South Port NZ Ltd releases Climate-Related Disclosures

NZX Announcement
NZX: SPN: South Port New Zealand
22 September 2025

South Port NZ Ltd releases Climate-Related Disclosures
South Port New Zealand Limited (SPN) is pleased to advise that its Climate-Related
Disclosures Report has been released for the reporting period ended 30 June 2025.

A copy is attached and is also available at:
https://southport.co.nz/annual-report/2025#report_content


For further information contact:

Mr Nigel Gear
Chief Executive
South Port New Zealand Ltd
Tel: (03) 212 8159
Email: ngear@southport.co.nz

Mr Philip Cory-Wright
Chair
South Port New Zealand Ltd
Mobile: 021 767 828
Email: philip@cory-wright.co.nz

Media: Hollie Cooper
Communications Advisor
South Port New Zealand Ltd
Tel: 027 750 0042
Email: hcooper@southport.co.nz

---

YEAR ENDED 30 JUNE 2025

Page | 2











South Port is developing its capacity to comprehend and
respond to the challenges that our business faces from climate
risks. The main accomplishments in the reporting period from 1
July 2024 to 30 June 2025 are:
1. Prepared Transition Plan to set our strategy regarding climate
change impacts.
2. Implementation of Green House Gas (GHG) emissions
accounting system to facilitate calculation, reporting, and
audit of our emissions.
3. Developing Energy Master Plan to identify potential
opportunities towards decarbonisation.
4. Completed a sea level rise and storm surge study to
understand possible physical impacts on our assets.
5. Completed the annual review of the Risk Assessment,
including climate-related risks.
6. Completed the annual review of Scenario Analysis.
7. Development of Sustainability Strategy to formalise our
Corporate Sustainability approach (People, Planet, and
Prosperity), according to Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs) including SDG13 - Climate Action.
8. Obtained assurance of our Scope 1 and Scope 2 GHG
Emissions.
In preparing South Port’s CRD, the Board and Executive
Leadership Team (ELT) have elected to use the following
Adoption Provisions in NZ CS 2 in FY25:
• Adoption provision 2: Anticipated financial impacts. A
qualitative description of anticipated financial impacts has
been provided.
• Adoption provision 6: Comparatives for metrics. As required,
we have provided one year of comparative metrics (including
Scope 3 GHG emissions).
• Adoption provision 7: Analysis of trends.
• Adoption provision 8: Scope 3 GHG emissions assurance.

















Important Note: South Port has used reasonable efforts in the
preparation of this CRD to provide accurate information, but
cautions reliance being placed on representations that are
necessarily subject to significant risks, uncertainties, or
assumptions. This report contains forward-looking statements,
including climate-related metrics, climate scenarios,
assumptions, estimated climate projections, forecasts,
statements of South Port’s future intentions, estimates and
judgements that may not evolve as predicted. These statements
necessarily involve assumptions, forecasts and projections about
South Port’s present and future strategies and South Port’s
future operating environment.

Such statements are inherently uncertain and subject to
limitations, particularly as inputs, available data, and information
are likely to change. South Port has sought to provide a
reasonable basis for forward-looking statements and is
committed to progressing our response to climate-related risks
and opportunities over time but is constrained by the novel and
developing nature of this subject matter. Climate-related risk
management is an emerging area and often uses data and
methodologies that are developing and uncertain. Climate-
related forward-looking statements may, therefore, be less
reliable than other statements South Port may make in its
annual reporting.
We have based these statements on our current knowledge as
of 16 September 2025. There are many factors that could cause
South Port’s actual results, performance, or achievement of
climate-related metrics to differ materially from that described,
including economic and technological viability, as well as
climatic, government, consumer, and market factors outside of
South Port’s control. To the fullest extent permitted by law,
South Port disclaims responsibility for any loss suffered in
reliance on these CRD. Nothing in this report should be
interpreted as capital growth, earnings, or any other legal,
financial, tax, or other advice or guidance.
Signed on behalf of South Port New Zealand Limited:



Philip Cory-Wright Nicola Greer
Chair Chair, Audit and Risk Committee
16 September 2025 16 September 2025



As a Climate Reporting Entity (CRE) under the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013, South Port New
Zealand Limited (South Port or the Group) is publishing our second Climate-Related Disclosures
(CRD) and extending our environmental reporting from previous Annual Reports. These CRD comply
with the Aotearoa New Zealand Climate Standards (NZ CS) 1, 2 and 3 issued by the New Zealand
External Reporting Board. This report is South Port’s CRD.

Page | 3


Section 1 Governance P.03
Section 2 Strategy P.04
Section 3 Risk Management P.07
Section 4 Metrics and Targets P.09
Section 5 Deloitte Independent Limited Assurance Report P.14

BOARD OVERSIGHT
The Board of Directors oversees how the Group identifies and handles climate-related risks and
opportunities. This includes setting the risk appetite and tolerance, and approving South Port’s
strategy, any future targets, and controls for responding to climate change.
The Board’s Audit and Risk Committee has delegated responsibility from the Board for oversight of
the Group's response to climate-related risks. This committee meets three times a year, with climate-
related risk as a standing agenda item. The Audit and Risk Committee met three times during FY25.
The Board delegates the overall responsibility of managing risk to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO).
Directors are responsible for their own continuous education and to keep themselves up to date on
relevant climate-related issues that may affect the Port. The Board itself is responsible for
incorporating specific skill and knowledge requirements into management positions that ensure
competency to deal with climate-related risks and opportunities. The Board requires the Executive
Leadership Team (ELT) to provide all relevant information to them and to engage external experts
where required knowledge is not available within the organisation.



EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP TEAM’S (ELT) ROLE
The CEO, Chief Financial Officer (CFO), and the Infrastructure and Environmental Manager take responsibility
for assessing and managing climate-related risks and opportunities at ELT level, supported by the Risk and
Technology Manager. The ELT is supported in these workstreams by external parties with relevant expertise.
The ELT submits updates to the Board as appropriate, which are included in the monthly board papers. In
FY25, this included consideration of South Port’s recently developed Sustainability Strategy and Energy
Strategy, the results of a sea level rise and storm surge study by Great South, and South Port’s transition
plan. The Board also receives updates on climate-related risk from the Audit and Risk Committee, for
example, the outputs of work done in FY25 to consolidate South Port’s climate-related risks. Each climate-
related risk in South Port’s risk assessment is allocated to an ELT member, who then has particular oversight
of that risk. The Sustainability Committee, comprising all ELT members, meets at least six times a year, with
these meetings aligned with the ELT meetings. This is the primary mechanism by which management is
informed about, makes decisions on, and monitors, climate-related risks and opportunities. Work
undertaken by the Sustainability Committee is presented to the Board by the ELT for review, discussion, and
approval. This includes metrics and actions for managing climate-related risks as well as opportunities such
as South Port’s transition plan. The CEO and ELT evaluate any new or amended business strategy with
reference to climate-related risks and opportunities, and this analysis is submitted to the Board where the
potential impacts of a climate-related risk or opportunity are considered material. In the reporting period,
there were at least 8 occasions where the Board received reporting from ELT on climate-related issues.

Page | 4



South Port’s purpose is to facilitate the best logistics solutions for the
region. We achieve this through the provision of wharf infrastructure,
warehousing, marine, and cargo handling activities, while developing
and influencing optimal logistics solutions along the supply chain with
port linkages. Owing to the long-term nature of infrastructure, the Port
has generally made decisions with a long-term view. Over the last few
years, we have invested in building our capabilities to understand and
manage climate-related risks and opportunities and will look to integrate
the insights into our future processes. Although the world has started to
see the effects of climate change, South Port has not experienced any
material climate-related impact to our operations in FY25.
SCENARIO ANALYSIS
In 2023 -2024, we employed a Climate Change Advisor for a fixed-term
and conducted a qualitative study on the effects of climate-related
forces on our strategy and value chain. The scope of the analysis was
focused on the Port’s immediate geographic terrain and the domestic
trade structure.
This allowed an investigation of the core physical exposure, and the
exposure to a shift in domestic economic structure for the timeframe of
2024-2050. This study was conducted internally as a standalone piece of
work, but the results were assessed against South Port’s risk
management processes to ensure a consistent approach was taken.
This process included an initial climate-related risk assessment, including
scenario analysis. The assessment involved collaborative workshops with
internal stakeholders, including the ELT and other relevant roles.
Outcomes from the workshops included establishing the scope and
boundaries of the risk assessment. This included determining value
chain inclusions, time horizons, frequency of assessment, and identifying
key risk areas.
The Board had the opportunity to participate in and view recordings of
scenario analysis workshops undertaken. These were conducted by the
Climate Change Advisor and overseen by the CFO in FY24. No external
stakeholders or partners were involved in the scenario analysis process.
The scenario analysis technical report highlighting the projected impacts
of climate-related forces was then shared with the Board for their
feedback.
To create different scenarios for the Port, we followed a series of steps
based on 15 factors that affect the Port's operations and environment.
These factors include social, technological, legal, political, economic, and
environmental aspects. We used these factors to create narratives that
showed how the Port could be affected by different situations in the
future. We looked at the whole system that the Port is part of, not just
one part of it. South Port opted for three scenarios as per the overview
in the table opposite. The 'Orderly' (Net Zero 2050) scenario has an
emphasis on transition risks which we are specifically exposed to
through the clients using our Port. Conversely, the 'Hot house' (Current
Policy) scenario focuses on physical risks that affect us significantly as we
are a key part of the region's infrastructure with assets that inherently
have a long lifespan. The 'Disorderly' (Delayed Transition) scenario is the
third climate-related scenario and shows a mix of both transition and
physical risk.
The adopted scenarios were preferred for two reasons: First, the
scenarios expose South Port’s business model to maximum plausible
physical/transitional risks and thus explore South Port’s strategic
resilience to both abrupt and systemic manifestations of climate-related
forces. Such an experimental exposure provides an optimal tool to
stress-test South Port’s business and processes.
Secondly, the scenarios maximise intra-sectoral alignment and
comparability within the sector, as the generated scenario narratives
closely align with the transport sector-specific scenarios developed by
the consultancy firm KPMG, in partnership with the Aotearoa Circle, in
direct collaboration with primary sectoral stakeholders. As a result,
South Port’s generated scenarios are not only specifically tailored for
maximum and targeted applicability to South Port’s business model, but
are also aligned with the transport sector scenarios.
The scenarios adopted and risk assessment covered all of South Port’s
operations.
In FY25 South Port conducted a review of its scenarios to confirm their
application. No changes were made to the scenarios as described
below.

CLIMATE-RELATED RISKS AND OPPORTUNITIES
TIME HORIZONS
SHORT TERM
Now – 2030

Aligns with the remaining useful life of some
critical assets. Additionally, it is indicative of the
New Zealand Government’s level of
decarbonisation ambition.

MEDIUM TERM
2031 – 2040

Aligns with the lifecycle of our assets and
corresponds with the timeframe when
dynamics of a dominant scenario will be
materially entrenched.

LONG TERM
2041 - 2050

Long-term horizon out to 2050 aligns with
international emission reduction targets (Paris
Agreement, 2050). It represents the last stage
of total institutionalisation of preceding
legislative/economic/policy dynamics.












These timelines are linked to our strategic planning horizons for
capital expenditure. Small land-based mobile plant and equipment are
aligned with short-to-medium timeframes whereas larger land based,
and floating plant are focused on the medium-to-longer term. Our asset
management plan and property masterplan are key documents that
align with both the medium - and longer-term horizons.
The time horizons set out for scenario analysis are also aligned to the
time horizons used for the risk identification.

Page | 5



ORDERLY (NET ZERO 2050)
This scenario depicts a rapid and ambitious transition to a low-carbon
future, driven by strong societal demand for climate action and
international cooperation on climate policy. The pathway to Net Zero 2050
involves an initial burst of activity to decarbonise society and the economy,
followed by sustained efforts to maintain low emissions across all sectors.
Renewable energy sources, energy efficiency, and afforestation are key
enablers of this transition.
Domestic freight is assumed to shift increasingly towards coastal shipping
and rail, which directly affects our business. The global shipping industry
leans heavily towards using synthetic fuels, such as green ammonia, which
are produced from renewable electricity. These fuels have the potential to
offer a cleaner and cheaper alternative to fossil fuels and could reduce the
dependence on oil imports. The structure of cargo flowing through South
Port is altered, with lower agricultural output from Southland due to land
use changes and reduced import of petrol-based products.

DISORDERLY (DELAYED TRANSITION*)
Business as usual is assumed to persist until the effects of climate change
and the social responses become unavoidable. A series of severe climate
disasters in major economies triggers a sudden and radical shift to a low-
carbon world. Many businesses that are not resilient or strategically
exposed to climate risks collapse under financial and legal pressure. After
the shock, the economy gradually recovers in the new paradigm.
The freight sector is constrained by a lack of modal diversity and high
operational costs due to expensive alternative fuels. The production of
primary industries based on conventional agriculture and forestry is
drastically reduced. The Port faces a dramatic change in cargo volumes.


SCENARIO OVERVIEW













HOT HOUSE (CURRENT POLICY*)
The world continues to rely heavily on fossil fuels and greenhouse gas
emissions keep rising. The global average temperature increases with
severe consequences for the climate system and human society.
Domestically, the mixture of internal economic pressures and international
inaction ensures that climate mitigation policy is not pursued. Occasional
severe climate events are more potent and support the drive toward
climate adaptation measures. While the change in weather patterns
reduces the output of the agricultural sector in some geographies,
Southland’s primary industries are not critically impacted.
Together with a stable domestic economic structure, cargo volumes
increase at the Port.
* South Port’s Disorderly and Hot House scenarios did not expressly include carbon sequestration
from afforestation or nature-based solutions, as anticipated by NZ CS 3, paragraph 51(a)(iii)












Orderly (Net Zero 2050) Disorderly (Delayed Transition) Hot House (Current Policy)
Policy Ambition 1.5°C 2.0°C 3.0°C
Pathways RCP2.6
SSP1-1.9
NGFS Net Zero 2050
RCP2.6
SSP1-2.6
NGFS Delayed Transition
RCP8.5
SSP3-7.0
NGFS Current Policy
Policy Reaction Intermediate and smooth Delayed None
Physical Risks Severity Moderate Moderate Extreme
Transition Risks Severity Moderate High Low
Freight mode share Significant shift from road to rail and
coastal shipping
Slight shift from road to rail and coastal
shipping
Mode share remains
unchanged

Page | 6










Climate-Related Risks and Opportunities
(Anticipated Time Horizon)
Anticipated Impact Anticipated Financial Impact (Qualitative)
Transition plan aspects of South Port’s strategy to
respond to Climate-Related Risks and Opportunities

Physical Risk

Increased sea level rise and rainfall results in disruption to on-land freight routes (roads, bridges,
railways) that connect the Port to Southland.
Medium/Long-term

Sea level rise, storm and tide surges impacting operations and damaging ships, infrastructure and
equipment.
Medium/Long-term

An increase in the number of high-wind days, that disrupt land-based and marine activities.
Medium/Long-term






Increase in the number of times, and the length of
the periods, in which South Port cannot offload or
receive cargo, operational inputs or staff due to
transit routes being unavailable.



Reduced revenues as port operations are
disrupted.

Significant costs of repairs and operational downtime.



South Port intends to integrate GHG emissions
consideration in significant capital investment decisions
where relevant, alongside technical and economic
considerations. No significant decisions were taken in
FY25 to change to lower carbon emissions equipment.

Transition Risk

Increasing cost of carbon associated with fossil fuel taxes.
Medium/Long-term

Increased insurance premiums, larger excesses, and reduced scope of coverage.
Medium/Long-term

Industrial and commercial demand for diesel decreases in Southland and regional wood producers in
Southland and Otago divert wood exports for local consumption as biomass for process heat.
Medium/Long-term

Increasing costs of commercial farming of ruminants drives down regional production of meat and dairy.
Demand for fossil fuels and farming inputs (like fertiliser and stock food) decreases. Decrease in yields
across regional forestry and agriculture as a result of climate-related impacts.
Medium/Long-term

Investing in low-carbon technology reduces the cost of accessing low carbon fuel infrastructure, while a
lack of investment increases it. An early transition to low-carbon assets may lead to net losses if
decarbonisation scenarios do not occur, but maintaining legacy fossil fuel infrastructure becomes costly if
they do.
Medium/Long-term

Persistent decarbonisation scenarios and perceived lack of action in mitigation planning could heighten
the risk of legal challenges from both public and private entities.
Medium/Long-term

A delay in transitioning and increased demand for low carbon machinery, impacts on supply and drives
increased costs.
Medium/Long-term















Shift in type of cargo and cargo volumes with lower
imports of diesel and agricultural inputs and lower
exports of meat, dairy products and timber products.

Shift in capital allocation to invest in end-of-trip
infrastructure for alternative fuelling, like hydrogen,
bioenergy, or diesel-electric hybrid.



Increased insurance costs and potential
stranded assets.

Reduced revenues due to fewer port calls.
Increased capital expenditure to transition to low
carbon equipment.



Intention to adopt strategies to build resilience
into the supply chain, including in FY25 engaging a third
party to undertake a study on the potential impact of
sea level rise and storm surge on South Port assets.

Transition Opportunity

National policy settings and government investment drive an increase in coastal shipping’s share of
domestic freight movement.
Medium-term

Large-scale infrastructure climate resilience projects and large-scale rebuilds from climate-induced
extreme weather events drive a significant increase in building and construction material imports.
Medium-term








Increase in coastal shipping, exports from aquaculture
and imports due to higher economic activity in the
region.



Higher revenue from increasing number of port calls.



South Port intends to work with customers and other
external parties to determine future infrastructure
requirements to take advantage of increased cargo
throughput.
In FY25, South Port is not aware of any current material climate-related physical or transition impacts, including financial impacts. The material
climate-related risks and opportunities identified in South Port’s scenario analysis process to date, together with anticipated impacts, are listed in the
table below. Funding decisions relating to South Port’s transition initiatives below have to date been made as part of business as usual funding decision
making processes, with climate-related risks and opportunities considered as part of capital deployment.

Page | 7




This table summarises South Port’s approach to climate-related risk management, which is integrated into the Group’s overall risk management processes.

01
IDENTIFY


Identify high-level risk hotspots
and drivers along value chain



For all potential risks, we identify where, when, why, and how, the potential risk could
prevent the achievement of strategies, plans, and objectives.

We allocate the risk to one of the nine risk categories identified in the Group’s Risk Management
Framework, which allows us to identify risk hotspots including fuel technologies, predicted weather
patterns, emerging or contracting markets, or new regulation.

Internal and external stakeholders are consulted where relevant to ensure wider context
is understood and all risks are identified.






Carry out initial screening of
potential risks




Potential risks, (including climate risk where material), are submitted to South Port's (Material) Risk
Register and then evaluated as to the type of risk and its driver; how the risk may present itself in
South Port’s context; the potential financial impact; the likelihood of impact and the expected time
horizon; and any assumptions or sources of information used in the assessment.

Risks that are rated as 'low' do not require any further action except to record and monitor. For
inherent risks rated other than low, controls are put in place to address the risk. Controls are
categorised as either preventative, detective or corrective controls.

The Group’s risk matrix includes climate as an additional risk category. This category includes
assessment criteria relating to the potential impact a climate-related scenario would have on our
assets, and the timeframe of impacts materialising. The assessment assists us to proportionately
assess climate-related risks against the Port’s other material risks.




02
ASSESS



Carry out formal assessment to
determine risk




Screened risks are rated on a scale from Low to Extreme.

Depending on the context, the evaluation may require engagement with specialised external experts,
predictive modelling, engagement with stakeholders in the value chain linked to the hazard, etc. This is
a judgement call for the ELT in conjunction with the Board. All climate-related risks are assessed using
the Group's Risk Management Framework, with the top risks being included in the Material Risk
Register for consideration by the Audit and Risk Committee.

This risk assessment aligns to the current business risk framework at South Port. The ELT complete
inherent risk assessments for all risks identified, rating the likelihood and impact of the various risks.
Additionally, each climate-related risk is allocated to a member of the ELT for particular oversight. Key
controls and mitigation processes are then noted, resulting in a residual risk score. The Material Risk
Register is then reviewed and approved by the Board.

Page | 8





03
MANAGE


Identify potential adaptation
measures

Risk treatments are identified to mitigate the risk to a tolerable level. Internal and external
stakeholders are consulted where relevant.






Carry out financial analysis




All major capex spend requires financial analysis to be completed prior to approval. South Port uses a
weighted average cost of capital (WACC) model to ensure that capital deployment meets internal
hurdles before proceeding with new projects. Physical climate risk is integrated into funding-decision
making through evaluation at the design phase of infrastructure development, including consideration
of the carbon footprint of new assets, and resilience to extreme weather events and sea level rise.
Currently South Port does not apply an internal carbon price in this process or track capital
deployment specifically to address climate risks.

Future capital deployment decisions are expected to include climate-risk relating to adaptation (e.g.
preparedness for extreme weather events), and also mitigation (e.g. considering carbon emissions
linked to purchasing new equipment).






Develop, implementation and
review plan




Further treatment actions are determined in order to mitigate the risk. Actions are documented to
enable monitoring. Business unit managers are appointed to identify, implement and monitor controls
and their effectiveness in mitigating risks. The Audit and Risk Committee has overall responsibility to
ensure that risk management strategies and policies are implemented and managed appropriately,
including supporting the annual review of risks and management approaches.





MONITORING AND REVIEW

04
MONITOR




Monitoring of climate-related risks is undertaken at least annually to refresh our climate-related risk
assessment and ensure the risk remains within tolerable levels and the controls and treatments
remain effective.

During the review, the effectiveness of the controls is assessed and depending on the
operating effectiveness rating, the control assessment frequency is set.

Page | 9


ORGANISATIONAL BOUNDARIES

South Port applies an operational control approach to consolidate GHG emissions. That means
South Port accounts for 100% of the GHG emissions from operations over which it has the full
authority to introduce and implement operating policies. South Port has not excluded any
facilities, operations or assets from its GHG inventory.

During FY25, South Port only had one subsidiary, Awarua Holdings Ltd, which was 100% owned by
the Port. Awarua Holdings Ltd was amalgamated into South Port on 18 June 2025. Prior to that
amalgamation, there were no GHG emissions associated with Awarua Holdings that were not
captured directly by the Port's activities.

GHG EMISSIONS INVENTORY

South Port began measuring its GHG emissions in 2019, focusing mainly on Scope 1 and 2
emissions. Over time, we have improved the methodology for collecting and calculating Scope 3
emissions to cover our value chain. In this context, the FY24 inventory (July 2023 to June 2024)
included new categories that reflected the completeness of emissions that can be attributed to
the organisation's operations within the declared boundary. Accordingly, South Port has
designated FY24 as its GHG emissions base year.

The inventory has been measured in accordance with the Greenhouse Gas Protocol: A Corporate
Accounting and Reporting Standard (Revised Edition) (the ‘GHG Protocol’), the Greenhouse Gas
Protocol: Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard, with guidance
provided by the Greenhouse Gas Protocol: Technical Guidance for Calculating Scope 3 Emissions
(version 1.0) (Technical Guidance).

The emission factors (EFs) applied for the calculations are derived from "Measuring emissions
guide: 2025" (MfE 2025), apart from those Scope 3 categories not addressed by the MfE. These
categories are derived from the United States Environmentally-Extended Input-Output model by
the US EPA (calculations via GZA Scope 3 Calculator workbook), which was applied to calculate
emissions based on expenses (mainly Categories 1 and 2), and the "Greenhouse gas reporting:
conversion factors 2025" from the United Kingdom's Department for Energy Security and Net
Zero, for Well-to-Tank (WTT) and recycling factors. GWP rates are drawn from the International
Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5).

A limited level of assurance has been undertaken by Deloitte Limited on behalf of the Auditor-
General over selected GHG disclosures included in this CRD. The assurance was limited to Scope 1
and 2 emissions. Refer to Deloitte's Independent Limited Assurance Report from page 14.



Scope 3 Categories Not Applicable

To ensure the consistency of the approach
adopted (Operational Boundary), South Port has
not reported on the following sources of Scope 3
emissions:

• Category 8 Upstream leased assets: South Port
did not lease any assets in FY25.

• Category 9 Downstream transportation and
distribution: South Port did not sell any
products in FY25.

• Category 10 Processing of sold products:
South Port did not sell any products in FY25.

• Category 12 End-of-life treatment of sold
products: South Port did not sell any products
in FY25.

• Category 14 Franchises: South Port does not
have franchises.

• Category 15 Investments: South Port did not
make any investments or provide financial
services in FY25.

Scope 3 Categories Exclusions

• Category 11 Use of sold products:

Visiting vessels – fuel:
Reliable data not available

Visiting trucks and rail - fuel and fugitive
emissions at the port:
Low size, reliable data not available

GHG INVENTORY BY CATERGORY – FY25

Page | 10

GHG EMISSIONS SOURCE INCLUSIONS, METHODOLOGY AND UNCERTAINTY
South Port includes Scope 1,2 and selected Scope 3 emissions from all relevant Kyoto Protocol gases in our inventory, expressed as carbon dioxide equivalent
(CO2e). The emissions sources in the table below have been included in the GHG inventory. No material emissions sources have been excluded.
Emissions sources included:

GHG emissions
category
GHG emissions
source
Data Source Methodology, data quality, uncertainty
FY 24
Emissions
(Base TCO2e)
FY25
Emissions
(TCO2e)
Scope 1
Direct
emissions
Automotive
Diesel (mobile
combustion)
Fuel used for port
vehicles
Supplier invoices,
Supplier Report, and
Internal Report
Fuel-based method. Sourced from
Supplier invoices and a third-party fuel
management system. Low level of
uncertainty
1,065.0 1,010.4
LPG (stationary
combustion)
LPG used for
forklifts
Supplier invoices Fuel-based method. Sourced from
Supplier invoices and a third-party fuel
management system. Low level of
uncertainty
87.7 89.9
Marine Diesel
(mobile
combustion)
Fuel used for port
vessels
Supplier invoices,
and Supplier Report
Fuel-based method. Sourced from
Supplier invoices and a third-party fuel
management system. Low level of
uncertainty
691.3 779.8
Petrol -
Premium
Fuel used for port
vehicles
Supplier invoices,
and Supplier Report
Fuel-based method. Sourced from
Supplier invoices and a third-party fuel
management system. Low level of
uncertainty
3.9 4.5
Petrol -
Unleaded 91
Fuel used for port
vehicles
Supplier invoices,
and Supplier Report
Fuel-based method. Sourced from
Supplier invoices and a third-party fuel
management system. Low level of
uncertainty
1.5 4.8

Total CO2e 1,849.4 1,889.4


GHG emissions
category
GHG emissions
source
Data Source Methodology, data quality, uncertainty
FY 24 Emissions
(Base TCO2e)
FY25
Emissions
(TCO2e)
Scope 2
Indirect
emissions
Electricity
Consumption
Emissions from
electricity used in
port buildings and
operational
equipment
Supplier invoices
and Internal Report
Location-based, average-date method.
Grid average emissions assumed. Low
level of uncertainty 424.9 552.2
Total CO2e
424.9 552.2


GHG emissions
category
GHG emissions
source
Data Source Methodology, data quality, uncertainty
FY 24 Emissions
(Base TCO2e)
FY25
Emissions
(TCO2e)
Scope 3
Indirect
emissions
(unassured)
Category 1:
Purchased goods
and Services
Upstream (cradle-
to-gate) emissions
from producing
goods and
services
OPEX records Spend-based method. The EEIO model is
developed from U.S. commodity and
industry data with limited representation to
local cradle-to-gate emissions. Significant
assumptions are made as to the
resemblance of accounting codes to EEIO
commodity types. OPEX records are
considered reasonably reflective of the
types of quantities of products and services
purchased, though not all accounting codes
are used accurately or consistently. Very
high level of uncertainty
261.9 290.7
Category 2: Capital
Goods
Upstream (cradle-
to-gate) emissions
from producing
capital goods
CAPEX records Spend-based method. The EEIO model is
developed from U.S. commodity and
industry data with limited representation to
local cradle-to-gate emissions. Significant
assumptions are made as to the
resemblance of capital expenditure to EEIO
403.4 181.2

Page | 11


GHG emissions
category
GHG emissions
source
Data Source Methodology, data quality, uncertainty
FY 24 Emissions
(Base TCO2e)
FY25
Emissions
(TCO2e)
commodity types. CAPEX records are
assumed to be reasonably accurate. Very
high level of uncertainty
Category 3: Fuel-
and Energy-
Related Activities
not included in
Scope 1 or Scope
2
Electricity
transmission and
distribution losses
Supplier invoices
and Internal
Report
Average-data method. Grid average
emissions assumed. Supplier invoices are
considered accurate. Low level of
uncertainty
31.1 42.0
Category 3: Fuel-
and Energy-
Related Activities
not included in
Scope 1 or Scope
2
For upstream
emissions of
purchased fuels
(Well to Tank
emissions)
Supplier invoices,
Supplier Report,
and Internal
Report
Emission conversion factors are for use by
UK and international organisations to report
on greenhouse gas emissions. Very high
level of uncertainty
415.4 429.5
Category 4:
Upstream
transportation and
distribution
Upstream
emissions from
transportation of
purchased goods
and services
OPEX records Spend-based method. The EEIO model is
developed from U.S. commodity and
industry data with limited representation to
local cradle-to-gate emissions. Significant
assumptions are made as to the
resemblance of accounting codes to EEIO
commodity types. OPEX records are
considered reasonably reflective of the
types of quantities of products and services
purchased, though not all accounting codes
are used accurately or consistently. Very
high level of uncertainty
79.3 86.3
Category 5: Waste
Generated in
Operations
Emissions from
general waste to
landfill
Supplier invoices
and report
Average-data method. Where suppliers
provide volume data instead of weight data,
U.S. EPA conversion factors were used.
Supplier invoices are considered accurate.
High level of uncertainty
35.8 39.6
Category 5: Waste
Generated in
Operations
Emissions from
non-municipal
solid waste to
landfill
Supplier invoices Average-data method. Supplier invoices are
considered accurate. Low level of
uncertainty
115.9 191.9
Category 5: Waste
Generated in
Operations
Solid Waste
Collection
OPEX records,
supplier invoices
and supplier
reports
Spend-based method. The EEIO model is
developed from U.S. commodity and
industry data with limited representation to
local cradle-to-gate emissions. Significant
assumptions are made as to the
resemblance of accounting codes to EEIO
commodity types. OPEX records are
considered reasonably reflective of the
types of quantities of products and services
purchased, though not all accounting codes
are used accurately or consistently. Medium
level of uncertainty
10.0 7.9
Category 5: Waste
Generated in
Operations
Recycling plastic
from port
operation (open-
loop)
Invoices from the
customer
Emission conversion factors are for use by
UK and international organisations to report
on 2023 greenhouse gas emissions. Low
level of uncertainty

0.1 0.1
Category 5: Waste
Generated in
Operations
Emissions from
wastewater
treatment
Supplier invoices Average-data method. National wastewater
emissions factors are employed, which are
based on IPCC defaults. Supplier invoices are
considered accurate. Medium level of
uncertainty
43.5 57.5
Category 6:
Business Travel
Emissions from
staff air transport
for business
activities
Report from the
service provider
A distance-based method was employed for
travel. Medium level of uncertainty
50.5 49.5
Category 6:
Business Travel
Emissions from
staff road
Report from the
service provider
A distance-based method was employed for
travel. Medium level of uncertainty
0.5 2.2

Page | 12


GHG emissions
category
GHG emissions
source
Data Source Methodology, data quality, uncertainty
FY 24 Emissions
(Base TCO2e)
FY25
Emissions
(TCO2e)
transport for
business activities
Category 6:
Business Travel
Emissions from
hotel nights for
business activities
Report from the
service provider
An average-data method was employed for
hotel stays. Medium level of uncertainty
3.2 3.2
Category 7:
Employee
Commuting
Emissions from
staff transport
from domicile to
work
Internal report A distance-based method was employed for
travel. Very high level of uncertainty
327.3 382.7
Category 13:
Downstream
Leased Assets
(Fuel)
Fuel supplied by
South Port for
tenant operations
Internal Report Fuel-based method. Supplier invoices are
considered accurate. Low level of
uncertainty
997.8 1,137.5
Category 13:
Downstream
Leased Assets
(Purchased
Electricity)
Emissions from
electricity used by
tenants in leased
buildings
Internal Report Location-based, average-date method. Grid
average emissions assumed. Internal energy
meters are considered accurate. Low level of
uncertainty
57.0 77.9
Other: Water
Supply
Emissions from
energy use in
water supply and
treatment plants
Supplier invoices Average-data method. Supplier invoices are
considered accurate. Low level of
uncertainty
3.2 5.4
Total CO2e
2,835.9 2,985.1

Note: South Port restated its FY24 GHG emission inventory in FY25 following advice in relation to the treatment of metered electricity consumption which
impacted Scope 2 and Scope 3 (Category 3) totals. This did not have a material effect on Scope 2 or Scope 3 totals.

CLIMATE-RELATED METRICS
South Port does not currently have GHG emissions reduction targets. We also have not to date used any industry-specific indicators to track climate-related risks
and opportunities. However, we may refine our approach in future, pending the outcomes of the New Zealand Port sector’s ongoing work drafting sector guidance
for future use.
In FY24, South Port estimated that up to 100% of its assets and business activities were vulnerable to climate-related transition risk. This assessment remains the
same in FY25 for transition risk. In relation to physical risk, South Port completed a Sea Level Rise and Extreme Sea Level Exposure study relating to South Port
owned assets during FY25. In light of this study, South Port has updated its working assessment, and currently estimates that under a hot house scenario, up to
13.8% of our assets and business activities are vulnerable to climate-related physical risk. It should be noted that this will only occur when there is a combination of
coincidental events which can vary depending on the storm’s intensity. Although possible, such a combination is statistically infrequent and would be expected to
be of relatively short durations (2 to 3hrs) given our port is sheltered by Bluff Hill. Below is a summary of vulnerability under two physical scenarios analysed:

Scenario 2 % of South Port’s assets vulnerable to sea level
rise and extreme sea level exposure
Assets Impacted
SSP2-2.6 (2050) <1% Ferry wharf, syncrolift land, pilot wharf
SSP2-7.0 (2100) 12.5% Ferry wharf, syncrolift land, pilot wharf, town wharf, fishing pier A

Scenario 3
SSP3-2.6 (2050) <1% Ferry wharf, syncrolift land, pilot wharf
SSP3-7.0 (2100) 13.8% Ferry wharf, syncrolift land, pilot wharf, town wharf, fishing pier A, B & C, oyster wharf,
berth 8, woodchip storage area

Climate change may also present opportunities. South Port has not yet quantified any anticipated impacts of these opportunities.
No assets or business activities were specifically aligned with climate-related opportunities during FY24 or FY25.
In relation to capital deployment, management considers climate risks and opportunities when undertaking capex projects, for example, the impact of sea level rise
when preparing drainage designs at the Port. However, there was no capex spend undertaken in FY24 or FY25 that related specifically to the climate-related risks
and opportunities identified as part of the scenario analysis.
To date, South Port has not adopted an internal carbon emissions price.

Page | 13

No management remuneration was linked to climate-related risks and opportunities in FY24 or FY25.
South Port adopted procedures using external advice for assessing the methodologies and assumptions in South Port’s carbon inventory collation processes. These
procedures were followed in FY25.

GHG EMISSIONS FROM FY24 BASELINE



CARBON INTENSITY FOR SCOPE 1 AND SCOPE 2

Page | 14




INDEPENDENT LIMITED ASSURANCE REPORT

TO THE SHAREHOLDERS OF SOUTH PORT NEW ZEALAND LIMITED

GHG EMISSIONS DISCLOSED IN ITS GROUP CLIMATE STATEMENTS
(ALSO REFERRED TO AS ‘CLIMATE-RELATED DISCLOSURES’)
FOR THE YEAR ENDED 30 JUNE 2025

Under section 461ZH(3) of the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013, the Auditor-General is the assurance practitioner of South
Port New Zealand Limited (the Group). The Auditor-General has appointed me, Matt Laing, using the staff and resources of
Deloitte Limited, to carry out a limited assurance engagement, on his behalf, on the Scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions information disclosed in the Climate Statements (GHG disclosures), for the year ended 30 June 2025.

Scope of the engagement

The GHG disclosures below are within the scope of our limited assurance engagement:
• The gross emissions, in metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, classified as Scope 1 and Scope 2 (calculated using the
location-based method), on page 10.
• The statement describing that GHG emissions have been measured in accordance with GHG Protocol Corporate Accounting
and Reporting Standard on page 9.
• The approach used to consolidate GHG emissions (operational control) on page 9.
• The sources (or references to sources, where applicable) of emission factors and the global warming potential rates used, on
page 9.
• The summary of specific exclusions of Scope 1 and Scope 2 (calculated using the location-based method), emissions sources,
including facilities, operations or assets with a justification for their exclusion, on page 10.
• The description of the methods and assumptions used (including the rationale for doing so, where applicable) to calculate or
estimate Scope 1 and Scope 2 (calculated using the location-based method) GHG emissions, and the limitations of those
methods, on page 10.
• The description of any uncertainties relevant to the Group’s quantification of its Scope 1 and Scope 2 (calculated using the
location-based method) GHG emissions, including the effects of these uncertainties on GHG disclosures, on pages 10.

South Port New Zealand Limited’s Climate Statement contains disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions from a selected subset of
emissions sources classified as Scope 3. The Group has elected not to use adoption provisions 4 and 5 of NZ CS 2 Adoption of
Aotearoa New Zealand Climate Standards (‘NZ CS 2’) for reporting purposes, however, has used adoption provision 8 of NZ CS 2,
which allows for the exclusion of these disclosures from the scope of this assurance engagement.

Conclusion

Based on the procedures we have performed and the evidence we have obtained, nothing has come to our attention that causes
us to believe that the South Port New Zealand Limited’s GHG disclosures within the scope of our limited assurance engagement for
the year ended 30 June 2025, are not fairly presented and prepared, in all material respects, in accordance with Aotearoa New
Zealand Climate Standards, issued by the External Reporting Board.

Other matter – Comparative Information

The comparative information, being the 2024 GHG disclosures on page 13, has not been subject to assurance. As such, it is not
covered by our assurance conclusion.

Page | 15







The Board of Directors’ responsibilities

Subparts 2 to 4 of the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 set out requirements for a climate reporting entity in preparing Climate
Statements, which includes proper record keeping, compliance with the climate-related disclosure framework and subjecting it to
assurance.

The Aotearoa New Zealand Climate Standards have been issued by the External Reporting Board as the framework that applies for
preparing and presenting Climate Statements. The Board of Directors of the Group is therefore responsible for preparing and fairly
presenting Climate Statements for the year ended 30 June 2025, in accordance with those standards.

The Board of Directors is also responsible for the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant to
preparing the Climate Statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.

Our responsibilities

Section 461ZH of the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013, requires the GHG disclosures included in the Group’s Climate
Statements to be the subject of an assurance engagement.

NZ CS1 Climate-related disclosures, paragraph 25 requires such an assurance engagement at a minimum to be a limited assurance
engagement, and paragraph 26 specifies the scope of the assurance engagement on GHG disclosures.

To meet this responsibility, we planned and performed procedures (as summarised below), to provide limited assurance in
accordance with New Zealand Standard on Assurance Engagements 1 Assurance Engagements over Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Disclosures (‘NZ SAE 1’) and International Standard on Assurance Engagements (NZ) 3410 Assurance Engagements on Greenhouse
Gas Statements (‘ISAE (NZ) 3410’), issued by the New Zealand Auditing and Assurance Standards Board.

Summary of Work Performed

The procedures we performed were based on our professional judgement and included enquiries, observation of processes
performed, inspection of documents, analytical procedures, evaluating the appropriateness of quantification methods and
reporting policies, and agreeing or reconciling with underlying records. In undertaking our limited assurance engagement on the
Group’s Scope 3 GHG disclosures, we:

• We obtained, through enquiries, an understanding of the Group’s control environment, processes and information systems
relevant to the preparation of the Scope 1 and Scope 2 disclosures. We did not evaluate the design of particular control
activities or obtain evidence about their implementation.
• We evaluated whether the Group’s methods for developing estimates are appropriate and had been consistently applied. Our
procedures did not include testing the data on which the estimates are based or separately developing our own estimates
against which to evaluate the Group’s estimates.
• We performed analytical procedures on particular emission categories by comparing the expected GHG emissions to recorded
GHG emissions and made inquiries of management to obtain explanations for any significant differences we identified.
• We evaluated the appropriateness of the emission factors applied.
• We evaluated the overall presentation and disclosure of the Scope 1 and Scope 2 disclosures.

The procedures performed in a limited assurance engagement vary in nature and timing from, and are less in extent than for, a
reasonable assurance engagement. Consequently, the level of assurance obtained in a limited assurance engagement is
substantially lower than the assurance that would have been obtained had a reasonable assurance engagement been performed.

We believe that the evidence obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our limited assurance conclusion.

Page | 16






Inherent limitations

As outlined on page 2, GHG quantification is subject to inherent uncertainty because of incomplete scientific knowledge used to
determine emissions factors and the values needed to combine emissions of different gases.

Other information

The Climate Statements contains information other than the GHG disclosures and the assurance report thereon. The Board of
Directors is responsible for the other information.

Our assurance engagement does not extend to any other information included, or referred to, in the Climate Statements on pages
1 to 8 and 11 to 13, and therefore, no conclusion is expressed thereon, apart from our opinion on the financial statements. We
read the other information identified above and, in doing so, consider whether the other information is materially inconsistent
with the GHG disclosures, or our knowledge obtained in the assurance engagement, or otherwise appears to be materially
misstated.

Where such an inconsistency or misstatement is identified, we are required to discuss it with the Board of Directors and take
appropriate action under the circumstances, to resolve the matter. There are no inconsistencies or misstatements to report.

Independence and quality management

We complied with the Auditor-General’s independence and other ethical requirements, which incorporate the requirements of
Professional and Ethical Standard 1 International Code of Ethics for Assurance Practitioners (including International Independence
Standards) (New Zealand) (PES 1) issued by the New Zealand Auditing and Assurance Standards Board. PES 1 is founded on the
fundamental principles of integrity, objectivity, professional competence and due care, confidentiality and professional behaviour.
These principles for example, do not permit us to be involved in the preparation of the current year’s GHG information as doing so
would compromise our independence.

We have also complied with the Auditor-General’s quality management requirements, which incorporate the requirements of
Professional and Ethical Standard 3 Quality Management for Firms that Perform Audits or Reviews of Financial Statements, or
Other Assurance or Related Services Engagements (PES 3) and Professional and Ethical Standard 4 Engagement Quality Reviews
issued by the New Zealand Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (PES 4). PES 3 requires our firm to design, implement and
operate a system of quality management including policies or procedures regarding compliance with ethical requirements,
professional standards and applicable legal and regulatory requirements. PES 4 deals with an engagement quality reviewer’s
appointment, eligibility, and responsibilities.

Other than our work in carrying out all legally required assurance engagements, including being the statutory auditor of the financial
statements (on behalf of the Auditor-General), we have no relationship with or interests in the Group.




Matt Laing
Partner
for Deloitte Limited
On behalf of the Auditor-General
Hamilton, New Zealand
16 September 2025