowest noise level shown in the Heathrow consultation is 57dB, the government has in other cases published a 54dB contour; this was used to help derive the 1.8 per 3dB factor. Thus our estimate of the 50dB is not just our own extrapolation from 57dB, but uses government data down to 54dB.) If the area covered by a 50dB contour is 3.9 times the area of the 57dB contour, the areas affected by noise are correspondingly greater. The table below gives the areas in km2 of the 57dB contour from the consultation document (Table 6 and 12) and the corresponding 50dB contour. Where enclosed populations are given for the 57dB contour, these are shown in brackets (thousands) and the population enclosed by the 50dB is calculated by pro-rata of the areas. YearBase case ie no MM/R3Option 3 ie MM + R357dB 50dB57dB50dB2002 126.6 493126.6 4942015119.8 (261.9)467 (1020)119.7 (248.1)467 (968)2020 126.7 (242.3)494 (945)2030 77.0 (142.2)300 (555)112.9 (205.7)440 (802) Table FOE/12 Estimated population within 50DB contour It can be seen that nearly a million people will be affected by aircraft noise, not around 200k as claimed by the government. This figure is in fact an under-estimate because of the averaging problem described in 4.4. People exposed to over 50dB for some of the time but under 50dB when averaged over the whole time would actually be affected. So many more people will be affected than these numbers indicate. Inspection of these figures reveals the real reason for the government ignoring the results of the ANASE study. It is nothing to do with the reasons given in 3.36-39 of the consultation document or the shortcomings of the study, of which there are indisputably some. It is because use of ANASE would high highlight the fact that far more people are affected by noise than the government wants to admit. To admit it would make the argument against expansion even stronger. 4.7 Measuring impacts and setting conditions We recognize that use of a 50dB contour alone would be an adequate measure of noise nuisance. Noise at higher levels, eg 57dB is more annoying and recognition of this is needed when determining impacts and setting conditions. Either multiple contours are needed as part of the conditions or some form of weighing by noise is needed so that the populations exposed to more noise have a higher weighting as part of an overall index of noise exposure. 4.8 The wrong base year Setting aside the problems of the 57dB metric, the contour area of 127 km2 is not appropriate. This is based on the 2002 contour area. Since then, thankfully, there has been some decline in noise, the figures for 2005 and 2006 being 117.2 and 117.4 respectively. (DfT web site - http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/aviation/environmentalissues/nec/secnoise06/pdfnoiseheath06). A condition based on 127km2 is therefore an increase of about 8% over the current level. It is thus allows an increase in noise when, as noted in 4.3, there ought to be a policy to improve peoples quality of life by reducing noise. 4.9 Noise policy As noted in 4.3, for people living near Heathrow, the noise is already excessive and needs to be reduced. Simply keeping to the same level of annoyance is would not be satisfactory but instead proposes to increase the noise annoyance. The reasons why noise nuisance would increase have been described above; in summary they are: Leq does properly reflect the number of flights, which is increasing Averaging noise by Leq over the whole day hides the impact over the noisy half of the day Averaging by Leq over the whole season hides the impact over the noisy days 57dB is not a valid cut-off for noise nuisance Future noise should be compared with current noise, not an inflated 2002 figure. 4.10 Learning Aircraft noise is normally regarded just as a nuisance, albeit one which can significantly impact on leisure and quality of life. Bu there are further impacts. A body of research in Britain and abroad shows that children who go to school under the flight path have their learning significantly impeded. Notable is the Ranch study, which looked included Heathrow. There is no cognisance of this or allowance when setting the noise condition. There are no doubt adverse effects on concentration and learning in adults too, but no definitive studies have been published. 4.11 Health impacts A report was published in Feb 08 of a major 4-year study called Hyena (Hypertension and Exposure to Noise near Airports), funded by the EC. The study shows what other studies have suggested, namely that there are health effects due to noise. The study showed that those living closest to airports were almost 50 per cent more likely to suffer from hypertension, a known trigger for heart attacks, strokes, kidney disease and dementia. In England, heart disease kills 110,000 people annually and the deaths linked to noise could be around 3,300. The proportion of these deaths attributable to aircraft noise has not been worked out, but is unlikely to be negligible. 4.12 Economic cost of noise Although there are understandable ethical objections to reducing noise nuisance to a monetary cost, it is widely recognised that such a process, not just for noise but for other impacts, is useful in formulating public policy. At best it helps with reducing noise but, failing that, it enables taxes, charges and compensation to be evaluated. Such costs are not actually monetary because there are no monetary transactions involved. They are often called economic costs because economics deals with valuations in monetary terms of human welfare even where there is no financial transaction. These sorts of costs are more specifically termed external costs because they are outside the realm of monetary transactions, ie outside the market. Such costs are part of a broad definition of pollution in the polluter pays principle. There are great difficulties in estimating economic costs for noise; however there is an extensive literature on the subject. The government has estimated costs using two sources (2.26 bullet 2): DfT WebTAG figures for road and rail noise Values from a study by Pearce and Pearce Setting environmental taxes for aircraft: a case study of the UK, 1999. Using these, the government estimates that the economic cost of noise is between 214 million and 331 million from 2015 to 2080, that is over 65 years (Option 3, para 2.87). Even allowing for the fact that this is an increase due to MM/R3 and not the total noise cost and that annual costs are discounted (reduced to present values by means of an interest or discount rate), the figures are absurdly low. They imply that noise gives rise to very little nuisance which contradicts completely academic research and everyday experience. A major part of the ANASE study was devoted to assessing a cost of noise. This indicated costs far higher than the studies used by the government here and indeed higher than other studies. It is generally recognised by the reviewers and commentator that the results were so out of line with earlier studies that it would not be safe to rely on them. However, that does not prove they were wrong and there is no excuse for the government to pretend the results do not exist and not mention them in the consultation. A major reason for the low figures is revealed in 2.26 bullet 3: only household exposed noise changes above 57dB are included in this analysis. As described, a much more justifiable cut-off for noise impacts is 50dB instead of 57dB. The fact that 3.9 times as many people are affected will mean that the costs will be higher when all the extra people are taken into account. But there is a further factor. Because a cut-off of 57dB is taken instead, the cost for those people that are included in the governments calculations is under-estimated. The Pearce and Pearce study used a formula which gave a cost for every extra dB of noise. Thus a person exposed to 58dB would be considered as having an economic cost of only 1dB (58 57), not 8 dB (58 50). The combination of these two effects is obviously large. A study by the Aviation Environment Federation in 2000 indicated the effect of using a 57dB cut-off instead of 50dB was to understate the cost no less than 14-fold. The Hyena study showed that noise is a health risk, not just an annoyance. However, the governments estimates of the cost of noise do not include health impacts. For example, the Pearce and Pearce study is based on the depreciation of house prices and there is no reason to assume that health issues are factored in to the assessment. (While people are aware of noise nuisance and will therefore factor it in their valuations, they are not aware of health impacts.) Health costs should be included in the cost of noise. There is clear evidence that childrens learning is impeded by aircraft noise. It is unlikely that this factor has been taken account of in the governments estimates. If it has not been, the costs should be included in the cost of noise. The methods used and the absence of relevant information makes it obvious that the government aims to minimise the apparent cost of noise and thereby maximise the claimed net economic benefits. 4.13 Flight paths Flight paths shown in the consultation are merely indicative. That is, they may not be the ones that would actually arise due to expansion of Heathrow. The landing paths are fairly clear-cut, being in line with the runways for several km. However, the take-off paths are anything but clear-cut. There is no technical or operational reason why they could not be different from those shown in the document. We do not consider that indicative paths are a proper basis for consultation, especially where noise impacts are the ones that arouse the greatest local concern. 4.14 Answers to consultation questions Question 2 The first part of Question 2 says Do you agree or disagree with the governments view on the continuing validity of the environmental conditions? What are your reasons? The second part says Are there significant considerations you believe should be taken into account? If so, what are they? FOE does not consider that existing environmental conditions on noise are valid. Semantically, therefore, we cannot say that we agree or disagree with the continuing validity of conditions. We disagree strongly that the current noise conditions form a valid basis for the future. See 4.3-9 for a full explanation. Question 3 (is R3 achievable within govs noise limit ?) As made clear in 4.3-9, we do not consider that the proposed condition gives people around Heathrow the protection they deserve. The condition would allow noise impacts to increase considerably instead of decreasing from the present unacceptably high levels. The following comments are without prejudice to this position. We consider that adding a third runway within the 127 km2 57dB contour limit is achievable in a literal sense. However the government has made a set of rather optimistic assumptions about fleet mix and there is considerable doubt as to whether the limit will be achieved in practice under a business as usual approach. If the government is serious about achieving the limit, it needs to spell out what it will do if subsequent measurements and/or projections show the limits are not likely to be achieved. There are basically 3 options: a) introduce a scheme to ban the noisier planes sufficient to achieve the necessary reduction in overall noise b) introduce noise-related charges of sufficient strength to achieve the necessary reduction in overall noise (ie not like the tokenistic measures in place now) c) put a limit on flight numbers until the noise limit can be reached To not do any of these, and to do not offer or plan to do any of these would be a breach of trust for a community that already has little trust in government or over Heathrow. Question 7 (is MM achievable within governments noise limit?) Similar comments apply as in Question 6. However, the uncertainty about the fleet and thus noise levels is less in the near future when this applies (up to 2020) than after runway 3 (2020 onwards). The probability of the noise target being met would therefore appear to be greater. However, we would still expect measures such a, b or c to be available for use. As before, our comments are without prejudice to the position that we do not accept the condition as valid. Question 8 (getting rid of westerly preference) We do not presently have a view on this. . Question 9 (getting rid of Cranford agreement) We do not have a firm view on this. However, we reject the argument in favour of abolishing the Cranford agreement that it would remove some people from the 57dB contour. We have explained at some length that 57dB is not a valid cut-off and why the 57dB is not a valid basis for the noise condition. It follows that removing people from the 57dB contour is not a worthwhile objective per se. To the extent that their noise is decreased, it is of course a benefit. But rmoving people from the 57dB contour by reducing their noise by a small amount, while increasing the noise of others already in the contour, would probably give a net disbenefit to residents. Yet it would help to achieve the condition. It would, to put it bluntly, be a fiddle. Question 10 (keep rotation of easterly and westerly preference at night ?) We do not presently have a view on this. Question 11 (should runway alternation be retained between 6 and 7am ?) We have not studied this issue, but we think that this alternation is beneficial and should be retained. 5. Air pollution 5.1 Inadequate consultation time The Government says in the consultation document that expansion via Mixed Mode (MM) and the addition of a 3rd runway (R3) could occur without the EU limit values for on NO2 being breached. Importantly, no special measures, eg a congestion charge around Heathrow or putting the M4 in a tunnel, would be required. This is a major change form the governments position in the White Paper, where it was intimated radical measures might be required. (Para 11.61: we cannot be confident that air quality limits at Heathrow with the addition of a third runway will be met, even with aggressive mitigation measures.) In the light of this major change, it is essential that time is allowed for detailed examination and evaluation of the new evidence. This has not been given by the DfT. The first part of the air pollution studies agreeing methodology was conducted in an open and transparent manner and was peer-reviewed. The second part was not. It was carried out behind closed doors by the DfT and BAA; FOE and local authorities (LAs) were refused access to the work. FOE and LAs only had the opportunity to examine the work at the time that the consultation document was released. The air pollution studies were complex and technical with hundreds of pages of technical documentation. FOE therefore had to rely on consultants appointed by Hillingdon and Hounslow councils to review the technical documentation. It was unfair to allow them just 14 weeks to undertake this task, given that DfT and BAA had taken about a year to produce the estimates. We understand that: the consultants commissioned had to ask further questions of the DfT during the consultation process that in certain areas the information supplied was inadequate in the case of a surface access request, the information was denied a meeting was requested between the 2M technical experts and the DfT technical experts to expedite the appraisal process but this was refused by the DfT These point to a policy of unhelpfulness from the DfT, compounding the short time allowed to make a response. 5.2 Air pollution is a major issue Air pollution is a major public health issue. A large number studies have pointed to morbidity and mortality arising from air pollution. Some of these have addressed airports and concluded that airports are dangerous to health, eg Public health impacts of large airports (http://www.aef.org.uk/downloads/PublicHealthImpactsSummary.pdf) The health impacts of air pollution are not mentioned in the consultation. This is a major omission. It is estimated by the GLA that about 1000 people in London die every year because of air pollution. Heathrow airport is by far the biggest single source of air pollution in London, so it follows that Heathrow is a major public health issue. There has been no health impact assessment at this stage. It is hard to see how a policy decision of this magnitude can be taken without such in its absence. There are also effects other than those on human health, for example corrosion of buildings and structures, soiling of materials, interference with agriculture, damage to vegetation and habitats and local extinction of species. These may occur at concentrations well below the health-based standards. NO2 can lead to acid rain and eutrophication of habitats. (Eutrophication is the addition of nutrients to water or land. It is usually harmful, upsetting the balance of species and leading to the elimination of some of them.) Air pollution levels are already high near Heathrow. In some areas, EU limits, set to protect human health are breached. In much larger areas, other standards are breached. We note that the government insists on using the term air quality. This is euphemism, intended to downplay the seriousness of the issue by subtle use of language. It may be observed that the government does not use the word quietness when discussing noise. 5.3 EU limits not the only consideration The governments case for proceeding with MM/R3 depends solely on meeting EU limit values. The only considerations are the EU mandatory limits. All other limits and guidelines - eg vegetation standards for NO2, standards for ozone and original health-based standards for NOx - are ignored. EU limits should not be the determining factor. The governments approach is an entirely 'legalistic' one. The UK has a National Air Quality Strategy (NAQS) and this policy, which crucially involves Action Plans, should be an important consideration. But the government completely ignores its own Air Quality Strategy. Its only concern is to meet EU standards and, more precisely, to avoid sanctions from the EU if it does breach those standards (FOE has been told by the DfT that the latter has taken legal advice on the possibility of action by the EU). Air pollution levels are already high near Heathrow. In some areas, EU limits, set to protect human health are breached. In much larger areas, other standards are breached. A primary objective should therefore be to reduce air pollution in order to protect human health and the environment. But the thrust of the approach is to use any potential improvements from less polluting aircraft or road vehicles as an opportunity to increase flights and therefore restore air pollution. The comments in 4.4-9 are without prejudice to this position that EU limit values should not be the only or the most important consideration. 5.4 Estimated air pollution very close to limits The consultation document (2.29, 2.70, etc) indicates that there would be virtually no exceedences in future years with R3 in operation. However, there are large numbers of properties close to the EU limit value even as far ahead 2030. This is shown in Table 3.7 of the Population Exposure to Air Pollution Report, Atkins 2007:  May properties are exposed to levels just below the 40ug/m3, but hardly any above. This seems just too convenient. 5.5 Air pollution estimates are not accurate Estimate of air pollution are never totally accurate. Even current levels of air pollution, estimated with computer modelling techniques, do not always accurately reflect the actual measured pollution. Estimates of future, incorporating projections of emissions sources and other assumptions are even less reliable. There is considerable uncertainty about the emissions of vehicles and it dangerous to rely on assumptions about emission standards far into the future such as Euro V1, either in respect of their adoption and timing or their emission factors. Nor is there transparency; the Surface Access document by BAA published along with the consultation blandly states Well into the project, sufficient information became available to allow the assumption of expected future vehicle emissions standards across all vehicle types beyond those in published material. Emissions from road vehicles depend critically on factors such traffic flows, vehicle speeds, congestion, scenarios and types of vehicles in the fleet mix. For example, small changes in traffic volumes can lead to large changes in congestion and consequential large changes in emissions. It is not possible to forecast these factors with any great precision into the future; it follows that emissions and concentrations cannot be estimated with precision. Important assumptions have been made about the future aircraft fleet and technology and their emissions, notably on aircraft not yet in operational circulation or, in some cases, not yet built. There is no degree of transparency evident on what was provided by industry, manufacturers, airlines to inform the future fleet, and, critically there have been no sensitivities performed. There is no evidence of an independent, peer-reviewed audit of this future fleet, despite its importance with regards to air pollution. It follows that emissions and concentrations cannot be estimated with precision. The rapidity of climate change can now be seen and significant changes in future meteorology and atmospheric chemistry changes are entirely possible. For example longer, hotter summers with extended easterlies and higher ozone concentrations could result in increased ground level concentrations of NO2. It follows that emissions and concentrations cannot be estimated with any precision. The upshot of all these uncertainties is that air pollution at 2015, let alone 2020 and 2030 cannot be forecast with any precision. 5.6 Sensitivity tests Given the manifest uncertainties of air pollution forecasting, it is essential that sensitivity test are carried out, varying the key modelling inputs and assumptions by the amount that are useful and realistic. By useful and realistic we mean the parameters are varied singly and in combination by sufficient magnitudes to illustrate the possible range of variation in the real world. There is no evidence of this having been done. This means that there is no measure of the anticipated accuracy of the results. 5.7 Government cannot be confident of meeting pollution limits As indicated in 3, the air pollution estimates cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered as accurate. It would risky and unjustified to claim an accuracy of better than about 10% over 20 years into the future. But as the table in 2 shows, there are many properties forecast to be within 5% of the 40ug/m3 annual limit for NOx. This means that is impossible to be confident that the air pollution limits will be met. 5.8 No control mechanisms The EU limits on air pollution are absolute, being set to protect human health. But the estimates of air pollution, resulting from MM/R3 are approximate. It is therefore necessary for there to be monitoring and control mechanisms to ensure that, should the projections prove optimistic, action is taken to rectify the situation. If MM/R3 are implemented, it is vital that the resulting air pollution levels are monitored and are compared against projections and EU limits. If it becomes apparent that the limits will be breached, remedial action will be needed. This could take various forms, for example limiting the number of flights, banning the more polluting aircraft or constraining road traffic. The consultation gives no indication that any control mechanism has been considered or would be put in place to ensure that the air pollution remains within limits. 5.9 Derogation Chapter 3 para 3.119 indicates that the NO2 limit can be met close to the airport and would be consistent with EU obligations. This statement is under the assumption that a derogation has been applied for, and granted, and that the deadline for compliance has been extended in this area to 2015. This is a gross misuse of a derogation. The purpose of a derogation is made clear by the European Parliament: .. where Member States have taken all reasonable measures the Commission will propose that Member States be allowed to delay the attainment date in affected zones where limit values are not yet complied with, if certain objective criteria are met. Any extension will have to be notified to the Commission. Derogation is intended to allow countries more time to address problems that have built up over many years, for example traffic pollution in central London, Paris and Milan. It is emphatically not an excuse to allow government to deliberately pursue policies that would lead to breaches, such as MM/R3. An attempt to use a derogation in this way could be found contrary to the letter of European law; it would most certainly be contrary to the sprit of the law. 5.10 Air pollution away from Heathrow Air pollution has only been modelled relatively close Heathrow. Although Heathrow emissions may contribute a modest proportion of the total air pollution in places such as the boroughs of Ealing and Hammersmith, the effects of aircraft and Heathrow traffic are important. This is because large areas are already close to or exceed air pollution limits. For example, the whole borough of Ealing has been declared an Air Quality Management Area. Any extra emissions due to Heathrow, or impediments to reductions to Heathrow could therefore have a significant effect on achieving air quality standards in such areas. A related and important consideration relates to the number of people affected. Although the proportion of air pollution due to Heathrow away from the airport may be small, it affects millions of people. A small increase for a large number of people adds up to a large overall or societal issue. There ought to be an assessment of the impact across all of London and the areas west of Heathrow. This might be expressed in terms of the numbers of people in areas where air pollution is sufficiently close to standards and limits that Heathrow and Heathrow expansion are likely to change the status (or cause it not to change). 5.11 Economic cost of air pollution Although there are understandable ethical objections to reducing air pollution impacts to a monetary cost, it is widely recognised that such a process, not just for air pollution but for other impacts, is useful in formulating public policy. At best it helps with reducing air pollution but, failing that, it enables economic costs, taxes, charges and compensation to be evaluated. Given the demonstrable health impacts, it is obvious that there must be an economic cost or air pollution. While there are difficulties in estimating economic costs for noise, there is a literature on the subject and estimates could be made. Indeed, estimates were made, albeit poor ones, in the aviation White Paper. In this consultation, no attempt is made to estimate a cost and factor it in to the calculation of economic benefits. The effect of this is, as with other omitted external costs to give misleadingly optimistic figures for the economic benefits of Heathrow. 6. Climate change 6.1 Introduction Climate change is quite simply the most important issue on earth. Climate change is of great relevance to aviation because aviation already contributes some 10% of the UKs greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions and it is a very rapidly rising source. Emissions from Heathrow represent nearly half of the UKs aviation emissions. An increase in capacity and emissions of nearly 50%, as proposed by the government, is thus of great significance in the context of climate change. It is therefore remarkable, and indeed reprehensible, that the consultation document says virtually nothing about climate change itself. It is not mentioned in the main text, notably Policy context and Meeting the environmental tests. The only appreciable mention is in App B, where emissions are considered just as one cost among many that are taken into account when estimating the economic benefit of Heathrow in terms of NPV (Net Present Value). We contend that there are major flaws in this economic assessment approach - see national FOE response and Section 10 of this response. There are no comments invited (questions asked) about climate, despite the fact that a large proportion of the 238-page consultation document is devoted to environmental impacts (largely noise and air pollution). In the view of FOE, the absence of climate change from the consultation casts grave doubt on the credibility of the exercise. Nonetheless, we are responding to the consultation and we are, most particularly, responding on the issue of climate change. 6.2 Scope and structure of comments There is no comment in the consultation document on the climate change implications of expanding Heathrow and no questions are posed. We have therefore structured this response in way that seems most convenient in the context of the issue. The climate impact of Heathrow cannot be considered in isolation from the impacts of UK aviation generally. This response therefore addresses the issue of UK aviation emissions generally. The key document is UK air passenger demand and CO2 forecasts published by the DfT in Nov 2007. There was no consultation on this document, but some of the comments here are directly relevant to that document. We therefore ask that this response on climate change is regarded as formal comment on that document as well as on the Heathrow consultation. In this response, references to table numbers such as 3.7 and K13 refer to UK air passenger demand and CO2 forecasts as do references to the document. Other references, especially paragraph references and table numbers of the form FOE/x, refer to this response. 6.3 The climate change imperative Climate change is happening and is recognised by many as being a major threat to human lives and livelihoods and to all the planets other life-forms. The debate about whether human activity is causing climate change is, for all practical purposes, over. Drastic cuts in emissions are necessary to avoid dangerous and irreversible warming. These are the stark conclusions of the IPPC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). The UK government accepts this and has stated that taking action on climate is a priority and that the UK is, and intends to remain, a world leader on the issue. In recognition of this (and in response to public pressure), the government is introducing a Climate Change Bill to Parliament. This bill has all-party support, although there are differences of opinion about some of the provisions of the bill. The bill proposes a 60 per cent cut in UK CO2 emissions, compared with a 1990 baseline, by 2050. This is in line with IPCC and other authorities who say that we need to limit the increase in CO2 concentration to about 550 ppm (parts per million) at 2050. This is to limit the average increase in temperature to about 20C, this being needed to avoid the worst effects of climate change. However, the proposed cut of 60% by 2050 cannot be taken in isolation a rapid downwards trajectory of emissions is needed, starting from now. This is because CO2 builds up in the atmosphere (it has an average lifetime of 100 years or more) and therefore it is cumulative emissions, rather than those in any one year, that determine CO2 concentrations. Unless action starts now, it will be virtually impossible to reduce emissions fast enough in the latter part of the next 43 years (beginning 2008 to end 2050 is 43 years) to reduce annual emissions by 60% (let alone even deeper cuts - see below). The most up-to-date scientific evidence from IPCC and others indicates that a target to limit CO2 concentrations to 550ppm is unlikely to prevent a temperature increase of 20 or more. Instead, a 450ppm is desirable requiring reductions in developed countries of at least 80%from 1990 levels. The Prime Minister has said, for this reason, that the government will consider whether a revised target should be set. Hilary Benn announced on 18/2/08 that a new target will be set by end 2008. There is no doubt that limiting temperature rise to 20C 80% - will be very challenging; all people, all countries and all sectors of the economy need to play their part. It is agreed by all nations, rich and poor, that the richest nations must make bigger cuts than poor ones. This is because the per-capita emissions of rich nations are far higher than those of poor nations. It is also because the emissions of rich nations are far easier to cut; most of the emissions are to due to wasteful modes of consumption which could be changed without impacting on the basics of life or quality of life. Britain is a hugely rich country with the fifth largest economy in the world and a high per-capita income. (Although there are pockets of poverty, this is a matter of distribution and inequality, rather than the size of the UK economy.) Britain therefore has a major responsibility, not just to its own citizens but to the world at large, to greatly reduce its emissions Emissions from civil aviation make up a significant proportion of the UK emissions already. But most significantly, emissions are rising very rapidly, unlike virtually all other sectors of the economy. It is therefore essential that aviation plays its part in reducing the UKs total emissions. 6.4 UKs emissions and targets - excluding international aviation The UK estimated emissions of CO2 in 2006 were 556.5 million tonnes (mt) compared with 589.5 mt at 1990. This is a reduction of 5.6%. As noted in 6.2 above, reductions of at least 60% and probably 80% are needed. These are reductions at 2050 compared with 1990 levels. An 80% cut from 1990 to 2006 implies a cut is needed of between 2006 and 2050 of 78.8% [ {(100 5.6) 20 / (100 5.6)} ]. This corresponds to an average from 2006 to 2050 of 3.5% pa (compound). The reduction from 1990 to 2006 was just 0.4% - so a vastly increased rate is needed from now on. These figures show clearly that progress since 1990 has been totally inadequate and that far more now needs to be done. These cuts exclude international aviation and also international shipping. However, as argued below, the same depth of cuts need to made for the total UK emissions including international aviation and shipping. 6.5 UK aviation emissions DfT forecasts CO2 emissions from aviation were forecast in the paper UK air passenger demand and CO2 forecasts (pages 50-71). The method used is described in App 1, where a summary table of result is given (Table FOE/1). In summary, CO2 emissions are forecast by the DfT to rise from 37.5mt in 2005 to 58.0mt in 2030 but then suddenly level off to reach only 60.3mt in 2050. There is much debate about whether the passenger forecasts which underpin the CO2 forecasts are valid. There are valid arguments as to why the forecasts are too high, not least because they assume continuation of predict and provide, huge tax exemptions and no credible plan to make aviation play its part in addressing climate change. However, for the purpose of these calculations of emissions, the governments figures (up to 2030) are taken. The reason being that they demonstrate the implications of current government policy and the need to change it. 6.6 FOE re-forecast of emissions using Government assumptions While we accept the forecasts for 2030 as being consistent with the Governments assumptions and current policies, we emphatically do not accept the forecasts for 2050, because they assume a dramatic policy change which suddenly takes effect after 2030. It appears the government is assuming that its predict and provide policies, confirmed in the 2003 White Paper, will be continued for many years and then suddenly abandoned. No justification is given for this policy about-face. A more consistent approach would be to assume continuation of the present government policy beyond 2030, namely only slight capacity constraints such that constrained demand continues to be only a few % below unconstrained demand. The constrained capacity and CO2 emissions are therefore re-calculated on the assumption of no about-face in policy at 2030, as described in App 2. The result of this is to increase the forecast passengers and the CO2 emissions at 2050 by 14.8%. The revised figures are shown in Table FOE/2 in App 2. 6.7 Aviations share of total UK emissions DfT estimates Table K1 of UK passenger demand and CO2 forecasts calculates aviations share of UK emissions. It is assumed that the UK emissions, excluding international aviation, are cut by 60% from 1990 levels at 2050. The results are 6.4% at 2005 and 20.6% at 2050. There are also calculations for 2020, where two alternative levels of cut (on the way to 60%) are postulated. The use of two figures seems to complicate matters unnecessarily, but, far more importantly, there is no calculation for 2030. 2030 is a key date, being the timescale for the governments aviation policy and it thus of great importance that the public should be able to see what implications the policy has for CO2 emissions. The second part of Table K1 repeats the calculations for GHGs as whole, using an RFI of 1.9 for aviation. RFIs for other sources are allowed for in the calculations, but are not shown explicitly. Aviations share of emissions is then 9.9% at 2005 and 29.0% at 2050. The results are: Year Aviation % of UK CO2 emissions Aviation % of UK GHG emissions 2005 6.49.92020 10.3 to 11.115.0 to 15.92030 20.629.0 Table FOE/8. Aviation as % of UK emissions according to DfT 6.8 Aviations share of total UK emissions FOE calculations There are some very important shortcoming in the DfT estimates: a) The 2050 aviation emissions are unjustifiably low. b) The target 60% cut is only applied to emissions excluding international aviation. c) There are no calculations on the basis of 80% cuts. These points are addressed in turn. a) The reasons why the 2050 aviation emissions are unjustifiably low are described in 6 above, where the FOE correction is described. The effect is to increase emissions in 2050 by 14.8%. b) The government has already accepted that a 60% cut in UKs emissions by 2050 is necessary in order for it to play its part in avoiding the worst consequences of climate change. This is based on the advice of its own scientists and those around the world, reporting through and mediated by the IPCC. There is no suggestion from these scientists or IPCC that the 60% cut does not need to include aviation. Indeed, they would lose all credibility if they were to claim that emissions from aviation in some way do not affect climate as do all other sources and therefore do not need to be included when it comes to setting targets. It is therefore unhelpful and misleading to publish figures that purport to show aviations share of emissions when the denominator of the equation allows for massive increases in aviation emissions outside target for overall cuts. c) As noted in 6.3, there is a developing consensus among scientists that 80% cuts are needed rather than 60%. This has been acknowledged by government and the Prime Minister. 6.9 Aviations share of total UK emissions FOE calculations FOE has re-worked the DfTs figure for CO2 emissions to take account of the above shortcomings. The calculations are shown in detail in App 3. FOE has also re-calculated the DfT figures which include other GHGs and an RFI of 1.9 for aviation. The calculations are shown in detail in App 4 A summary of the results follows: Year Method Aviation % of UK CO2 emissions Aviation % of UK GHG emissions 1990Historical 2.84.32005Historical 6.49.92050DfT method 20.629.0DfT method with FOE revision of emissions (correction a) 23.032.0FOE method with FOE revision of emissions 60% cuts (corrections a and b) 28.543.7FOE method with FOE revision of emissions 80% cuts (corrections a and b and c) 56.987.5 Table FOE/9. Aviation as % of UK emissions according to FOE While each of the corrections - a, b and c - makes a modest difference, when they are all applied, they make a massive difference at 2050. They show that the DfT figures hugely under-state aviations contribution to UK emissions by 2050. The implications of aviations share 58.9% of allowed UK CO2 emissions are very significant, but bringing in the other GHGs means that no less than 87.5% all the UKs allowable GHG emissions could be used up if aviation is not controlled. The implications for both aviation and climate change policy are thus even greater - see 6.11. There has been increasing recognition of the fact that the majority of passengers flying to and from the UK are British. Some 77% of passengers in 2005 were British (Table G2) and is forecast to decline slightly to 75% in 2030. We assume that this gradual decline continues so that in 2050, 73% of passengers are British. It is assumed that the figure was 77% in 1990. . It can therefore be argued that UK should be allocated 73% of all emissions from international flights instead of the 50% assumed in the DfT calculations and the FOE re-workings. 50% of emissions would only be fair if 50% of passengers from were from the UK and 50% were foreigners. (Although this argument has much validity, it should be recognised that the principle is not applied in other sectors. For example, emissions from manufacturing are allocated to the country where manufacturing takes place, not where the goods are consumed.) The emission %s for a selection of the figures in the above two tables have been re-calculated on the basis of an allocation of emissions according to the % of UK passengers. Year Method Aviation % of UK CO2 emissions Aviation % of UK GHG emissions 1990Historical 4.16.32005Historical 9.314.12050DfT method 27.036.8DfT method with FOE revision of emissions (correction a) 29.940.2FOE method with FOE revision of emissions 60% cuts (corrections a and b) 40.161.2FOE method with FOE revision of emissions 80% cuts (corrections a and b and c) 78.6122.5 Table FOE/10. Aviation as % of UK emissions according to FOE: emissions apportioned according to nationality of passengers The difference is considerable (as one would expect, given that the allocation of international aviation is increased by about half as much again). The most telling figure is 122.5%. This figure tells us that if aviation is allowed to grow under a predict and provide scenario and emissions are apportioned in proportion to UK passengers, it will be physically (mathematically) impossible to achieve 80% cuts by 2050. Although the thrust of these figures is clear, it should be noted that the %s are less reliable than the previous ones that were based on a 50% apportionment. This is because the 77% and 73% apportionments do not distinguish between domestic and international aviation and they do not include transfer, for which figures are not given in Table G2 6.10 Heathrows emissions The DfT estimates that Heathrow was responsible for 18.2 mt of CO2 in 2005 and is forecast to produce 24.0 mt in 2030 an increase in about 6mt. The increase is largely due to the effect of a third runway and the extra flights, but it is compounded by the changes that would be expected even if there were no third runway. The DfT also compares the CO2 emissions expected with a 2-runway airport with the 3-runway airport. At 2030 CO2 emissions are 16mt with 2 runways and 25mt with 3 runways, a difference of 9mt. This is the figure which has been widely quoted and has been noted as being equal to the entire emissions of Kenya (before the current troubles). At 2050 CO2 emissions are 15mt with 2 runways and 22mt with 3 runways, a difference of 7mt. The 2030 figures have some validity because they compare the two most likely situations at 2030, namely a 2-runway and a 3-runway Heathrow. But the situation at 2050 is far more hazy. The consultation assumes that a new runway could be available by 2020 but, due to pent-up demand, and it would be largely full by 2050. It is therefore reasonable to assume that BAA and the government would start pressing for a 4th runway (and 7th terminal) to be operational around or soon after 2030. Indeed, the Chief Executive of BAA has virtually given notice of this. The emissions at Heathrow at 2050 could therefore be far higher than estimated by the DfT. The situation could be even more extreme than a 4th runway and 7th terminal implies. The DfT paper does not show unconstrained demand by airport, but examination of the constrained figures suggests that there would be demand and therefore lobbying for a 5th runway (and 8th terminal) to be in operation by 2050. The DfT has said that the figures for CO2 emissions at Heathrow should not be taken in isolation, but that the impact on UK aviation emissions as a whole should be considered. On this basis, a third runway at Heathrow adds about 4 mt CO2 at 2030. At 2050, the additional amount due to a third runway is still 4mt but, as noted above, there could be a fourth and even a fifth runway if the present predict and provide policy continues. 6.11 Heathrows emissions as a proportion of UK emissions Heathrows proportion of aviation emissions can be readily calculated, given Heathrows and the UK aviations emissions. Details are given in App 6 (Table FOE/5). Heathrows proportion of the UKs total emissions can also be readily calculated details are in App 7. The results are: Year Heathrow CO2 and GHG emissions as % of UK aviation Heathrow CO2 emissions as % of UK total Heathrow GHG emissions as % of UK total 2005 48.5%3.1%4.8%2050 (assuming no further expansion at Heathrow beyond R3) 31.8%17.1%27.8%2050 (assuming further expansion at Heathrow beyond R3)48.5%27.1%42.4% Table FOE/11. Heathrow emissions as proportion of UK total emissions It should be noted that these could be considered significant under-estimates, because, as noted previously, all these figures are calculated on the basis of apportioning emissions equally between the UK and the distant country instead on being apportioned in proportion to the nationality of the passengers. 6.12 Implications for public policy Aviations share of the UK CO2 emissions under current government policy are calculated by FOE from government data be 56.9% CO2 and 87.5% of all GHG emissions at 2050 if an overall 80% cut is to be achieved (table FOE/9 in 9.12). This means that either: a) all the sectors other than aviation will need to make cuts bigger than 80%, b) government policies on aviation must change such that emissions do not increase as currently forecast, or c) the UK will fail to meets its obligations on climate change. It is thus clear that under the Governments growth assumptions predict and provide will have to be abandoned at some point if an 80% emissions cut is to be achieved. If the emissions attributable to UK passengers are taken - the moral approach - as opposed to splitting emissions equally between the UK and the distant country - the legalistic approach - above, aviations shares of emissions are greater still. (Tables FOE/9,10). On this basis, aviations share of UK allowable GHG emissions is a staggering 122/5%. In other words, it will be physically (mathematically) impossible to achieve a target of 80% cuts by 2050. The only answer is to address the growth in aviations emissions by changing aviation policy. In our view, the imperative of urgently addressing climate change means the policy change needs to happen now. As shown in 6.11, Heathrow alone would contribute an impossibly large proportion of the entire UKs allowable emissions by 2050. Expansion beyond the present two runways represents a large part of this. It is therefore necessary to abandon plans to expand Heathrow. It is necessary because of the emissions themselves, but it is also necessary because of the message it puts out. Heathrow is iconic in the fight against climate change and a government decision to expand would broadcast to UK citizens and the rest of the world more plainly than any government rhetoric, its true attitude to climate change. 6.13 Aviation and Emissions Trading The government is fully aware of the conundrum posed by the imperative to reduce emissions and the increasing emissions from aviation. Whenever confronted with this, ministers and civil servants just cite the governments policy of support for bringing aviation into the European Emissions Trading System (ETS) in about 2011 and claims that it will address the conundrum and allow the UK to meet its commitments. Unfortunately, there is no evidence to support this assertion. On the contrary, there is a range of compelling reasons why emissions trading may not, will not or cannot solve the problem: There is no certainty that ETS for aviation will be introduced. The US is likely to oppose it in the courts. Even if emissions trading is introduced, there is no assurance that effective caps will be set. The present ETS caps have been completely ineffective to date because they were set on the basis of lobbying and political expediency, not on the basis of analysis and science. The ETS proposals deal only with CO2. The other GHGs produced by aviation, which represent nearly half the climate impacts, are ignored. The majority of the emissions cuts planned in phase 2 of the EU ETS will be accounted for by clean development mechanism projects in developing countries. These are not emissions cuts, do not take place in the EU and the efficacy / credibility of many of the projects themselves is suspect. The ETS is an imperfect trading system, covering less than half of EU emissions and is not international. Aviation is not subject to international competition like other sectors and in an open trading system with a declining emissions cap, aviations appetite for carbon permits could drive up the price of carbon to the point where other sectors such as steel manufacture would relocate outside the EU. The figures might show that the EU had achieved its targets, but the benefits would be illusory. Any emissions trading system designed to meet an 80% emissions reduction target would, by necessity, restrain demand through increases in air ticket prices as the shortage of carbon permits inflates the carbon price. The European Commissions own impact assessment shows that the current ETS proposal will have hardly any impact on demand or prices up to 2020. Analysis by the Tyndall Centre in 2007 found that current and envisaged carbon prices will have virtually no impact on emissions and that the ETS proposal must be made much more effective for aviation to be part of an EU committed to limiting carbon concentrations to 450ppm. Cutting overall emissions by at least 80% by 2050 is highly challenging target for the economy as a whole and across all sectors; rising aviation emissions will require and effectively force other sectors to make even more drastic cuts to meet the target and make up for aviations ineffective contribution, if indeed this is possible given the science of aviations atmospheric emissions and the economic load on other sectors. 6.14 Aviation and the Climate Change Bill A climate bill is shortly starting its passage through the Houses of Parliament. The current provisions seek a 60% cut in CO2 emissions by 2050, as compared against a 1990 baseline. But crucially, international aviation emissions (and international shipping emissions) are left out of the targets. There is no scientific or logical justification for doing so. Ministers and civil servant use two main arguments to defend the exclusion of aviation from the targets. The first argument is that aviation is an international activity; therefore international agreements are needed to effect change and emissions are outside government control. This is not so. The UK government and the EU have almost complete power to control aviation in their respective countries. While there are international regulations and treaties aiming to prevent unilateral action, these are mainly aimed at preventing discrimination between carriers of different countries. They do not prevent action to prevent local environmental damage or to prevent climate. The fact that there are planning conditions at airports, that there are night flight restrictions, that there are noise charges, that there is APD (Airport Passenger Duty), that there is VAT (on domestic flights in some countries) and that an ETS is being implemented all attest to the fact that individual countries can control aviation and its impacts. The second main argument used by ministers and civil servants is that there is no internationally recognised way of allocating emissions between countries. This is simply untrue. The UK and other countries measure and report on a regular basis international aviation emissions as a memo item to UNFCC (see for example DEFRA inventory (UK Greenhouse Gas Emissions 1990-2006: breakdown of headline results at http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2008/images/080130a/annex-b.pdf). The convention is that all outgoing flights are allocated to the country of departure. (This is equivalent to dividing the emissions of all flights between any pair of countries equally between those countries.) But even if there were no internationally agreed method, this would not be a valid argument. The climate bill is UK legislation and does not require the agreement of any other country or international body. The UK can thus choose whatever method it thinks fit to allocate aviation emissions to the UK for the purpose on inclusion in its targets. If the Government believes aviation emissions growth can be balanced by additional cuts in other sectors, then it should have no issue with including the UKs share of international aviation (and shipping) emissions in the climate change bill from the start. At present it is resisting doing this. 7. Public Safety (Danger) 7.1 Safety ignored in the consultation There is no substantive mention of public or third-party safely in the entire CD and there are no separate publications in the Annex list. The danger to communities around Heathrow of a crash is a serious concern, just as are noise, air pollution, etc. The consultation ignores the increased risk of people being killed on the ground in a crash. It is reprehensible that this issue is not covered in the consultation and no comment is invited from the public. 7.2 Third party and societal risk There is no doubt that safety is taken seriously by airlines, BAA and NATS; and there is no reason to suppose that Heathrow is more dangerous than other airports in terms of risk to passengers. However, the situation with respect to people on the ground is quite different. Without any doubt, Heathrow is by far the most dangerous airport in the country in terms of total or societal risk. This is because of the large number of big planes flying over large populations. The risk to any one person on the ground is recognised in the existence of Public Safety Zones (PSZ). There is the very briefest mention of these but there is no discussion of actual risk or how existing buildings may be brought into areas of highest risk. We understand that there will be, among others, a school that near the 3rd runway which not be allowed planning permission for safety reasons if attempts where made to build it now. Yet there are no plans to re-locate the school and children to a safe place. Although increased risk to individuals is important, it is perhaps the total or societal risk that is most significant. This is the expected number of people injured and killed, expected being used in the statistical sense. That number consists of the risk to each person summed over all the people exposed to risk. Because so many people are overflown by each plane, the societal risk around Heathrow tends be much higher than around other airports. (The individual risk to one person on the ground is not affected by the number of people overflown.) While PSZs take account (to a limited extent as noted above), of individual risk, they do not address societal risk. This does not mean that societal risk should be ignored where, as for Heathrow, it is clearly relevant. If societal risk were ignored, it would be considered as acceptable to build a nuclear power station in London as on an isolated part of the coast because the risk to an individual who happens to live near the nuclear plant is the same. 7.3 Increased risk with MM/R3 It is obvious that increasing the number of aircraft using Heathrow will increase societal risk. A very rough approximation is that the societal risk will increase in proportion to the total number of flights. Thus risk is increased by 12% with MM (540,000 / 480,000) and 46% by R3 (702,000 / 480,000). If flights were to rise to 800,000, which has been intimated if MM remains after a third runway is operational, the increase in risk would be 66.7%. In fact the increase in risk could be even greater. There is a trend towards ever-larger aircraft and larger planes tend to cause more casualties when they crash. (However, it should be noted that aircraft size will also tend to increase in 2-runway Heathrow.) There would also be a slightly increased of a mid-air collision due to increased number and complexity of flight paths. 8. Surface access 8.1. Consultation The consultation asks no questions and seeks no view on transport improvements to serve Heathrow. This is a major omission; indeed it was stated in the Aviation White Paper (para 11.58) that Further expansion of Heathrow will place pressure on already congested road and rail networks. 8.2 Roads The government estimates that the number of people travelling to Heathrow by car (including taxi and kiss and fly) will increase from 28 million in 2004 to 51m by 2030. A figure of 25m extra trips a year is also quoted. The roads around Heathrow are already heavily congested, but there are no plans announced for road building or widening. FOE is strongly opposed to road building for environmental reasons, but we believe that there must be alternatives. In the case of Heathrow, walking and cycling options are not generally relevant; therefore the answer lies in public transport - buses, coaches and trains. Major improvements are needed to public transport but it is also necessary to have a transport strategy that ensures public transport is used instead of cars. In the absence of this, there will increases in demand for roads and, inevitably, lobbying for road-building and road-widening. This has already happened with Terminal 5 (T5). Although it was said to be government policy at the time to build or widen motorways, the government proposed to expand the M25 to a total of 14 lanes between Junctions 12 and 15 to serve T5. This demonstrates what happens when insufficient public transport is provided and when there is no policy to ensure it is used in preference to cars. It is clear that a decision to expand Heathrow will lead to pressure to widen the M25 (beyond the J12-15) and the M4. Widening would devastate Green Belt and Metropolitan Open, would increase air pollution and would have serious knock-on effects on the local road network. 8.3 Public transport According to the consultation document R3/T6, the public transport mode share will increase from 36% to 40-42% (para 3.170). This represents an increase from about 16 million passengers in 2004 travelling by public transport to 38 million passengers by 2030 which is more than double the current number. While an increase in public transport mode share is welcome, it is not nearly enough. As noted in 8.2, the government is forecasting a massive increase in car trips. Such an increase in car traffic would have a massive impact on local people and their environment and would run counter to all policies for sustainable transport. This increase from Heathrow is in addition to increases for non-Heathrow traffic. For example, the London Underground Piccadilly Line is already crowded, but demand on is estimated to be up 50% by 2020. Meanwhile, planned enhancements will only increase capacity by about 20%. The line will barely be able to cope with the non-Heathrow demand, let alone new demand from R3/T6. The comments about Airtrack, Crossrail and the Piccadilly Line do not address the issue. These are schemes already planned and are needed to support a two-terminal Heathrow as well as big increases in demand for non-Heathrow traffic. Radical new measures are needed. Given the need for massive increases in public transport, it is astonishing and unacceptable that no clear measures are proposed. The consultation merely talks about things which might be done or need to be done and states that proposals for public transport improvements will be brought forward by BAA as part of any planning application. This is not acceptable. It is not possible for BAA to produce a sustainable transport strategy for the area, which is what is required. That is a job for government. In the same way the government is promoting MM/R3/T6 and has done work on noise, air pollution and economics to support it, the government should have a this stage a transport strategy and proposals for public transport improvements. It is stated in the BAA Surface Access Report, that public transport improvements on their own would have little impact on road traffic measures. (para 266). Yet the CD makes it clear that such measures, eg a congestion charge, are not planned. This demonstrates that there is no coherent, sustainable plan for surface access. 9. Wildlife, habitats and biodiversity Loss of biodiversity is a huge and pressing issue. It is the second greatest environmental issue, after climate change. Biodiversity impacts should therefore be critical in assessing developments such as expanding Heathrow. The only substantive statement in the CD is The direct biodiversity impact from Option 1 would be limited to loss and disturbance to localised areas in proximity to the proposed development. However there may be indirect effects beyond the boundaries of the development as a consequence of air quality [ie air pollution] changes resulting from the proposal and especially associated with traffic generation. These effects may have consequences for sites of significant importance for nature conservation. This is all that is said in over 200 pages of the CD and closer to 700 pages if the associated documents are included. A throwaway statement such as this would have rightly caused outrage if had been made about noise or air pollution. This statement is remarkably and unacceptably vague. It says nothing about the nature and the scale of the threats. Limited to loss and disturbance to localised areas in proximity to the proposed development could be said about any development and is virtually meaningless. The nature and scale of the indirect effects is not specified. The only useful statement is that which suggests that air pollution and road traffic might be particularly likely to have impacts. But even here, there is nothing at all specific. Runway 3 would destroy part of Harmondsworth Moor, some of which is public open space. This land is of far greater conservation value than the vast majority of land near Heathrow, which is built over. Thus there is a specific and tangible threat, not mentioned in the CD. 10. Economics Almost the entire justification for expansion of Heathrow is the claimed economic benefits. WLFOE has studied to some extent the governments calculations, summarised in Annex B of the CD. We are totally unconvinced by the claims and have detected errors and omissions which invalidate the results. National FOE has studied this in more detail and covers the issue in its response. We therefore do not comment in detail, but endorse their comments. We add a few broad comments on the Net Present Values of 4.4bn to 6.6bn (Table 1 in Annex B). This is a benefit achieved by costing over an 80 year period. No ordinary investment would be calculated or justified over such a time period. The uncertainties in the UK and the world up to 82 years ahead are such that no credence can be placed on the result. Although sounding large, the scale of benefit is minute in the greater scheme of things. The GDP of Britain over one trillion pounds or 1000bn in a single year and is expected to increase greatly over the next 70 year. The benefit over 70 years is less than the tax exemptions of 10bn in a single year in the form of tax-free fuel and no VAT. The benefits would be wiped out (and more) if the appropriate cost of carbon from the Stern report was used. The benefits would be wiped out if other external costs were properly factored in. The wider economic benefits have not been demonstrated in any way. The CD simply uses unsubstantiated assertions, spurious facts and false logic to try and convince the reader.. A selection of these are given in 3.8. The few facts on economic benefits, other than the governments consumer surplus exercise come from Oxford Economic Forecasting (OEF). OEFs work has been paid for mainly by the aviation industry and has been demolished by other consultancies. We refer the DfT to reports by the likes of Berkely Hannover (on Terminal 5), Buchanan and CE Delft. These are respected and reputable consultants who do work for a side range of bodies, including the EU. 11. Summary and conclusions The impacts of noise and air pollution from expanding Heathrow would be very large and have been seriously and systematically downplayed in the consultation. The issues of public safety, biodiversity and climate change are virtually ignored. The climate impacts of a third runway, both in its own right and symbolically, would make nonsense of the governments claims to be leading in the fight to address climate change. The economic arguments and the calculations of economic benefit do not stand up to scrutiny. For these reasons West London Friends of the Earth is utterly opposed to the expansion of Heathrow, by means of mixed mode or a third runway. App 1. DfT forecast of aviations CO2 emissions CO2 emissions from aviation were forecast in the paper (pages 50-71). The approach, in simplified terms, is to forecast passenger traffic, estimate present fuel use per passenger or passenger km, forecast a rate of improvement of fuel efficiency and use these to estimate emissions up to 2030. Allowance is made for other factors, such as freight-only flights and improvements in operational efficiency in air traffic control. The following table summarises the key figures. YearUnconstrained passenger demand (m)Constrained Passenger demand (m)CO2 m tones (mt)200522822837.5201027027042.02015335310????202038537550.02025440410??203049548058.92040??54061.12050??58060.3 Table FOE/1 Unconstrained demand is the demand that would be realised if there were no airport capacity constraints at any airport. Constrained demand is the demand that is realised if capacity is added in line with the policy in the governments White Paper of 2003. It can be seen that at 2030, constrained demand is only 3% less [ 100 x ( 495 480 ) / 495 ] than unconstrained demand. The policy is therefore virtually predict and provide at a national level. (It can be argued that the policy is not predict and provide at the detailed level in that capacity is not necessarily provided to meet the demand that arises at every airport. However, where there is unsatisfied demand at one airport, the normal response is for the demand to be diverted to a nearby UK airport. This means that the total UK traffic and emissions are unchanged.) The unconstrained demand figures above are called the central forecasts, these being considered by the government as a best estimate. In addition to the central, low and high forecasts are given as sensitivity tests. However these are only 5% or 6% different from the central forecasts and FOE does not consider they in any way represent the range of uncertainty. There is much debate about whether the passenger forecasts are valid. There is much debate about whether the passenger forecasts which underpin the CO2 forecasts are valid. There are valid arguments as to why the forecasts are too high, not least because they assume continuation of predict and provide, huge tax exemptions and no credible plan to make aviation play its part in addressing climate change. However, for the purpose of these calculations of emissions, the governments figures (up to 2030) are taken. The reason being that they demonstrate the implications of current government policy and the need to change it. These forecasts make the following explicit or implicit assumptions: Very little restraint due to limiting airport capacity (see above) Cost of oil is constant at $53 per barrel (it is over $100 now) No physical or regulatory constraints for environmental reasons No general revenue-raising taxes such as VAT or fuel tax (the government is now claiming APD is an environmental tax) Climate costs charged at a highly optimistic cost of a little over 70 per tonne No attempt to charge full environmental costs for noise and air pollution No attempt to charge for social costs such a loss of heritage, loss of landscape, blight, sterilisation of land, dislocation of communities, health impacts (some could be included in environmental costs) and third party risk. It must be emphasised that FOE does not agree with these assumptions on future policy; they are used to demonstrate the climate implications of current government policy, of which a third runway is and integral and key part. Fuel efficiency is of equal importance to passenger forecasts in determining CO2 emissions. The expected improvements in fuel efficiency are therefore a matter of much importance and debate. The aviation industry and its supporters claim that great improvements have been made over the years and that even greater improvements may be achieved in future. However, IPCC (Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change) and independent commentators make more sober assessments. It is generally agreed that an improvement of between 1% and 2% pa is realistic, with a figure around 1% with a business as usual scenario in future and nearer 2% if there is forcing by means of technological, regulatory and economic measures. The government forecasts a modest rate of increase of 29.7% between 2005 and 2030 (Table 3.4 of the paper), which is equivalent to a compound rate of 1.03% pa. We consider this reasonable and that the government is right not to be swayed by highly optimistic or aspirational forecasts from the industry. Given that there are no forcing measures even on the horizon (due to the intransigence of ICAO and national governments), a rate of around 1% pa seems reasonable. App 2. FOE re-forecast of CO2 emissions While we accept the forecasts for 2030 as being consistent with the Governments assumptions and policies, we emphatically do not accept the forecasts for 2050, because they assume a dramatic policy change which suddenly takes effect after 2030. The paper says that these forecasts use a simpler, yet still robust methodology. We accept that a simpler method beyond 2030 is necessary and that the forecasts in later years are inevitably prone to more error. However, we consider the emissions forecasts from 2030 to 2050 are seriously flawed. They show a sudden slowing of growth from 2030 to 2050 that cannot be justified unless an unprecedented policy change takes place. After 2030, the paper forecasts that passenger growth will slow: .. capacity constraints begin to bite again, so that growth in passenger demand slows. It appears the government is assuming that its predict and provide policies, confirmed in the 2003 White Paper, will be continued for many years and then suddenly abandoned. No justification is given for this policy about-face. A more consistent approach would be to assume continuation of the present government policy beyond 2030, namely only slight capacity constraints such that constrained demand continues to be only a few % below unconstrained demand. The constrained capacity and CO2 emissions are re-calculated on the assumption of no about-face in policy at 2030, as described below. The constrained forecasts are analysed in the table to show the growth rates in 5-year bands up to 2030. It is then assumed the growth rate will continue after 2030 in the same way as before, namely declining but declining progressively less fast. The net effect is that over the period from 2030 to 2050 the growth is 39% compared with 105% between 2005 and 2030. Despite this massive reduction in growth rate, our estimated constrained demand at 2050 is 14.8% larger than the DfTs figure. YearConstrained passenger forecast normal font means from Table 2.11; italics means derived hereAnnual growth rate over 5 years (linear) - normal font means from Table 2.11; italics means derived here200522820102703.7%20153203.720203753.420254302.920304802.3 (rates trended down from here onwards)20355282.02040576 cf DfT of 5401.820456221.62050666 cf DfT of 580, ie 14.8% higher1.4 The Table FOE/2 CO2 emissions can be calculated by a simple pro-rata. The emissions estimated by the DfT for 2050 are 60.3 Mt. If the passengers are in fact 14.8% higher than the DfT assumes, the CO2 emissions will be, to a first approximation, also 14.8% higher, namely 69.2 mt. Appendix 3. Aviation emissions as a % of total UK CO2 emissions The following table shows in detail calculation of the % of UK CO2 emissions represented by aviation in 1990, 2005 and 2050. For 2050, there are 4 different methods of calculation see main text for the rationale. ABCDEFGHYear Scenario Aviation InternationalAviation - Domestic Aviation - Total UK total incl DomUK incl Dom and Int Aviation % 1990 Historical15.7 (Inv)1.2 (Inv)16.9 (C+D)592.4 (Inv)608.1 (C+F)2.8 (E/G)2005 Historical 35.0 (E-D)2.5 (DfT email) 37.5 (K1) 554.2 (K1)589.2 (K1 or C+F)6.4 (K1 or E/G)2050DfT method 56.2 (G-H)4.1 (E-C)60.3 (K1)236.9 (K1; note 1)293.1 (K1 or C+F)20.6 (K1 or E/G)DfT method with FOE revision of emissions (correction a) 64.5 (note 2)4.7 (note 2)69.2 (note 2)236.9 (K1; note 1)301.4 (C+E)23.0 (E/G)FOE method with FOE revision of emissions 60% cuts (corrections a and b) 64.5 (note 2)4.7 (note 2)69.2 (note 2)243.2 (note 3)28.5 (E/G)FOE method with FOE revision of emissions 80% cuts (corrections a and b and c) 64.5 (note 2)4.7 (note 2)69.2 (note 2)121.6 (note 4)56.9 (E/G) Table FOE/3 Abbreviations and codes A to H column numbers Dom domestic Int international Inv DEFRA inventory (UK Greenhouse Gas Emissions 1990-2006: breakdown of headline results at http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2008/images/080130a/annex-b.pdf). K1 Table K1 in UK passenger demand and CO2 forecasts Notes 1. This figure corresponds to the 1990 figure reduced by 60% (592.4 x 0.4). 2. The total aviation emissions forecast has been increased by 14.8% from the DfT figure for reasons described in App 2. It has been assumed that this uplift applies equally to Int and Dom - while this may not be accurate, any resulting error will be very small. 3. The 2050 target with the FOE method is a 60% cut on 1990 figures (608.1 x 0.4) 4. The 2050 target with the FOE method is an 80% cut on 1990 figures (608.1 x 0.2) Appendix 4. Aviation emissions as a % of total UK greenhouse gas emissions The following table shows in detail calculation of the % of UK GHG emissions represented by aviation in 1990, 2005 and 2050. For 2050, there are 4 different methods of calculation see main text for the rationale. The governments radiative forcing factor of 1.9 x CO2 for aviation is used. ABCDEFGHYear Scenario Aviation InternationalAviation - Domestic Aviation - Total UK total incl DomUK incl Dom and Int Aviation % 1990 Historical29.8 (note 1)2.3 (note 1)32.1 Note 1 or C+D)721.7 (note 2)751.5 (C+F)4.3 (E/G)2005 Historical 66.5 (G-F)4.7 (E-C)71.2 (K1) 656.3 (K1)722.8 (K1 or C+F)9.9 (K1 or E/G)2050DfT method 106.9 (G-H)7.7 (E-C)114.6 (K1)288.7 (K1)395.6 (K1 or C+F)29.0 (K1 or E/G)DfT method with FOE revision of emissions (correction a) 122.7 (note 3)8.8 (note 3)131.5 (note 3)288.7 (K1)411.4 (C+E)32.0 (E/G) FOE method with FOE revision of emissions 60% cuts (corrections a and b) 122.7 (note 3)8.8 (note 3)131.5 (note 3)300.6 (note 4)43.7 (E/G)FOE method with FOE revision of emissions 80% cuts (corrections a and b and c) 122.7 (note 3)8.8 (note 3)131.5 (note 3)150.3 (note 5)87.5 (E/G)Table FOE/4 Abbreviations and codes RF Radiative forcing (index) See App 2 for other abbreviations and codes Notes 1. CO2 figures multiplied by 1.9 2. FOE does not have CHCs corresponding to CO2, which would require RF figures for sources other than aviation. However, a 1990 figure can be inferred from the DfT figure for 2050, which presumably represents a cut of 60%. The 1990 figure is thus 288.7 / 0.4 = 721.7. 3. The total aviation emissions forecast has been increased by 14.8% from the DfT figure for reasons described in App 2. It has been assumed that this uplift applies equally to Int and Dom - while this may not be accurate, any resulting error will be very small. 4. The 2050 target corresponds to the inferred 1990 figure reduced by 60% (751.5 x 0.4). 5. The 2050 target corresponds to the inferred 1990 figure reduced by 80% (751.5 x 0.4). App 5. Heathrows emissions Table 3.7 of UK passenger demand and CO2 forecasts shows that Heathrow was responsible for 18.2 mt of CO2 in 2005 and is forecast to produce 24.0 mt in 2030. That is an increase in about 6mt. The increase is largely due to the effect of a third runway and the extra flights, but it is compounded by the changes that would be expected even if there were no third runway. Table G13 compares the CO2 emissions expected with a 2-runway airport (maximum use scenario) with the 3-runway airport (scenarios s05, s12s2, s12s2mm1 or s12s2mm2). At 2030 CO2 emissions are 16mt with 2 runways and 25mt with 3 runways, a difference of 9mt. This is the figure which has been widely quoted and has been noted as being equal to the entire emissions of Kenya (before the current troubles). Corresponding figures to those in Table 13 are given in Table G14 for 2050. As noted above, the UK forecasts for 2050 are not believable as they assume a complete about-face in government policy in 2030. While the total figures are not believable, the difference between a 2-runway and 3-runway Heathrow should be reasonable as it depends on the respective capacities at Heathrow and not on total demand/capacity at UK airports. At 2050 CO2 emissions are 15mt with 2 runways and 22mt with 3 runways, a difference of 7mt. The somewhat lower figures for 2050 than 2030 are presumably accounted for by improved fuel efficiency but compounded by other factors such as increased passenger throughput due to larger planes etc. The 2030 figures have some validity because they compare the two most likely situations at 2030, namely a 2-runway and a 3-runway Heathrow. But the situation at 2050 is far more hazy. The consultation assumes that a new runway could be available by 2020 and, due to pent-up demand, would fill up very rapidly, being full before 2030. It is therefore reasonable to assume that BAA and the government would start pressing for a 4th runway (and 7th terminal) to be operational around or soon after 2030. Indeed the Chief Executive virtually gave notice of this where he said at hearing by the GLA in January 2008 that, unlike his predecessors, he would make no promises about not expanding Heathrow further. The emissions at Heathrow at 2050 could therefore be far higher than estimated by the DfT. The situation could be even more extreme than a 4th runway and 7th terminal implies. The DfT paper does not show unconstrained demand by airport, but examination of the constrained figures suggests that there would be lobbying for a 5th runway (and 8th terminal) to be in operation by 2050. The DfT has said that the figures for CO2 emissions at Heathrow should not be taken in isolation, but that the impact on UK aviation emissions as a whole should be considered. Table G15 shows that at 2030 the third runway at Heathrow would give rise 57mt for the UK (scenario s05) compared with 53mt with 2 runways (scenario s02), a difference of 4mt. This assumes that there is no second runway at Stansted (scenario 305). If there is a second runway at Stansted, the UK emissions are than 59mt, a difference of 6mt. So a third runway at Heathrow adds 4mt and a second runway at Stansted adds a further 2mt. Table G15 also shows that effect of a third runway at 2050. Heathrow would give rise 58mt for the UK (scenario s05) compared with 54 with 2 runways (scenario s02), a difference of 4mt. This assumes that there is no second runway at Stansted (scenario 305). If there is a second runway at Stansted, the UK emissions are than 60 or 61mt, a difference of 6 or 7mt. So a third runway at Heathrow adds 4mt and a second runway at Stansted adds a further 2 or 3mt. However, as noted above, these figures are very dubious. By 2030 there could be a 4th and 5th runway, in which case the increase of emissions could be far higher. App 6. Heathrows emissions as a proportion of UK aviation emissions The CO2 emissions from Heathrow in 2005 and 2030 are shown in Table 3.7 and these can be expressed as a % of the total UK emissions. As noted in App 5, a figure for Heathrow in 2050 has been given in Table G15, but ignores the possibility of a 4th and 5th runway. Also, the total UK figures forecast by the DfT is not credible and has been amended by FOE as described in App 2. As no figures are provided by DfT for the unconstrained demand for Heathrow, it is not possible to calculate directly from DfT data Heathrows emissions if it were expanded to meet demand up to 2050. However, rough estimates can be made. It is clear that demand is strong at Heathrow and the DfT considers it will remain so. It is for this reason that a new runway in 2020 would be largely full by 2025. Given this strong demand, it is reasonable to assume that the demand for Heathrow will increase roughly at the rate that demand is increasing elsewhere in the UK. Heathrows current (2005) proportion of 48.5% of UK emissions is already suppressed by shortage of capacity (as compared with demand) and the figure of 42.3% at 2030 is also going to be suppressed by shortage of capacity with 3 runway. It is therefore reasonable to assume that if capacity were provided to meet all demand at 2050, the emissions at then, as a % of the UK, could be as high as now, namely 48.5%. The table below shows the position. Year Heathrow (mt) Total UK aviation (mt) Heathrow as % of UK aviation 2005 18.237.548.5%2030 24.958.942.3%2050 - assuming no further expansion at Heathrow beyond R3 22 (FOE figure)69.2 (FOE figure) 31.8%2050 - assuming expansion to meet demand at Heathrow beyond R333.6 69.248.5% Table FOE/5 Figures for total GHGs are not provided by the DfT. However, the proportion of total GHGs to CO2 for Heathrow will be very similar to the rest of UK aviation. (There will be a slight difference because of Heathrows larger proportion of long-haul as the planes spend proportionally longer at cruising height where water vapour and NOx cause a larger proportion of radiative forcing.) App 7. Heathrows emissions as a proportion of total UK emissions The contribution of Heathrow to the UKs aviation emissions in App 6 above and the contribution of aviation to the UKs total emissions in Apps 3 and 4 enable Heathrows CO2 contribution to total UK emissions to be readily calculated: Year DfT method - 60% cut by 2050 ignoring aviation FOE 60% cut by 2050 FOE 80% cut by 2050 2005 3.1%3.1%3.1%2050 - assuming no expansion at Heathrow beyond R3 6.6%9.1%18.1%2050 - assuming expansion of Heathrow beyond R310.0%13.827.6% Table FOE/6 As noted in App 6, figures for total GHGs are not provided by the DfT. However, the proportion of total GHGs to CO2 for Heathrow will be very similar to the rest of UK aviation. Corresponding %s can therefore be worked out for GHGs: Year DfT method - 60% cut by 2050 ignoring aviation FOE 60% cut by 2050 FOE 80% cut by 2050 2005 4.8%4.8%4.8%2050 - assuming no expansion at Heathrow beyond R39.0%13.9%27.8%2050 - assuming expansion of Heathrow beyond R314.1%21.2%42.4% Table FOE/7 It should be noted that these could be considered under-estimates. As noted previously, government figures and most of the figures in this response are calculated on the basis of apportioning emissions equally between the UK and the distant country. If emissions were apportioned in proportion to the nationality of the passengers, the % emissions would be even greater. The proportion of UK passengers at Heathrow is 64% and is forecast to remain at that level in 2030 (Table G2). It is therefore a reasonable assumption that it will be around 64% at 2050. Table FOE/10 (main text) shows the large change when this approach is used to calculate national figures. There will be a significant effect for Heathrow, but it will be less dramatic because the proportion of UK passengers is less (64% at Heathrow compared with 73% nationally at 2050).      PAGE 45 ()*?LMVWqrI ϲχobRCh>hp1CJaJmH sH hp1h>5CJ aJ mH sH hp15CJ aJ mH sH hp1hp15CJ aJ mH sH hp1mH sH hp1hi5CJ(aJ(mH sH hkdhkdmH sH hkdhkd5CJaJmH sH hkdhkd5CJ$aJ$mH sH hp15CJ(aJ(mH sH hp1hp15CJ(aJ(mH sH %jhkd5CJ(UaJ(mHnHuhkd5CJ(aJ(mH sH '()*LM   *  & Fgdp1$a$gdp1* + : ; H I U V p q O P gdp1$a$gdHgd>h`hgdC)gdC) & Fgdp1I K T U   k N O   ;岢sh`hUhUhUhUMUMUMU`hkdmH sH hP-hP-mH sH hHmH sH hP-hp1mH sH hHhp15CJ aJ mH sH hHhH5CJ aJ mH sH hp1hp1CJaJmH sH hp1hp1CJH*aJmH sH hp1CJaJmH sH h>hC)CJaJmH sH hC)CJaJmH sH hp1CJaJmH sH h>hp1CJaJmH sH h>CJaJmH sH  -Cu <giv   +.Žyupkgcgch<hZ h<5 h<''5h*h*h>5mH sH h<''5mH sH hWh>mH sH h*mH sH h*h*5mH sH h>h>5CJ aJ mH sH h>mH sH hAmH sH h|mH sH hAYmH sH hfmH sH hP-mH sH hHmH sH hP-hP-mH sH &-C\u <ghiuv  gd>$a$gd>gdHgdp1$s-*+}+H^ZgdZgd<gd*gd>+,HIRSXY^`#$%'WX[\ gh  BD)-;¼헓huhES hEShES h J5 hESaJ huaJhh JaJ h JaJh Jh J5aJ h J5aJh>mH sH h*mH sH hT h<5\hkdh<hZ hZhZ8 CD;D | L!M!""w#x#0$1$$$\%a%|%}%&gd]gdF6gdugd_gd J;Z  5 C |  !!6!8!K!!""""x#r$s$.%/%]%`%a%b%|%}%%&&'''''''ӷ}yn}hZh JmH sH h Jh JmH sH h<''hES5mH sH h J5mH sH h<''h J5mH sH h]5mH sH h]mH sH hNh]mH sH h<''h]5 h]5hkdh] hEShF6hF6hu hEShEShES huaJhhuaJ*&&''H(I(q(r())))****++,,*,+,----gd>$a$gd>gd"gd@fgd_gd Jgd]''( (G(H(I(J(M(r(()))))_*c***+++++ ,,,,*,-,ƾ{k{kbVh5mH sH h>5mH sH h Ah>5CJ aJ mH sH h>5CJ aJ mH sH h>mH sH h"B* phh]hLh" hL5h"h"5 ht 5h<''mH sH h@fmH sH h<''h@f5mH sH h<''h<''5mH sH h]5mH sH  h J5h Jh JmH sH hLmH sH -,D,i,j,,,------e.........//!/"/,/0/1/2/3/5mH sH hYh>5mH sH h>5mH sH h$mH sH hlphlpH*mH sH hlphAmH sH hlp5mH sH hA5mH sH hlpmH sH h>h>mH sH h>mH sH hWh>mH sH .-N.].k.y....//0/V/W/P0Q000111122334444gd<'' & Fgd<''gd>4o5p566t8u899);*;;;<<o=p=>>>>>j@k@@bBcBDDDgd>4>>>>>>>>k@@DDDFFGGmH sH h7Zh>6]mH sH h7Zh>mH sH hh>5mH sH h8Eh>mH sH hm+h>mH sH hmH sH h5mH sH hlp5mH sH h>5mH sH h>mH sH 6DFFFGGJLLLLL;M6mH sH h>*mH sH h}'?h>>*mH sH h}'?h>6mH sH hT5h>H*mH sH hLEh>6mH sH h`ih>6mH sH hmH sH h5mH sH hlp5mH sH h>5mH sH h>mH sH ,L;MaUV VVVWW=Y>YEY/Z0Z:ZZZZZ0[]]]0^1^w^q_r_{_|___agd>,]-]p]q]]9^r^_ _G_N___`aaajalamanaoapa~aQbUbbbbbbbbbb%c/cTcUcdd(d)dⲦ{{sooohAhDzUh>5 h>5h$hlph>heh>5 h*5 hlp5h*mH sH h>h*5CJ aJ hlphlp5mH sH hF^h>6mH sH h>*mH sH hK1h>6mH sH h>mH sH h6mH sH h>6mH sH (_ajakala~aabbbb'd(dgdhdffhhjjjjllnnDoEoyrgd>$a$gd*)d*d,d-dgdhddeeffffggh]ii jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjqkrkkllllo4p5p$q*qlq~qqhsisksssssssttttt"ucufuuuuuu h'5h> hwh>hhh>5 hlp5 hh>h$hLheh>H*h> heh> h>5 h*5hh>5Eyrzrs sssuuwwyy{{}}}}k~l~ŀƀ˅̅56gd>uy}z~z{{{({B{D{Y{\{d{{{}}}}}}}}}l~~~~~~~{}ĀƀπZm+;=̅ͅ΅υЅх`a͋΋'(JKhLhLhLCJaJhLh>CJaJhJ2h>H*hhh>5 h>5 h*5 hlp5 hwh>h>H6\S $IfgdKckd$$Ifl4F}&` t06    44 laytKc $$Ifa$gdKcgd> Ëȋ͋΋ԋ܋>kd$$Ifl4r} &  p t0644 laytKc $IfgdKc܋ ?kd2$$Iflr} & p t0644 laytKc $IfgdKc '(./0??kd$$Iflr} & p t0644 laytKc $IfgdKc?JKQ_jy?kd$$Iflr} & p t0644 laytKc $IfgdKc=>HC;CCC$a$gdLgd>kd'$$Iflr} & p t0644 laytKcfBCDEFGq6789:;SnÓZ\˔͔̔ؔ۔Ŝ1E hKch>h!h>6h%h>5 hKc5h*h3ih>5 hh>hJ2h>H*hJ2h>5 h>5 h*5 hlp5 h*h>h>h$<>^fABqr56ST˔̔^3LMkl & Fgd> gd>gd>lŜƜ"#۠~ & Fgd>gd>FGZ[įůЯ>?xߵP=1 >ovgd>EFGHIKLMZůЯy?IJx=./1>hiotvl[¾ľ hNh> hVgh>h>B* ph hKch>hNh>H*h$ htrh>htrh>6 h6Bh>h6Bh>5h%h>6hUh>5 h>5 hKc5 hlp5h>hEh>B* ph6v[ľ׾ܾgh#$8 & Fgdlpgdlp$a$gdlp $1$7$8$H$a$gdlp 7$8$H$gdlp$a$gdlpgd>ľžƾǾɾ־׾۾ܾݾ޾߾DEJKOTkmuz{ghò{{{{{s{{haWahZPShlp6] hZPShlphg|0hlpCJaJhghlpH* hghlphlpCJaJ hlp5hghlp5 hAY5 h"j5 hb0hlpCJOJQJ^JaJ hb0hlpCJOJQJ^JaJhhhlp5CJ aJ mH sH hlp5CJ aJ mH sH hAYhAYhAY5CJaJh"jh"j5CJ aJ hlp"KLOfs<'()L_56&'rstuvw12u 348ྶh$hf hPhlph hlp5 hlp5 hhThlp h,uhlp hHhlph;yDhlp5 hAY5 h"j5 hghlp hZPShlphlphAYB&'KL]^ergdlp & Fgdlp;?<=wy{|;>@OU-ø}}oooooooohZhlp5OJQJ\hRhlpOJQJ\h"jOJQJ\hlpOJQJ\hBhlp5H*OJQJ\hBhlp5OJQJ\hlp5OJQJ\hBhlp5\jh-hlpU hBhlp h-hlph-hlp5 hlp5 h"j5hfhlp+vwr\67FG^_fg\$a$gdlpgdlp-.;K3 /O\itw7fijEFGIJKL^_egijksh`hlp5OJQJ\hbhlpOJQJ\h"j5OJQJ\hNhlpOJQJ\hlpOJQJ\h"jOJQJ\hlphNhlp5OJQJ\h@Shlp5OJQJ\ hZhlp56OJQJ\]hZhlp5OJQJ\hlp5OJQJ\,]_`abyzQek #$"~ÿÿÿÿÿֳ֨}hLh hlp6h$hlp\hxhlpH*hxhlp] hxhlphxhlpmH sH hxhlpOJQJ\hlp hT hlphT hlpOJQJ\hlpOJQJ\h"jOJQJ\hlp5OJQJ\h`hlpOJQJ\0\]yz#$:;XYgdlpgdlp$a$gdlpz)89;&Y[~~~ h$aJhhapaJhhap5aJ hap5\haphap5CJ \aJ h<5\ h<hlp h,uhlphlph,uhlp5 hL5 hlp5 h<5h<h"j h"jh"jh&h&h&5h&h"j5,CDFGgdap$a$gdapgdlp"'5@C%&  ce?G=?@BkUSUVXo߬߬hhapaJhEShapCJaJ hn5aJ hnaJ h$aJjhhap0JUaJhhapH*aJ hL5aJhhap5aJhhapaJhhapB* aJph9uxf g     6 7 bc239= 7$8$H$gdap@&gdapgdap=klUV<=UVMNZ[nou$IfgdapoO $Ifgdap pgdapgdap@&gdapneeW$IfgdapoO $Ifgdapkd $$IflF h(  t06    44 laytapneeW$IfgdapoO $Ifgdapkd$$IflF h(  t06    44 laytapneeW$IfgdapoO $Ifgdapkd$$IflF h(  t06    44 laytap78xyE }  nffaaaaaaaagdap$a$gdapkd$$IflF h(  t06    44 laytap 8:gjx !!$$y%{%%L&N&'''X'Y'r's'''''''V(W(((((())))c-e-////ԼԱԤԤԤԤԤԤԛ{ԼphF6hapCJaJhhapB* aJphh$CJaJhF6hapCJaJhhapaJhF6hapCJ^JaJhF6hapCJaJ hLaJ haJ h$aJ hESaJhhapaJ h5aJhhap5aJ hn5aJhEShapCJaJ,  `!a!$$x%y%%%J&K&&&''' ''6'X' $IfgdapgdapX'Y'^'i'j'n'r'[RRRRR $Ifgdapkdh$$Ifl\H(%j t0644 laytapr's'x'''''[RRRRR $Ifgdapkd$$Ifl\H(%j t0644 laytap'''''''[RRRRR $Ifgdapkd$$Ifl\H(%j t0644 laytap''''''ZQQQQ $Ifgdapkd$$Ifl4\H(%`j t0644 laytap'''L(Q(V(ZQQQQ $Ifgdapkd$$Ifl4\H(% j t0644 laytapV(W(X((((ZQQQQ $IfgdapkdM$$Ifl4\H(% j t0644 laytap((())))G+H+ZRRRMMMMgdap$a$gdapkd$$Ifl4\H(% j t0644 laytapH+,,../////// $Ifgdapgdap //////0[RRRRR $Ifgdapkd$$Ifl\H(%j t0644 laytap//0000=0>00000R1S1T1111334445@9C99999::::;;;;===>'?(?}?~?????????"@#@/@»hF6haphCJaJhF6hapCJaJhhapH*aJhhap5aJ hn5aJhhapB* aJphh$CJaJhF6hapCJaJhLCJaJhF6hapCJ^JaJhhapaJ80000000[RRRRR $Ifgdapkd$$Ifl\H(%j t0644 laytap00$0103080=0[RRRRR $Ifgdapkd$$Ifl\H(%j t0644 laytap=0>0?0{000ZQQQQ $Ifgdapkd2$$Ifl4\H(%`j t0644 laytap000000ZQQQQ $Ifgdapkd$$Ifl4\H(% j t0644 laytap000G1L1R1ZQQQQ $Ifgdapkdd$$Ifl4\H(% j t0644 laytapR1S1T1113344ZRRMMMMMgdap$a$gdapkd$$Ifl4\H(% j t0644 laytap4455J6K678::;;====>>>(?S?}? $Ifgdapgdap}?~??????[RRRRR $Ifgdapkd$$Ifl\h XH!pp t0644 laytap??????[RRRR $IfgdapkdQ$$Ifl\h XH!pp t0644 laytap??@#@)@/@[RRRR $Ifgdapkd $$Ifl\h XH!pp t0644 laytap/@0@1@}@~@AAAA[SSSNNNNgdap$a$gdapkd$$Ifl\h XH!pp t0644 laytap/@0@1@}@~@AAAABBIIIUUUVVVVW W\\m`n`s`x`````bb{od\{h=imH sH hNh=imH sH hNh=i5mH sH h=i5mH sH h=i5CJ aJ mH sH h=ih=i5CJ aJ mH sH h=ih=i5CJ \aJ hap5\jhhapU h$aJhhap5aJ hn5aJhhap^JaJhF6hapCJaJhhapaJhhapaJ"AB*CCCDD#G$GIIIIhKkK(L)LLM=NaO^QUUUU & F 8^gdap & F 8x^gdapgdapU"W#W0[1[@_A_m`````bbbbddffhhjjjjulvlgd=i$a$gd=igdapbbeejjjnnnn$n*n7npnnnnnnVoWoXoYo\oaogooooooo ppppuuuuuuuu뿸~~qHh]h^hd hL5hMhd6 h^hdhdh khd5 hd5hMhd5CJ aJ hd5CJ aJ hNh=ihNh=imH sH hMsh=i5mH sH h=i5mH sH hh=iH*mH sH h=imH sH hX.h=i5mH sH ,vlmnn$n%n7n8n[o\ogoioqqrr~tuuuuvv3x4xzz}gdd$a$gddgd=iuuvvv+v0v:vLvUvvvvvvBwEw4xBxVxbxkxlxxxxxxxDyHyzzzz{{{||)|}2~~~~h@fh@f5CJ aJ hZh_ h^hdhZs h khdHhh^hdHhdh^hdhDHhch^hdHhah^hdHh`h^hdHh_h^hdhd-}}~~()T[8 & FgdROUgd+L$a$gdUJ gdZ$a$gd@fgdd~/lǃ)9)-.RTˈ78UZ-3789Źũťũšt h3"h3"5B*CJ aJ phh3"B* phhjhROUhKchnnh<=hhlphdhUJ hUJ h+L5CJ aJ hUJ hUJ 5CJ aJ h+L h^hdhm]hZmH sH h hZ6mH sH hZmH sH h@fhZ5CJ aJ mH sH ,#w_`7UVWJK]^ $$Ifa$gdOgdO$a$gdOgdXr$a$gdLgd> & FgdROU9:=UVW~*+-.noސʓۓܓFŽŵŵththt]hOhOCJaJhOhO6CJaJhOhOCJaJ hOhOhOhOCJ aJ mH sH hOhO5CJ aJ mH sH hnB*phhTD?B*phhXrB*phh3"B*phhXrhXrB*ph h3"hXr5B*CJ aJ ph h3"h3"5B*CJ aJ phh|5B*CJ aJ ph#'3HTYZ_KB $IfgdOkd$$IfTl\ TTT t0644 lalytOT $$Ifa$gdO_cglmrvzNkdA$$IfTl\ TTT t0644 lalytOT $IfgdOWNNNN $IfgdOkd$$IfTl\ TTT t0644 lalytOTWNNNN $IfgdOkd$$IfTl\ TTT t0644 lalytOTWNNNN $IfgdOkd~$$IfTl\ TTT t0644 lalytOTēɓWNNNN $IfgdOkd=$$IfTl\ TTT t0644 lalytOTɓʓϓғ֓ۓWNNNN $IfgdOkd$$IfTl\ TTT t0644 lalytOTۓܓWNNNN $IfgdOkd$$IfTl\ TTT t0644 lalytOTOPǘȘWRJRRRRR$a$gdOgdOkdz $$IfTl\ TTT t0644 lalytOTȘFGϛQǜhJK,-ۣ56$a$gdO & F gdOgdO pgdOFG gi,-ۣܣ)BILfgmrs߬  EhƺƩѡѡƖƖƖƖƖƖƖƖƖƖƖhOhO6CJaJhOhOCJaJhOhO6hOCJaJhO5CJ aJ hOhO5CJ aJ hOhOCJaJ hOhOhOhOB* ^Jph h$^JhOhO^JhOhOB* ph4ghmqrNkd9!$$IflF 0 t 6`X0J $IfgdOJKkd*$$Iflִ(#)H0`6- t0    44 laytOKLıʱбձ۱ $IfgdO۱ܱkd+$$Iflִ(#)H0`6- t0    44 laytOܱݱ38AENS\]clqw $IfgdO wxkdc,$$Iflִ(#)H0`6- t0    44 laytOxyײܲ $IfgdO kd;-$$Iflִ(#)H0`6- t0    44 laytO)BZi~)abhg $IfgdOgdO$a$gdOkd.$$Iflִ(#)H0`6- t0    44 laytO)3>GZoz| $IfgdO |}kd.$$Iflִ(#)H0`6- t0    44 laytO}ĸ͸Ӹٸݸ $IfgdOkd/$$Iflִ(#)H0`6- t0    44 laytODE45ҺӺxyKMZ\0168vx oȼȼȰȰ}h$hOhOH*hOhOB* ph hOhOhOhO5CJaJhO5CJ aJ hOhO5CJ aJ h$CJaJmH sH hOhOCJaJmH sH hF6hOCJaJmH sH hF6hOCJaJmH sH hOhOmH sH 1 "(48D $IfgdODEkd0$$Iflִ(#)H0`6- t0    44 laytOEJWY_eiouz $IfgdOkds1$$Iflִ(#)H0`6- t0    44 laytO"(-4 $IfgdO45kdK2$$Iflִ(#)H0`6- t0    44 laytO56Ǻ̺Һ $IfgdO ҺӺkd#3$$Iflִ(#)H0`6- t0    44 laytOӺԺ28AENT]^dmrx $IfgdO xykd3$$Iflִ(#)H0`6- t0    44 laytOy'2z{FGBK0vgdO$a$gdOvwx.N $IfgdOgdOoqwyNOfg~9:;H35KMde{|'79QRhi~·֯֯᠕֯֯hOhOB*phhOhOB* CJaJphhTD?CJaJhOhOCJ aJ hOhO5CJ aJ hOCJaJhOhOCJaJhOhOCJaJh$ hOhOhOhOH*:NOUV[`f[RRRRR $IfgdOkd4$$Ifl\phP8"p t08"644 lalytOfgmnsx~[RRRRR $IfgdOkd5$$Ifl\phP8"p t08"644 lalytO~[RRRR $IfgdOkdI6$$Ifl\phP8"p t08"644 lalytO'-.39[RRRRR $IfgdOkd7$$Ifl\phP8"p t08"644 lalytO9:;GH[SSNNSSNgdO$a$gdOkd7$$Ifl\phP8"p t08"644 lalytO2JdeklMkdz8$$Ifl\` HH!`  t0H!644 lalytO $IfgdOgdOlqv{|Rkd59$$Ifl\` HH!`  t0H!644 lalytO $IfgdO[RRRR $IfgdOkd9$$Ifl\` HH!`  t0H!644 lalytO[SSNNNE $IfgdOgdO$a$gdOkd:$$Ifl\` HH!`  t0H!644 lalytO6Nhinoty~Rkdf;$$Ifl\` HH!`  t0H!644 lalytO $IfgdO ~[RRRR $IfgdOkd!<$$Ifl\` HH!`  t0H!644 lalytO[RRRR $IfgdOkd<$$Ifl\` HH!`  t0H!644 lalytO m[SSNNNLLgdO$a$gdOkd=$$Ifl\` HH!`  t0H!644 lalytO WcmӼ h=7h$hDhD0JmHnHu hD0JjhD0JUhVzjhVzUhOhOCJaJmH sH h JmH sH hOhOmH sH hOhOB* CJaJphhOhOCJaJhOCJaJgdOgdap$a$gdD 6&P 1h:pi. A!n"n#n$n% 6&P 1h:pi. A!n"n#n$n% 9&P 1h0:pOA .!n"n#n$n% 6&P 1h:pi. A!n"n#n$n% FE tocRJFIF,,Photoshop 3.08BIM x8BIMxHH +7G{HH(d'`8BIM,,8BIM x8BIM8BIM 8BIM' 8BIM5-8BIM8BIM@@8BIM8BIM 1Wps JFIFHHAdobed            pW"?   3!1AQa"q2B#$Rb34rC%Scs5&DTdE£t6UeuF'Vfv7GWgw5!1AQaq"2B#R3$brCScs4%&5DTdEU6teuFVfv'7GWgw ?TI%)$Y㌎^+/|ލvQ_S.;}v2ܚ[oRwI51[W^rlnn$^a<0pnJc[(wM:?]s]+)U!2[`enkI$I$TI%<ןUphmS!ǀ>2v2*]Gu.:[zCr,$ $ckW:1_߬]{+Tlŭ졞}oo˞R>3qʰr+u6zOU*Yj6^?Fs]Mc?u7]xQEb+1XCZ3z~OSv%n[qֵνjpTmH7cY--kv/zJ[}KwO0Hu~nuZ=./*102:@{<`0pp }ƹ3_>z)98HοGguu IA׻n?/M}+[v1JdI$TS>}_^51ltS^g^X!|n,c^[owKG/]Vs6qb9ΡߛYJUwg`ftpv>Mm6ZߟSDI%?U]o?3pK2sſV۱)rӑY/-mumBg+}t?UGW3p˰0 3rZhٍ> νM]O-jŽ71ʷ]Uِ?Gw[b nհYV-xks+}nK[}{6U]Re_mmU>gUjFSٽwUTeuz1Tܻ2qc׻"K>`tS3#,zNc_U/9l 9g)vEӾu/լMd9̯na}ZֺN۳z ʬv&=9izg׺S7~Jxvu_Xfcb׏ֲLv?5f浴7?᳨wT}aaW4u WeTa *Ŀ۪&KYj}|E/njEW]uU2~[fMshm{klStnײf-=Wdunn^7 1+6 7c_KfLK7Ğ8o@S,uԮ̶_Fjhssa4Vimv~׵>Vۛ׿ {%t 6r-io=XgkF+%:$JU}gt:k4_k߳59m~{>KI%>y/zո_Zqv ^̯'k}Ew1,~祟.zc>g]z͕ݝFUm,=ī6]=wvߩ^檟UA~X}:g]sW>iXhoFjW(0UUsn[kI%>o/Y2f>NGK˦~ch)?dտy7Yٷ.dP喝KQIOu^˻ >眆o^]XOU^_tN?*_WXQqs[d[Z,m.$I%?8BIMICC_PROFILEADBEmntrGRAYXYZ  acspAPPLnone-ADBEcprt$descqwtptXbkptlkTRCtext(c) 2001 Adobe Systems Inc.descGrayscale - Gamma 2.2XYZ QXYZ curv3AdobedC      s!1AQa"q2B#R3b$r%C4Scs5D'6Tdt& EFVU(eufv7GWgw8HXhx)9IYiy*:JZjz?f͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳff͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳff͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳff͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳff͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳff͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳff͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳff͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳff͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳff͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳff͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳff͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳff͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳff͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳff͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳff͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳff͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳff͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳff͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6mt ҲHWo'¯ߖaI1L-b~Z$U3WkIfkTø'1,D20j8lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳff͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6mt ҲHWo'ȶ-sPa_܆D"7^^K[{NB3񼾴qIUE5;cNӡJJ҂?ԉ,G5?6_$ύk/NG~kUAx~H_:t1˩޺0V=ɄYf͛6lgyV0׷6ѓRLq"귤r̎vyB'ؿ"|0XrT\_Pg\?VIc˰C@,ASpvLi>Q hGHSap $n>K3f͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛?f͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳ` KX7[DML_!\翕tQI56-?ˇIaiW99'no^^W|_mPG>250lM441yfcRIqf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛ [ȳB$BYM#)f+7:W"~ş z\IitCO_΁~yN%şSք_O>53Z: ʲq3q<ٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6l'ּǥv/_UhJFn?kыɛs-wrC&=& HE>./ {\Oc"&_LyrIv.8kJcs{,^F.Ɵɰ>lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf4,бIVSBr}tB3r/"P@[#:wo9t/}h&v&?}y/msc\t6//E-L3f͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6f͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͈=/˱zVBWj3q^_Lļr<jqsSC-c8οW}cW hZW҅8.?f͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٲ} }rh= V\j1۩cVo r^lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳfέ=_-9g~o?ӞD__-0}xdU| Dulٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛?f͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6ڵk%+x]l^wiYU oʣo}ݲsZ}Uoou)O3uy3&f͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6la_\o: **dQ6C]xY1ǧy)Xn+ z3Umy|~?tk6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳff͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛8=Pou$7?EI*g4jh̗>cEZҾ)yq$L(͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6l꿗7T&K1jLRՇK'/FoMi:k[yEQ|0͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳfߚy2Z ƻ!n0Ȝ^y| Zi^S֋,QE%6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͒$~`jEY윽jl}9s?^ ,O,yͶzd}Ň>3'Hzs6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳgĒ2J6Uwmk-~6ԆK|󆱮_ꓽ'5nَ>M f͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳa;=2N&fOۉ"#?zx<'J,1' 'v2Krٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lQ 7WG+J#Q]ܜW~Lo}Nt_? C6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lo2N=OLɱuu?n8H"Oޞ/, ҋ< jݟL6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6f͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6l"?ߣ >f͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6O^P!lɬl=DH=[wپW=3y=OLO)ّۆdoNq>͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳgf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6CyѦq%V׋~ץ2~_2MOSϰeEbS"OQ6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͒˯0M_}5ftad5,ؾ,Cvlٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͂,.u)RO3tHԻ*'&Ï'H7Y6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6l~c"i-yTk>hX|^/=XxM%č4^G%Ԓzflٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͏.$XaR9 TdMnH4ٔ)q v;dNn名FDRO*̕7Y^kD7,_>MBr:j rIZl?/pAb(TPP1lٳaf6]pZ%~U[Du_ɯ)jYA,fynE~?ϐ{q(dЯ4kS_ղ a/y=唏s>?nghy5\~5A~͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lzsf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6f͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6#6~'Y+~;f͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͝+c\*nR4vrN?fާyw#Z/oMBuI0˻Rچ鮾 1@*((lٳf͛6lٳf͛6l压Xk _5BWjG9Z@knl.b9X;|?9/;6lٳf͛6lٳf͛&_|:ʴ/q$Fx?~ò7Փ$E6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͝GɟߘdUC6r!a6j$KO&J 1Zy/&3(ە8fsœM%č4^G%Ԓzflٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͇Tn;i1sORF2f6ױI$R+[͛6lٳf͛6zc[:_1t-fekTz9fH2GFSǶł+q-}b3O!RUyoG4Mf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳgf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳfΉyc H2+h3'Hzs6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛?f͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf8Ey/- \MBX2Cro[ g͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6l7זGgܓ4'؜tL.4"B> Y[? -\P$^N5͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͜no Dr,?w1<)c2/'~wiwZ-Ԗn!<]={`Lٳf͛6lп)1$N p߿N<58u}en~Ycٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳ`=F 2k#i$4?\|ũ=̭'ܸw?XcY6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6led8DiaTso$,ybVd|"Mَ~?bp06lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6l4 BzlGٿۿbwC?M.E3 'ul 6lٳf͛= o" N4@ kf>)bD6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳff͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳg)H:"R& A"/n~/4\lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳdG< +!$O; H{0ȉ%?]cRL#nwgcnGhf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛ }aԡSOM_V57;w_g=m̶W#HѸFC p>lٳf͛6M D=hy.{+FRi#Zq 2xnH~?,͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳg=k̯grOEQ)k2˯sf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf?yPVCIFvH?+avK,~ǖ,2zkpoݼ_f͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٰEj3b`:E27ڕ̷'9Vs >lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6l7זGgܓ4'؜tLkm1t2ޤ7Y$!U^(;f͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳ?q^u.!tYǓ/ط52~/rlٳf͛6l?z 7Jod\G4+,iWD0 "2:f͛6lٳdȞjɚվ#~Mq<߇#g=_}jyCgf͛6lٳg?۳՟a!ǝ6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6l Z[)tBzq[\lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6zqG͗bI+U!H 5/Fu߯Nf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lQSrx9iUqO[f͛6lٳdʾcf o3 yӐw`V =;ǖ{76lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6l=K767*_sf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6l#'eoGDw|Ȩw4"OkAvшQ@@ųf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳͿ~]iBfHMH(YnYM/Ncf͛6lٳfd~Vy|k%!WFdg`x;}n7͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛?f͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lΛypq%^1Ÿ~@sf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6l?&~[]J]j ~xfrgc͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͜Anh>$z_oU*>y6lٳf͛6vO1}WPo14@ޤ ?,пg_,ٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6l?2j1";Pz#aflٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͒?"yV_9VT|Lܧq/ˌpNX$Gm  [6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6l😴Y|SԽ"yw/Y*Y6lٳf͇N׏u=X Lgw(iDq͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͟f͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6l,׵?кeޣǟ`n5/MZ^͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳgl:WҀTG>,3| y9p͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6y[rG}9f< 69Nlٳf͛6lOF[ cZVѠGDIŹ6͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͟f͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6liǟ( 4?+g9猳f͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lae6s4,h:UElyz .i^4R?y/Hk6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lzo/'xxӯ:/)q͛6lٳf͞mֹ[ :\ƿǡpѵ/K6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6f͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lߟ|$y}rk_C_<6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳg[|NOO%h>͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6l矝v?^Y!O'֙?MIc<6lٳf͛:_>%+w н{[gjLٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6l_Ң~"G6Vwie͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳ՟] 奼xϨHf$[!cKk[|?O6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٰ͖RZ&el9O=F:U7D] ͛6lٳf R Z\yVxZre_gf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳgf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6l*?3f͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6l|0q" UU$=ۣh6tHTQDk͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6llٳf͛6lO)˩h}Nɑٳf͛6lOȫnm Fm,IF._f,yf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6loA6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳ6ij\Hxӯޯ/RH͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6l=K}#f͛6lٳ_2y~ G5f# v6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛?f͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6loA6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳӟ..qvԐ $H(O[yf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6xu'dlٳf͛6l_@f͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳgf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6loA6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳ>M@T3PlL쑹g@͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳ{U;&Gf͛6lٳggo5 s-ţ$حٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6loA6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳDkI o5Hsf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6leIé {rGB 8E6lٳf͛:?'Pf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳgf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6ltN7Y6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳߞ5hKudA,yo?9lٳf͛6loF7͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳff͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6l(.&^А%')^_Y|ٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͞dmC8a}i"˝6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٰk5 V~xRmJ[ۓii96lٳf͛6lW?'6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͟f͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6l?2i &;kRzKflٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳgESVi;Vlٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳg,_-5M}BA~X̿g+Glٳf͛6lٳ_1,~Me.g,|O2Us͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳgf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lν(~ma+Ҕ`ʩ4_绎/f͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6vK 77*[ٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf-AQ ijORyOUI6lٳf͛6l'tM>q H"u$hyf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lo-͆xCOx^߷?a%͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6tMT~mS +$V` Uo绎ߏ3ٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf­{ZR t.*icNE{+/摳÷jW2ܞSO#HY7o&f͛6lٳaZN0@&ųݙf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6l˿?4߯yNIq3Rj|yG6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٰBԿCjVU)֜6YxWٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳg ipO>$w\>Q>gf͛6lٳf͝?F/$`op=Jő gsf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳgf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lXb,n4\xۏxJhdJH+ GUa͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lofWʚdxqCJ|_Lf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳb3fYHTPI$3ľv\Iإorz_r ٳf͛6lٳg}m75#Kh=0_'cv砳f͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳgf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳZ |v"+ %?}aLf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6zqZo; (ssu/F~Կ.wٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6l??<I] uy)ë_aGc͛6lٳf͛6lƉʖs'^^ĝx|7t<ٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳIh5Tonc׷^~ڗ=f͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6N'uВDWg$K>/zLٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lZ}txm$+'gߪMYhMDqV1/?rf͛6lٳf͛iZt[R''a'g`;hQbٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٲ3Z 1 VD>տe>Ylٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͞nf,PT*dA@߲ *d6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͞}}+?\O"?a/aC?F?z6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳg6|V-ʹ KN}E(xbq ͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lO㯚{[.X7Ԓ=6*F"X']6wlٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛"|\^M.5WfQ?+m q5v^9ofԮe}jյj֕KjܸHw?p~9}\͛6lٳf͛6hz=Ϙ/)"ִR?ƿf5qiڎ0h=4Jٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳ` cMXӧ$Esucn?YWNHӧ m+tbn?\6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6l?/3< +?@xm>/Ko73f͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛87ռ;ƆEpe,etvN}kϙf͛6lٳf͛;WǕ?'Phd0J ?sf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͟f͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf5C\Yj0yx^/6ƂHˆ[ԯS[ q\ٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳffwcyH'O.^_4+i.x}lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳ~i`G]/uklH̜>ǫ$^Di.$ib9,Ƥ՘3f͛6lٳf͛6{K -N~K_Y9<_ [6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳfȷ<K)rJISp^Wn9ɡFe)"(AU36lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳpm#+:A=MX~<7"sIպK虳f͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٲ?4Zy?KU#F%no_ݧ9~g[6_ɩrslC ~I79 3f͛6lٳf͛6t+0.f i\CC ?葴Wz lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳgf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͞]o]YuTΣa)Y"͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lZyHil1=9ؕpלeAyR/9hS0ؕwp$sœC% RD%YXP: flٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳg?"?0WPYEͲcX&x~/ڳVy~<-e;~lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͈w<>{6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳgf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛̉+zr/#oڍ6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٲu[|% "]7U𹏀i97Ni)"s"5[6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6l/յk]KV ooC-մ1^?&V߽X#ow)͛6lٳf͛6lٳ~D yT:ڟi̭PߏƶWV^\Թf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6f͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6q-QslAT?Rom_7 X7͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6l?Me,>Rx^FoKPJmI%O;6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6yRSl7gc!?nG߄hWʻ B OO\S{_'v46lٳf͛6lٳf͆s 4!{~ԏ3zq$oٍsP򽧓t0>  Pz)?pH3f͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6#<bFEADn9Kljr-o? ͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lOo)|O/k-4-³*^GQ$iyIqf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6l{FėD~Xz^-^p2MzӍG # ٳf͛6lٳf͛6lGڂ)_PyEį7Wʿ/؛Աo͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳgf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6l~`y>;hm0^!fUq=_75Mq 7hx:.͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6l|3Io" ee4 =KO"]/TeVv;**bUXlٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf9o_G1BB7<ݪjZԗ&<۩=;`Lٳf͛6lٳf͛6l~Sy qRkZQhKr@#K9f͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6l?=/P>fEͲSXIڳey~-b<ߛ6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٱ%4,RD!Ђ:2M [>EE3m\= V+Lyf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳaVXyzٯuINiSB#_,Q_7kKM1ӄD֞҇E'S_FU6lٳf͛6lٳf͛ 4=ivCkZ f_H߳Ko&iPVbP$ɛ#±ɸd6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛?f͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳߜ@j6[T-/_IbZ~פG6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳfgƋv!/^Z)z 6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛9?VC%QVdudYO~gfyqO*~)݌f͛6lٳf͛6lٳg?%.?CZSnk }7_ٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٰ^ma>z 7Jod\񿝼w}M¯8^,'[| }t͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳ~\njGap>џ5*&A'<͞8Z *`=H?N ٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf?1O$y$R2׏.? qf.|$qqh"vB^&[2Xdܢ OUlٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳFZQxپsu-ko''>ٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳdK^E;tA:npg$RSKnq Af͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6la_\o: **dQ6Dy#N-<=PuD%US 㹌K -6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͑o5Dl\[@~l? /Ͻ[ZkSU6i|iض䌍*|fKiK31$f8ٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳgBڈ6:M~pOz8zvإߟ;hQbٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳgf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳfgq6ł-wc"ng׏oRI)q4Fe)"(AU36lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͒(eLz|{L9a*+HVU3G@ ۣf#y" }a-7͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6l~gחo+t^i|z?X??k8כ<1Vlf>$ims͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6led8DiaTso$'IcEo f͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳff͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͜?2Z>ߥ`Q#'\C,&F6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛$~U޵}M*"x.pnzw>ī_m=*ے oH/..$>~?>r<̠W1RޘjH?Dbs3~XŇ#4Dۑ"alٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳgf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛8oOS_3vQ\[b_f͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͒3 f-Ba dBneyp΅Iqr%ӏ ?~'wo\^SEPD{6]R3$iO$oGap $n>K3f͛6Ko/@ڝHVG첳9&XneaO ?\jvQHM4tݦbj^/&>Y}A> :k<I]Ou¼}iZN5gf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lo-_=3LϹ'eEni"O9"O&,9ލ<(8B?$6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳgf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6pҞ<fsl渷_k~m?޿9f͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٰMu-۩yӗ+Gʝ9Lw_TS7̿uoߙIRLdu cStaBs!{f͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6kWlL#3IQGۚglNr:&zȾE;1wO; ~u-hfR!*„Xc3f͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lw)ozT-!%5%o֮"O&,9ލ<(8B?$6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͟f͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6l?6?)MijѮe[QԿ O<'ץ-l.tٍRA2I 2?f͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛%~H؏k?[+yWSL2n]Oؚl~#f͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛:7P~-!r_QlӋ+qo4~7>,9'IcEo f͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳdo~KҼm]VeA]e([c~9/<]jD,ra漖K/Kѧٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6l޿,#2C@0޿?TauÄֲw 1@*((lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳfwu9jV9:o$/_ۭVڪ ~ϥ.$}csf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6l0;0\-.₴ F1ɾ)$.&<>pOSpVO*̿czrqoWf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6f͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛9?䮛%VQfgv1Xn%z,Vp A,tuU6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6l>67CN<\rW rM>> {g| /J&<RB?nZ~6"?R"6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳgf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6k^ӼhluXEĒ(G+U<+M^L-{P !Pvox平f͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6l/K,#3\Lx/RzB_~DZiꚇܕV|U?ғӗ;~lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛?f͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6l-ֿ99?!Ԓ?L?\9^Tl2ꚴ\9WӑO( 9'r ٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͝[\\kA1CG_I|q/[|*߾Oק鞉4' =*=IiH ٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٰkmoxZE9.p90ܭߌu/:&lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳfO0y[IL"W@K 2)rzN<8{gY7|LU%`|odOY^\kؤe)Fd~-f͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6HMkrzU4A}\K( f͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳd?eJޅ'>S\KӖ$?>?I](> ?sO6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳff͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lZpcCbNK?N3X\*3I7 DVIS=yg77|=ͷkYϨ곲|7E%+d'6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٰf^4yne!Fvq3qγǍ^mvhDl?eָ~ᳱ_˞TPֶk JY3ON^_Q^[2gYH'3Cv[_$ٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛iU!NP*Rgj77?5 )z rAMZz,Au?,A#$>:oIj7Փ/hxeu:N 0+ZGQ]|Wf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͟f͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛#ב0Ri%)x?Qp>swqC&M&y]F>.)!Kj^bIc-)1GemW^b ]Q!c/s}K~*kGsf͛6lٳf͛6liW :[@HQb re~My[UJ|i_-+ǓqMkPoR+d~п''Ǖ4_M˖2rW_&u8!Z8"#36lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳgf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٰStkH.Wƿk"R~K6g26bI47TIFq!]_+bW PPM?쾲#r/ ??6Xq#kONxT?%V/f'Ox?䗜pbB<47 W\-62_%of//Z=8(WoW\?OlBuFi KWyIt?)㸼Jz_S$VӢC2%mV_|f͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͟f͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳff͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳff͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳff͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳff͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳff͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳff͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳff͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳff͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳff͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳff͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳff͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳff͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳff͛6lٳf͛6lٳg_ȸ7 wEeYc,./*CfqVo-5ʳykY\_U;_"1Zkf_ȸ7 wEeYc,./*CfqVN|>ZI}G4q'DʪKQdҒol͛6lٳfwMڋ7<ȪĈFy'GCfqVo-5ʳykY\_U~_|˨ZAx\72$aA/č 76lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٲ5_:5E%)%VnLKykY\_U;_"1Zkf_ȸ:_u<ͧAZ+7 >0"lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛62I%.*$a_Ϗ.Y%]0!Ф=M+ x=Gy?V9RA,E;zrP+~L;qY&A9/rhW% uk9'=>aq3o^A©UaB\_f͛6lٳf͛6lf͛6lٳf͛6lٳg3f͛6lٳf͞o 7vlٳf͛6lϏK??i6L).7jٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf?9(շ&fe~Q!&ɓ\ٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛65($'LaA`WO7m3`*VhMT=a+qw1Gf_Mf͛6lٳf͛6lٳgf͛6lٳf͛6lٳg3f͛=_jk+y$-$$TJ8/Uוg"Wi*k+4uȕsʺZJ9]y_v%򮼯V?NZ&F`mⶍX &yQ ٳf̀ubGA&s YearxRξ(\햡kGYMڍ/eVlٳf͛6l$H:h0ξ_cƥgӧ!ß, +Z~^>\?5u`͛6{+Q 717NL͛jZpPlN>XG:bcTeϾ[$Z_V*'6lٳf͛6lٰ\tﮠEO8˅~cy^>2lz~`bCA?Mv97 ?9`ٳf͞zKRp\ٳgmX종 )͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛?f͛6lٳf͛6lٳg3f͛=?ٳf͛YvtFSO@~\~EcͷڅΧ3\LyŁp]wJ.,f GG$KHy_l7?&1^23N1UO~uyUӼ=!#EQk#*<q?{7'כ_$]c]b:}̱&'8 mE5p$`c'eYu5VvjٰMńkIFF*G$;|ϡI SbG;ϑ6o: yHw /WٳBk:}`3۫!aK6\?{7'כ_$D^um{S$wY˞׼a659DPsԞ}s^rk}†f}ğSwyq)GVŘ/yZҮkSkZ&z?luMOr`|Ysf͜ʮvy~V$J&?/E9?gSxŤ&D]F,Ė&3faKg̎RANO|O-W7w~|?_1=[BbAY-܎kZl_He6lٳf;jY $@??7GfP_\ f_yf'~gdjT>Sxǟ2 IcS9YXgİ#ᔐGӓ/p]G_vw?$~vhjePc@ՍU?rzd?Jk?*ʑUƟe\W^$I5;^To&Pҿsf͇_{7'כ_$^B[.i$k31,I*3|M<ٳf͛6lٳf͛6lf͛6lٳf͛6lٳg3f͛=ɣ"kQ/X;Ň#jbZa5f1a-0~bYLXL?1W+YH#\W<9)DJ|乳d p֢;t?#:q/d%2ss-q;F.MIf?/P9l3M3d+ZI{5Dש~g0 NS,{Q8*Vlٳf͊E+BHVR Ђ3?ߛMuM&ohO+/6yrWӿ %6t_1Yy[WvRٹCI'G<_/IU5X3_g"ٳf͋Aq-<,RD`hAg?+ j?̜_~i5͜O=P|VEU;ƌ?OTqflٳfeAd)_D~?̫,͛=G('&Msxe˥֑' ku"Un'Wr͛6lٳ`+V.⿰ [{pyIQ~ 8_O"#l͛6lF+HqF 31ͻ8Hv^j&p͛6lٳ~R~q= [1 XgoIuι CRKlٳf͛6lٳf͛6lf͛6lٳf͛6lٳg3f͛6lٳfY~B#f%7<9)DJ|乳f͛6to*|Xy< ?S|G&z<)}b 3fɟ?of_=umREPn[;e\ou VmVhZA)O ٲQ >vKj|iȍdsC8vP(XI'/ y[_MvomTUQ@/q6-ĶI+)J͞DJF߼QYSL3_~d.pٳf͛6lٳ;f]LcIxG$o#uKB VE21yrǻɎ͛6lٳf͛=G('&Kn'SDK1gV]v}FۉZFypaW at;2PiV\8Q^}ɍl >]A$b\V%_fAGjn)^,?O8??uߐeYbf+ 3͝7?g`K)Z!qI_Y?cz?=e6lٳ~ie iDqѮ~}Տ?f'nX&Kv1ʥu (O6lȿ>7l|,؝یMCE^J7?Կ͛6lٳ_ErO6lٳf͛6lٳf͛?f͛6lٳf͛6lٳg3f͛6lٳfY~B#f%7<9)DJ|乳fM@5zfĽ@N;8Cu4ue'Iew3YoӥREɹ 0Y^Q~&^B!AvВ_VeG&Os( 6lS]oٙ"m4m #]_#?9ٰ>^z gz3RPsI5lZy~-6vi;aW\w򶲷VJZEP(E?J)6l~a:v&Y2s/_N2ė8nlٲM#^w*F͗7h׷RKM\#Z$w-9?\i}k@ix*'%6lS?7inDfqlZB$i^ܿy6lԿ,(gh R>؋qMO |z?PWݚI  yqhZ.ΠܑɎWoDkfu˸n=$ٵ .X;;Y&o,6v_X̃[D!?^7 HXd+meA Bb]ޙ[skۥd9 ֿDF?˩~=.Ri0Hz}&ݩ:$ 6lmMrT s6byCZ\\ ʀ]*/1o0;e+!c/Ϧk6l ~-|G7 ~-|G:Gil;h%-J ٳf͛6lٳf͛6lf͛6lٳf͛6lٳg3f͛6lٳfY~B#f%7<9)DJ|乳fO?yU4W"BzHxW͛<)}b 3fɟ?of_=JԍmbqKk6uZZC[w9Ek#k'ѿG'כOuO9Oޙy~)-nk{`"q`ޛ5͇KNX^AE,"{<9+O ͛6{3Qcvx2,Ir?2g"q,ٳg(}ͺ]DJ*)Vql𾹤͡_i;Km#F4?]6X%MFa폝|PZj7Qg"p_,VQ2GWV9! +ynjl??|c!"JXy)":emB6rx2Isf͛6r?mPn;5;\%LUa.f̓4 5[{"_=ѦiVگ`cAJ+d'gAO0y^"+%f3JSzLlٳߗ<]QZŒ_3͛=6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lf͛6lٳf͛6lٳg3f͛=TyNk($}:"1?/P9l2כt"3ٹg%dr7ڎ2Jʙٳg(ɮqi5ei1@F>~ԐWc7f͛6lٰp|r.tfgxxMo9폭⠞kğCp>Lf͛8 *v?Xb>_WTd\MCn ƙٰ.k4L*6x) ͛6z*oSbI瞿%ԟ6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳff͛6lٳf͛6lٳg3f͛=?ٳf͛<9)DJ|乳`"][ۿْhsYf͞K1C\晳dR73ƯgS ܹĹ͛6lٳf͛6{Gx- ?Jwa$sf?.`&ٳ_E-͛%ijg>)xaa$sfɗMn!4?ٹg$Xg$f͞CMM&7M48sV^5~(]?*?'ա^ͮcl}PCym$1N*Gsf͛6H|Ԅyr_/I\sf͛͞6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lf͛6lٳf͛6lٳg3f͛=?ٳf͛<9)DJ|乳aה?㻧eL.lٳg>?/P9l3M3ɟil~1L?~9l~u]1$~+P5D4oa)4f hk"ShѿDћ1 O7cF_Foƍ,6%?XmJ7Ȕ0F:Jwa$sf?.Zba{6lm0sf_Z_Gڙ 8ìY_=鍋7-g͛iw_E弩*ф }'SZPnP΋"f_Ϳ^dP!jQZIӜ}4? ijf͞CMM&fw]\'ʊElQ*ZasPGOz_O!~0'MO6@| MZ[?J5"J^?<%c) (Alo|!Gy!I"d6l?!{oip W<6 oJ-TwEtuKXmSƲ!VfG޼d&\!w-((ԇ՗x6l"im{OqG>czGlg%ԟ6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳff͛6lٳf͛6lٳg3f͛=?ٳf͛<9)DJ|乳aה?㽧eL.lٳg>?/P9l3M3Di4mrVs^?<ٛ6O3yWV2hι ^-z FǸ?Hi8Ӵ$\lZSGLiEg5͛=7dOIEZ{پ/^-HE͔ )d]. ΫqQMVQsߘyLA ~c8wf͒o,7|k`W Y=$!~֗=<9/ ๳f͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6f͛6lٳf͛6lٳg3f͛=?ٳf͛<9)DJ|乳aה?㽧eL.lٳg>?/P9l3M0ZMav7)+ͥ]XQ@_ 9DŽdt1H?=?ߑ?|vZGImOVu'3~tq,m[vo_3f͛=5|%ZB7Hq&;.yrWӿ %6w:_Msݙg ?+o7[6J-?**?מPVܯ8gFXpq&w>q_ܱSGE6lٳf͛6{+Q 717NL+y˯4 ŽuP8'\NlٳyS|)]MYXvx:d^+YmoUFG#1F4MfbvM9GrVigQKi&f'3`lo3jU۸pBY$ob (h׌0FU ͛6l>jҠ[>1?/P9l3M3d'϶"2DW`+)i+։{4F&xG:F\.͛6lٳgmR=w_qC)fCmiLߧ?K76l3u&3f)@V o6lZUT=9ol~oQ>[p?ݜSC%UԕeaBJ,lٳgUQ 鐂QMA+F޿rOf͛=G('&M6#<_/nXP;`]<_ٳf͛6/mm54 I誫Y_/ejZRP }$?%Q?yf͛#heP*EAqeaOOheI,񊖇/~g ͛6lٱHiG,@ Nzu#ĔQٞQܟbg%ԟ6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳff͛6lٳf͛6lٳgZyw_,iȳUu"oVj]9Zyw_,h젍b@AQ͛6l_'zRLksIKk9O5ծE<VsʴWZY_,~^yYNH݊WFfoW=6l/%י째D%IUUmO5ծE<VsʴWZYW忐åO!GG=U6G<#vW!UdJg/&eP=F[9_F$jw`?g 3fvZe,v l_jʳZR&xW?G;W$4,jB֑"/Χ6pϿ+jaK#Øו a9O5ծE<VsʴWZYי+YnV4&f1 عg:kd7zmz4BEG.BZyw_,iȳUu"H1ib6whUP~&fX͜ M7ZjDz%??gEuo|MEmZD&߳ V@DQ@TU_Vj]9Zyw_,iȳUu"zKŅm FCy;|C%sC2 9|8i;]yrak#$\X7 Z_tB~a,?n7?>ӆD-sѸ#lG6l0]CV趆OV.!ѿDя\Z[X"**f͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lGY%mI=I?t~]ҡ)Ocy}4+8_<1]kVͤU+GR͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6FɱzY¿C~ ?zF_QS0f9,=ÙebĖf5$l?C=6l__ZI)6u/Ja3չf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳgf͛6lٳf͛6lٳgcm2n ؅U?ͷ7^J\;I+,Ovf͂ʟ!͛6B7?Կ͛=e (?otٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳfͅ^g5|lٳf͛6lٳgTysf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͜cϺM Q<~Pb7\My+Mp$jij1=ٛlC6 ?*Ć{6l̿JOS6l_Kgsf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳff͛6lٳf͛6lٳg%;0\ṳ`/2Hg3f͐D5/Ŀ8ƹfY~B#f%76lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳaW}0<+6lZs*B6.A>vOg[~3ж?k?ћY_-Z4fm7 n-ֿs[unhB۬uFv??'yGu"K'rqp92͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6yrWӿ %6 ?*Ć{6l̿JOS6l_Kgsf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lٳff͛6lٳf͛6lٳN֧qgGz/OI $?sVNmְIeVkۇ3Wb_y\ٳg!?3MYhVyL'WvT3*Ŝu[Y.4%>G4Xcxٿ䭁jjZٷ _ H_!u^noY_Fǝʞ{Ѽ}.~R(㌋\|/$f́oZTݞF Ϝ_LZz 8G[7" z䆳1A$kuw[Vn(lpX5&؏Kcv?D}re#d2dE/ o=͓ӛHgQ|ŦWGJ5H>mLf͛6lٳaW}0<+6lT lٳf͛6lٱH)w!UEI'`s{hvv+lnV9*ĕN,q'Oe'҆!ڑ?Ƹ ?z=ߴCj_[ȯE9;7Z''L8\ӡӑh^aLi({$3隽a~f{VM NRmʽHA΃9 ,?I5f ?2zO\'՛OI $׋CxHtq+r}z cB:|\_KCyn!<; §XS>+c98gJ 2'|XеX5D}>cX8HU?΁2[H\*gJFGĬUUo|?sVrOo Y FR$ Xۆsٱ{IEB:>Gz/OI $?sVO|o?Muk ,ȐI#dberԠ'Rqt͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6f͛6lٳf͛6lٳj_5Lf͛6lƯRd됯D5/Ŀ8ƹfAy ^G[Ky,zB < OfTA ? calٰn]h1H?+?0zyP.#_I'ٳdBp Ao\c˾g sNdcF*;alٳf 'XVNNSzG42iZ5r c2#Iuٳf͛6lU_, ͛l?C=6lٳf͛6R}KR~_v_v(;Vĥgs~ h#6lٳf͇>\>[{L)Wp?bh̉kõ@ץݱ~Baem#7EfHb~b?|:s.,QEWdD߳G|3w9YK?-7],黆ѯ7'zb5ڄhU@`x8͛6lٳg?1+\̿JOS6l_(b(pWG)LR0i"ogcf͛6vɟI!{IKy~.'Ǥsf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͟f͛6lٳf͛6lٳj_5Lf͛6lƯRd됯D5/Ŀ8ƹf\ٳf͛%fo)YScfZ,ldy"iMvhr-?~ٞ>u^KYbjI?͛6lٳchFgy?DoΣ6lٳfͅ^g5|lٱRCPGPpw_TS7̿uoߙIRL2~e%KU3W[Jf/T5OͶ6rYujC3(vO[=O6yry]ڶV,BA4ELyf͛6lٲMO4jSB}%`Q13ȳ 2XFcQ}S`x6l?Vn5])8H&͛=!8Qgc?g_] $exѾN7?Կ͛6lٳ_ɿ.v__ZI)6j͛6l}72|ky3@a9R 6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lf͛6lٳf͛6lٳɿPoѨ\iדC$WFR8ĎŲhU5+iK6TcF &̿jYo'H<. ZjIA4m`r㝟!_j_qsf͛ 4QXm5(հ^ sEC.cscLFqᰓ6lٳܞON_9k Wü濛մ&qۊɐ\ٳ~VZۦr>7Q_֟.zCV *( UEX3~Oo5 *VwN2(ar1sDS45'$2FO3|S͛$K,R-X*ڍE{j52R:G%lW6lٳfͅ^g5|lٳf͛6lٳ~Ii1q̈́>sѴ+pL'"\<,R@UPE'6u/hއXy 9Xq*ea5?~pEi~W4T8 )\q`=r͟/Vn5]> FJUXwyg6lo]*X!!1G$Vl?`>Sw56<䇥ٳf͛6y8 7A¹f͛6lٳf΁%)=z6lJkx\x0a=ג NZ' ,#ԞΟjD[*\"[+6t-H, ,[DRo1ڍVw3ߟ: ZZ}$N1Qx'3̙fQ:JՍB_H$r1(0s['oV|?}`Y-&Xcy!PY*8m9+qpVl/_N2ė8nl/K{`Lٳg2*?*OבLٱX!E.UF~`~\~\YydԤPgOXa? }߶γ~l͚TבFmIg 9y?]W|y6lda_>[)?0kIf͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͟f͛6lٳf͛6lٳg%;0\ṳ`/2Hg3f͐D5/Ŀ8ƹfK8iys׿Y;Nl?V+ '¢Hfy[6l?D49299 xm3 ,(W<6a|Fy kaeY1ek/f/Xȹ7 wEeYu}FMb}BeTW ϨޚvT̀sfJ7]/HCh23͛6lٰƾY͛6/kfi͕kS=BgW)RL-VrE/TBgW)RL-VrE/TBgW)RL-VrE/TBgW)RL=w䅷}j;&k~ti$k}WuٳetƳ W^8'.BuOȏ/ZUlnLjO)9 $5iuҟ_/&Buoͯ5jD`C >C.%;?͛6lW?'_EO"|ٳgOїUJ\H*Q<ܶ?i}Ey ٳf͞r{'Is͂ʟ!͛6x/RSby͛'Zjmqc5y|D; mw5)Cۉ+sf84J͛6lٳf͛6lٳf͟f͛6lٳf͛6lٳg%;0\ṳ`/2Hg3f͐D5/Ŀ8ƹfWA Pk"3g2FoK<6lWobo 76y6lٳf͛6lc[Y,ٳf͛6y8 7A¹fz_eOzf͛6lٳf͜wNA6PwR4X>e'?$|󟙿1PES}4{zLٳfÍ#ڶ&k,b*(ܥట6lF>O5k#7Ef@4ZRwyf͛6yrWӿ %6 ?*Ć{6l̿JOS6l_(hHm#+gsf :׿7M6l_پQLlٳf͛6lٳf͛6lf͛6lٳf͛6lٳg%;0\ṳ`/2Hg3f͐D5/Ŀ8ƹfY~B#f%76s/ϿDfijɹfe~Q!&ɑ;#u_TǽRIo3ʹc@cA]φv8~EF;M-WqE՛0ȶе_Vo"jBW[YZo7 U\am5gCK+NOҳf͛6lU_, ͛l?C=6lٳf͛"_oKRXjGn+\K{3\1Y5%͛$Yf:L (RQ+?o;8ܠo=ZhUЈ{{~Ք~ƿrI"C*I@6qllٳ?\|j;F?1?ogf͞n57T?9f͛<9+O ͛l?C=6l__ZI)6u/Ja3չgk&Y6v(zW6lٳf͛6lٳf͛6lf͛6lٳf͛6lٳg%ޙ's |^pٱRCPGPsַ1—1Qʁ͛!_j_qsf͞F7K:nl_gsf͞CMM <1y~MQ偸_%3]69Yg-<ƞh`"IߗdfVEvlk0PI4rN[yfx VAKf͛6lٳf¯3af>xW6l"arxu5KykY\_U;_"1Zkf_ȸ7 wEeYc,./*CfqVo-5ʲQ-+ϗ2i\1QASMd<9)NӁB+Jc\`+W:rzUk>2B nOl~ly?.bF`%+i^̑Lkg4O,y5xocC+8?O`G\ҐuڭxG1B^F|hfE}ƿݒ>/V(C)0ŝ>}u:p֟-_7 YR#*"z(9rlmoxuiWXׂvĿo\ٳf͛6y8 7A¹f͛6lٳf͝q;7 ?i8I۲Z}ɿpٱHh\I)،?14;YFʉ|уhCO5k#7EfL7c;6lٳf 9-fZ2tF3D&=f͛:9`9}igmu-׳o%'9[I<.Uĕ? ٳf͛6loi|ˬGIba)KGܳf͛6lٰƾY͛6lٳf͛6l_پQLs/*?un,̠ nS<6l&{4bgخ%4pA4"͛=388: p͑_EO"|ٳgy1MÝ6lٳg6ЛZD9IdrP ' NlٳfI6]sүw*hdgmeUT"gR_=[6xO_ֽmgjmgsf͛6lٳf͛6lٳff͛6lٳf͛6lٳc$eR+;3__W>JkDgҥbcTuy*b6lٳ5\ԭ 3Y CRK@evE\#N`*%_'sƏOLf͛6liWzia ;tHԱ?wHt|[!2FG?W-ۛ6lٳf͛ k \ٳf͛6lٳf84JlFyWfm:g<۠DiA=V/MVlٰMƣ2ZFL抈e_;HdҪ(gb`_-yo8{ @ۜ`A"`M6voǏ1.ϣhцJ"ȼF?1?ogf͞o 7vlٳf͌5 rOϒnM*V&9'өy?g9͛6l7<.;o2D2*?*OבLٳ?V /i͛<'/^L6ٳ6faGM3ҹf͛6lٳf͛6lٳgf͛6lٳf͛6lٳfn-㺍H +|,̵O-fl\HH12O:q`Oյ5+]AYе_V-E}"oㆋ ̴#I'Uм+\i02NiZHfT]7MV[uf`6V>km7RVkveb*?sf 9ʄoٿByG7lhz5b,(4/ sfnmE7dpH)_lu^8CVȩ=Xy iە轖XC&ui^6y_-WqEՆ( nBGyLi?W+^?X[JgDtM?AeVxFk6͛6lٳf́-RKYTdj0οByG7l8Z0{.5t GcX%WaLܥygVq5HjkKdGT'3*?sf 9V/"+4'ãzͱlxU`,0#F,8ŜT'3*?sf 9ʄo-&[=HbǕw%rA6lٳb7F̋$ne` e\Z'w3Zz.w$CV'rs88?7L0ȶh.QX Ħ4Xo/.d?76Oy2GIiHJח.ޟTVs_g:ڍRrDO_ʄoٿByG7lwiv7mARjHG VXѠU*wiKDE Q#bEAhT A;7{f[N:3gwsv޻ GrD[T~˖^>kqJg=!.:BYNޡ.˽{}Ɣ6A{V>NwfX>mrG>ڊ5E]C#.=>fYbbk'c1Gd cDu x}n=X_Y^=X{` ZQxőٷ\L>.=M;㇤?M=߱4T+>ߺ"b~e]ܑcs`],ar/6^-nO[󍛠"|~>eqi>\ɇm7!|:ɇ72:|LA^Bï$u{L>|夲 9a wrJŻWy^^u,+XNwcF[((ؗv7(_i/xcr29V<?Mʟ9?oI'7a=S;yfFyS'yea` qiX!srrx@N_\/zb Ns`]L۩8x)s>ݦzz?~6Y$?tr$zUyA) ]83^pe_2~ЅYI|0 ]X=9ߘj$_dcuT̟;}n;ɹc+˭ ~u=5K·!]|}@F;. —*|wd5Z'dl.cMf7.⿝!bӌ)FLt|eѾ XcpvW؅:W|z̵';oovNmn,{|{g-~pDeW3FFcKއ܇yG]܇yBή>k]Fd_{mBw4¾3sCp9!pr˚$ѥNsSÿec·2fq4̑u+GNՖnD{snQ c[_l-}' {>>[o-],ņM~6]~3aa}߀MkLloAt_7`j7=~7R:WgFR͡9٣՘6\j΁}Ci5WsQ͡՜ޜ՜w7Y5O<;Sy\׫W2ٙ3]=!g9kV@W;UQeK^$gG$g\ϠswfSیڌE+؉sgf1%rɘ&97Q^p$$If!vh5(5 5 #v(#v :Vl t65(5 aytapp$$If!vh5(5 5 #v(#v :Vl t65(5 aytapp$$If!vh5(5 5 #v(#v :Vl t65(5 aytapp$$If!vh5(5 5 #v(#v :Vl t65(5 aytap$$If!vh555j5#v#v#vj#v:Vl t6555j5ytap$$If!vh555j5#v#v#vj#v:Vl t6555j5ytap$$If!vh555j5#v#v#vj#v:Vl t6555j5ytap$$If!vh555j5#v#v#vj#v:Vl4 t6+555j5ytap$$If!vh555j5#v#v#vj#v:Vl4 t6+555j5ytap$$If!vh555j5#v#v#vj#v:Vl4 t6+555j5ytap$$If!vh555j5#v#v#vj#v:Vl4 t6+555j5ytap$$If!vh555j5#v#v#vj#v:Vl t6555j5ytap$$If!vh555j5#v#v#vj#v:Vl t6555j5ytap$$If!vh555j5#v#v#vj#v:Vl t6555j5ytap$$If!vh555j5#v#v#vj#v:Vl4 t6+555j5ytap$$If!vh555j5#v#v#vj#v:Vl4 t6+555j5ytap$$If!vh555j5#v#v#vj#v:Vl4 t6+555j5ytap$$If!vh555j5#v#v#vj#v:Vl4 t6+555j5ytap$$If!vh5p555p#vp#v#vp:V l t065p55paytap$$If!vh5p555p#vp#v#vp:V l t065p55paytap$$If!vh5p555p#vp#v#vp:V l t065p55paytap$$If!vh5p555p#vp#v#vp:V l t065p55paytap$$Ifl!vh555T5T#v#v#vT:V l t06555TalytOT$$Ifl!vh555T5T#v#v#vT:V l t06555TalytOT$$Ifl!vh555T5T#v#v#vT:V l t06555TalytOT$$Ifl!vh555T5T#v#v#vT:V l t06555TalytOT$$Ifl!vh555T5T#v#v#vT:V l t06555TalytOT$$Ifl!vh555T5T#v#v#vT:V l t06555TalytOT$$Ifl!vh555T5T#v#v#vT:V l t06555TalytOT$$Ifl!vh555T5T#v#v#vT:V l t06555TalytOT$$Ifl!vh555T5T#v#v#vT:V l t06555TalytOT$$If!vh5550 #v#v#v0 :Vl t 6`X*B*phj@j > Table Grid7:V0ZQ`Z lp Body Text 3$1$7$8$H$a$5OJQJ\mH sH bo!b\d marisa burnal/567>*B*CJOJQJ\]^JaJphH+`2H ap Endnote TextCJaJmH sH tH >oA> ap Char Char3_HmH sH tH >*`Q> apEndnote ReferenceH*4@b4 $Header  !4 @r4 $Footer  !.)@. D Page Numberih$8$p$$XYrsV W   }7~77777/808J00n@cy0 FBJ00ا@0L<Arial J00@18BaJ00Hc@ce0$ J00 @Be0ll MTJ0 0 V@0x,ScriptJ0 0 H2@0Showcard J00n@ M0TQ,J00W/b0/c/dJ00Wk@/l/m/nJ00x@0rJ00P@0J00@0J00@0J000@0'()*LM  *+:;HIUVpqOP-C\u <ghiu v   $ s -*+}+H^Z CD;D|LMwx01\a|}H I q r !!!!""""##$$*$+$%%%%N&]&k&y&&&&/'0'V'W'P(Q((())))**++,,,,o-p-..t0u011)3*33344o5p566666j8k88b:c:<<<>>>??QEQ/R0R:RRRRR0SUUU0V1VwVqWrW{W|WW_YjYkYlY~YYZZZZ'\(\g\h\^^``bbbbddffDgEgyjzjk kkkmmooqqssuuuukvlvxxzz}}}}56Ãȃ̓΃ԃ܃ '(./0?JKQ_jy=>^fABqr56STˌ̌^3LMklŔƔ"#ۘ~FGZ[ħŧЧ>?x߭P=1 >ov[Ķ׶ܶgh#$8۽&'KL]^ervwr\67FG^_fg\]yz#$:;XYCDFGuxfg67bc239 = k l   UV<=UVMNZ[nou78xyE}`axyJK 6XY^ijnrsxL Q V W X      !!!!G#H#$$&&''''''''''''(((((((($(1(3(8(=(>(?({((((((((((G)L)R)S)T)))++,,,--J.K./022335555666(7S7}7~7777777777778#8)8/80818}8~89999:*;;;<<#?$?AAAAhCkC(D)DDE=FaG^IMMMM"O#O0S1S@WAWmXXXXXZZZZ\\^^``bbbbudvdeff$f%f7f8f[g\gggigiijj~lmmmmnn3p4prruuvvwwxxyzzz}}~~(~)~~~T[8#w_`7UVWJK]^'3HTYZ_cglmrvzċɋʋϋҋ֋ۋ܋OPǐȐFGϓQǔhJK,-ۛ56ghmqrsx|  AEFGHMNO[]ghħϧ٧ "#)*5:@DJOU[agmqwx}~ĨШԨ '-9>JKLĩʩЩթ۩ܩݩ38AENS\]clqwxyתܪ)BZi~)abhg)3>GZoz|}İͰӰٰݰ "(48DEJWY_eiouz"(-456Dz̲ҲӲԲ28AENT]^dmrxy'2z{FGBK0vwx.NOUV[`fgmnsx~'-.39:;GH2Jdeklqv{|6Nhinoty~ m00000000000000 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 0 0 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000@000000000000000@0@0@00000000000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0000000000000000000000000 0 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 0 0 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000800000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000c0c0c0c0c0c0c00= 0= 0= 0= 0= 0= 0= 0= 0= 0= 0= 00V0V0V0V0V0V0V0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V0V0V0V0V0V0V0V0V0V0V0V0V0V0V0V0V0V0V0V0V0V0V0V0V0V0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V0V0V0V0V0V0V0V0V0V0V0V0V0V0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V0V0V0V0V0V0V0V0V0V0V0V0V0V0V0V0V0V0V0V0V0V0V0V0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V0V0V0V0V0V0V0V0V0V0V0V0V0V0V0V0V0V0V0V0V0V0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0000000000000000000000 0 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000000 00000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 0 00 00 0 0 00 0 00 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 00 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 0 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 0 0 00 00 00 0 00 00 0 0 0 00 00 00 0 00 00 0 0000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 0 00 00 0 0 00 0 00 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 00 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 0 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 0 0 00 00 00 0 00 00 0 0 0 00 00 00 0 00 00 0 000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 000000000 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000@0H00@0H00@0H00@0H00@0H00@000 s CD|LM\aH Z'\(\g\h\^^b^fr56ST3LMk>׶ܶ&'KLXYCDFGuxfg6bc239 = k l   UV<=UVMNZ[nou78xyE}`axyJK 6XY^ijnrsxL Q V W X      !!!G#H#$$&&'''''''''''(((((((($(1(3(8(=(>(?({((((((((((G)L)R)S)))++,,,--J.K./022335555666(7S7}7~7777777777778#8)8/80818}8~89999:;;<<#?$?AAAAhCkC(D)DDE=FaG^IMMMM"O#O0S1S@WAWmXZZZffYZlmɋʋۋ܋PǐȐFϓQǔhghqrs|  AEF"#wxJK۩ܩwxBZi~)|}DE"(-45Dz̲ҲӲ8^dmrxyK0vx.NO`fgx~-.39:GJdev{|6Nhiy~mJ00J00J00@0h@0hJ00@0$@0$@0$H00H0 0H0 0H0 0 H0 0J00J00J00J00B00B00B00B00B00B00B00B00B00B00B00B00B0 0B0 0B0 0B00 B00 B00 B00 B0000B00B00B00B00 B00 B00 0H0J00J00J0 0J0 0 J0 0 J00J00J00J00J00@0@0@0@0@0J00J00 J00J00 J00@0@0J0#0J0#0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0J0(0@0@0@0@0@0 @0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0 @0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0 @0@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$`0$@0$@0$@0$@0$`0$@0$@0$@0$@0$`0$@0$@0$@0$@0$L @0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$`0$@0$@0$@0$@0$`0$@0$@0$@0$@0$`0$@0$@0$@0$@0$L @0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$X@0$X@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$ @0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$ @0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$ @0$@0$ @0$ @0$@0$| @0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@ 0$@ 0$@ 0$@ 0$@ 0$@ 0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$@0$J00J00J00J00 @005J00 J00J00 J00J00 J00J00 J00J00 J00J0 0 J00J0 0 J00J00 J00J00 J00J00J00J00~@0@0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0J00J00 J00J00J00 J00J00J00 J00J00J00J00 J00 J00J0 0 J0 0 J00J0 0 J0 0 J00J00J00J0 0!J00J00J0"0#J00J00J0$0%J0?07J0?07J0.0J0&0  @00  J0?0]@J0?0VJ0A0]B-3J0?0VJ0C0]D.3J0?0VJ0E0]FP.3J0?0VJ0G0]H.3J0?0VJ0I0]J.3J0?0VJ0K0]L.3J0?0VJ0M0]N0/3J0?0VJ0?0W@J0?0VJ0?0TJ00J00 J0T0XU/3J00J0V0XW,03J00J0X0XYd03J00J0Z0X[03J00J00 J00J0=0I>J00 J00 J00 J00J00 0HF J0D0FEJ0D0EJ0D0C 0HFJ000HF J00J0K0CLJ0K0BJ0K0@ J00J00J00@0X @0XJ0K0LJ0K0J0K0J00 J021/J021.J021-J021!J021 J021J061'J061(J061(J061'J061% J00J00 J00J00J00J00J00J00J00J00J00J00J00J00J0F1G J0F1G J0F1 J00J0 0J0R0 J0R0J021/J00J00 J00J00J00 J00 J00 J00J00 J00 J0 0 J00J00J0z0J0z0J0z0{ J0z0 J00J00  J00J00J0 0J00J00J00J0t1 J0t1 J00J00 @0 J0pDJ0J0 I ;'-,4JL,])duEľ-//@bu~9Fho  '2>ACEGR_u* &-4DLaU_ayr6܋ ?>lv\= X'r''''V((H+/00=000R14}???/@AUvl}_ɓۓȘr Eh"#wxJK۱ܱwx|}DE45ҺӺxyvNf~9l~    !"#$%&()*+,-./013456789:;<=?@BDFHIJKLMNOPQSTUVWXYZ[\]^`abcdefghijklmnopqrstvwxyz{|}~ !l,R$tocRM $@(  t  C *Afoelog_k3"B S  ?_#, Juxv|n{wĖxx+}yn{z7}{F|}x~$xԐdxDx+},\d$䶘``T``dlf,fe~,,hz}<ԏLqLd lyxx}4utQ4P4OtOtPPP\gx4+|oL|.L,'ܭ,Eex,D„}Ä}Ą}ńƄDŽԅȄɄʄ˄x̄̈́T}΄$~τ\Єф }҄axӄ4rԄxՄfxքׄ>؄لAڄ\ۄ܄Dx?x@xAxBTxCxDxExFTxGxHxIxJTxKxLxMxNTxOxP}QD}R}S}T}UD}V}W}X}YD}Z}[}\}]D}^}_}`Luaubuc vdLvevfvg whLwiwjwk xlLxmxnxo ypLyqyrys ztLzuzvzw {xL{y{z{?tw0KKBJJ>>CC]]FFgJgJJJ?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~&&J~;QQMLL@@EE__  FFiJiJJJCNCNNNN$O$OOOOOVPVPPP Q Qkpspspdu y yjjÓÓttĸBB::dkuu~~EE__bbLLjj  D D   wwYY  !!""##$$%%''v)v)//R4R455-6-66677I7I7t7t7f8f8I9I9;;< = ===??AAqDqDTPTPSSWVWVVWWpp%%;;II\\UU++bb22hhAA5  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~=*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceType=*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceName9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace8*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCityB*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-region ] $- HK),.2 *!7!5'?'''''7(:(I)L)`)c)++991>;>_CbCEElGpGGGIIKKLLAMIMMM?PAPSSZZ]]^^bblcocyd|d"f%fEgHgj"jgjjjkk3k6kJrSrrr|rrsttuueuguuuwwww(x*xxxzz_bqtŎȎ'17Aۘޘ!%is!ch~%/ EHOYy|`c24TV SYPZgqtw Z ] m p 36jm!!k"o"I%L%&&$('(?(B(- -;-=-m-o-O.R.22223344EESSsXxX__````ffggn npnznqqqq>vBvxvzv3y5y#}0}~~gjUW/7•ϕV` š͡"$%(13ceLOilhkPT]ajmJM-1vyٵܵdftwOR#iqsv")+Z^wz8<UX|CE+/KS$'$%%0'?'4(6()),,----116688<<>>3?8?Q?_?CCDDDEGGG G`GsGyG~GGGGGCHLH7I:IIINKRKKKKKcLsL?MIMMMPM NNNO O OO!O2O6ORR!S,SU"U1V8V^ŋ69И֘ٝߝGSowS\ ݵTZܶþrywGWgv]d=K>J!%cl= D  Ve8Gy  T)a),,,,005518>899::-;7;;;==AADDGGMMTGTXXZZbb d d\gfgmmSuYu>vBv357OBG֒E ܛhshs1733333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333BG::::NNNNO OjjBoEo~ " ~Z\:u+x'*IN8J4 :T1?Hf2M/E"^Z7Znel#>wi܅^`o() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.h^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hH\^`\o(\^`\o(.0^`0o(..0^`0o(... 88^8`o( .... 88^8`o( ..... `^``o( ...... `^``o(....... ^`o(........^`o(. ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.h^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hH^`o() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH.h^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh 88^8`hH)h ^`hH.h  L ^ `LhH.h   ^ `hH.h xx^x`hH.h HLH^H`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h^`OJQJo(hHh ^`OJQJo(oh pp^p`OJQJo(h @ @ ^@ `OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh PP^P`OJQJo( M/E*IN8?"#>wiZ:u+ :ne^                                                                                  323"n"mUJ $|dZsi<''p1-3TD?ROUAYkd<=h"jnnapXrVz&ESt u=i<+LlpOfC)F6Z_HP-AfKc@f>]jDL* JÃȃ̓΃ԃ܃ '(./0?JKQ_jyB>׶nou 6XY^jnrsxL Q V W X     ''''''''''((((((($(3(8(=(>(?({((((((((((G)L)R)S)666(7S7}7~777777777778#8)8/8086'HYZ_cglmrvzċɋʋϋҋ֋ۋ܋ghmqrsx|  AEFħ٧"#*5@JUamwx~Ш '9JKLĩЩ۩ܩݩ3AN\]lwxyת3GZo|}Ͱٰ "4DEJYeoz(456DzҲӲԲ2AN]^mxy0.NOV[`fgnsx~'.39:2Jdelqv{|6Nhioty~ 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3y0?N y0= 3 3W@  &  &@Unknown N Ferriday marisa burnalmarisa burnal20080131T09268418Z marisa burnalGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z ArialCTimesNewRomanMTimesNewRoman,Bold?5 z Courier New;Wingdings"1hVff~9FFU9FFU!nnx4 2qHX ?p12#Adding Capacity at Heathrow Airport N Ferriday N Ferriday4         Oh+'0  , L X dpx$Adding Capacity at Heathrow Airport N FerridayNormal N Ferriday18Microsoft Office Word@tb]5@&x@yby9FF՜.+,0  hp|  U $Adding Capacity at Heathrow Airport Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~ Root Entry F vĂyData R>1Table:CWordDocument02SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q