carbon management framework for major infrastructure projects · pdf...

Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects e21C Project Report

Carbon Management Framework for Major

Infrastructure Projects e21C Project Report

December 2009


Forum for the Future, the sustainable development charity, works in partnership with leading business and public sector bodies, helping them devise more sustainable strategies and deliver these in the form of new products and services. www.forumforthefuture.org Email: [email protected] and call: 020 7324 3630 The Forum for the Future is a non-profit company limited by guarantee and registered in England and Wales.

Registered office: Overseas House, 19-23 Ironmonger Row, London, EC1V 3QN, UK. Company No. 2959712. VAT Reg. No. 6777475 70. Charity No. 1040519


Contents 0HAcknowledgements 32H5

1HProject Team 33H5 2HSteering Group 34H5

3HKey Terms 35H6

4H1 Introduction 36H8

5H1.1 Project initiation 37H8 6H1.2 Who Should Use the Framework? 38H8 7H1.3 Context 39H9

8H2 Scope 40H10

9H2.1 Scope of the Framework 41H10 10H2.2 Alignment with Existing Project Management Frameworks 42H10

11H3 How to Use the Framework 43H12

12H3.1 The Framework Process 44H12

13H4 Project Participants 45H14

14H4.1 Definitions of Project Participants 46H14 15H4.2 Understanding How Project Participants Affect Carbon and its

Management 47H15 16H4.3 Mapping Project Participants 48H16

17H5 Boundaries 49H18

18H5.1 Timeframes and Sources to Consider 50H19 19H5.2 The Project Carbon Boundary 51H21 20H5.3 Categorising Carbon Within the Project Boundary 52H25

21H6 Whole Life Carbon Quantification and Assessment 53H29

22H6.1 Using this Chapter 54H29 23H6.2 Five Carbon Spiders 55H30 24H6.3 Breakdown of a Project into the Carbon Spiders 56H30 25H6.4 Breakdown of the Carbon Spiders 57H32 26H6.5 Assessment 58H36

27H7 Carbon Management and Reduction Strategies 59H39

28H7.1 Introduction 60H39 29H7.2 Organisational Carbon Management 61H40 30H7.3 Carbon management of projects 62H40

31H8 Next Steps and Recommendations 63H44


Glossary 45

Annex A - Case Study One: Testing the Assumptions of the Framework with Rail Project Data 50

Annex B - Case Study Two: Testing the Assumptions of the Framework with Road Project Data 55

Annex C - Carbon Assessment Tools and Datasets 60

Annex D - Stakeholder Maps 62

Annex E - Useful Links 65


0BAcknowledgements 2BProject Team

The project team consisted of: Harry Garnham – Highways Agency Euan Greenoak – Network Rail Helen Jamieson – Highways Agency Prathamesh Kaneri – Network Rail Chris Kennedy – Balfour Beatty Sue Leckie – Atkins Margot Mear – Atkins Lorna Pelly – Forum for the Future (Project Manager)

3BSteering Group

The Steering Group consisted of: David Aeron-Thomas – Forum for the Future Richard Craig – Atkins Kathy Findlay – Rail Safety and Standards Board Jonathon Garrett – Balfour Beatty Richard Gotheridge – Balfour Beatty Gordon Hutchinson – Forum for the Future Dean Kerwick-Chrisp – Highways Agency Barrie Mould – Royal Academy of Engineering Heather Openshaw – Highways Agency Lisa Scott – Highways Agency Navil Shetty – Atkins We are very grateful for all the time and support the Steering Group gave to the project. This report is openly available for all to use. Please acknowledge the source when applying any part or process.


1BKey Terms There are a number of terms in this framework that are used with a specific meaning that may differ from standard usage. It is important that these terms are understood before reading the framework. A full glossary can be found at the back of this document. Carbon The term ‘carbon’ is used throughout this framework as shorthand for ‘carbon dioxide equivalent’. The calculations and reporting under this framework will be in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, which accounts for all harmful greenhouse gas emissions (see Glossary for further explanation). Carbon Spider Five carbon spiders are used in this framework. They are the building blocks of a major infrastructure project and its legacy. Framework This document. It provides a consistent methodical approach to carbon management within a major infrastructure project. Framework Activities These comprise all project activities (see Glossary and below) and operation, maintenance, use and decommissioning of a project (see Figure 2.1). Project Activities Activities that occur within a major infrastructure project: pre-design, design and construction. Pre-Design Activities aligned with the early stages of a project such as pre-feasibility and option selection. These are activities that take place prior to the detailed design process. Design Activities within the project that relate to the detailed design of infrastructure elements or features. Construction Activities linked with physical works. This includes site clearance, main construction through to commissioning, handover and closeout. Operation The operation of an asset, including, for example: lighting and control systems, operational staff and vehicles (however, for rail this excludes train operations and for road it excludes traffic). Maintenance A combination of all technical and associated administrative actions during an item's service life with the aim of retaining it in a state in which it can perform its required functions [BS 6100-1:2004/BS ISO 6707-1:2004, 7.1.40]. For the purposes of this framework, “maintenance” also includes all renewal and refurbishment of an asset within 60 years of the service commencement date.


Use Road vehicles and train operations on the completed infrastructure. Decommissioning For the purposes of the framework, this includes demolition or disposal of an asset. Decommissioning should only be considered if it is expected to occur within 60 years of the service commencement date. Project A body of work that encompasses the pre-design, design and construction activities of one or more infrastructure assets. Project Duration The entire project time span: from conception through to approvals, design and construction, until handover to operation and maintenance. Project Carbon Boundary The project carbon boundary defines the carbon that is managed or influenced by and reported by the project. Whole Life Carbon All carbon associated with the framework activities, i.e. pre-design, design, construction, operation, maintenance, use and decommissioning.


1 Introduction 1.1 Project initiation

The development of this framework arose from the Highways Agency’s desire to extend the management of carbon across all its activities, with a particular interest to understand the carbon implications of major projects. A partner group and project team of young engineers was set up under Forum for the Future’s Engineers for the 21st Century (e21C) programme. The project was initiated under the following project statement. “This project will develop a practical framework that enables the whole life carbon impact of a major infrastructure project to be managed and influenced. The framework will address which carbon sources should be measured, how carbon can be managed across contractual and supply chain interfaces and who is accountable for each source.” Climate change is the biggest challenge facing the world. Yet, despite the fact that it will significantly affect every organisation and every region, our collective response is simply not commensurate with the scale of the problem. In the UK, transport emissions have risen by 10% since 1990, and now stand at 24% of all emissions1. If we do not make changes, transport growth will undermine all our other efforts to deal with climate change. Major infrastructure projects will deliver a service, but the carbon impact of these must be carefully scrutinised and reduced. A key step towards reducing carbon from infrastructure is firstly getting a good understanding of the approximate volumes and breakdown of carbon, and then working out where the biggest reductions can be made. This framework provides a process for clients (and project teams) to approach carbon reduction consistently and effectively on a range of infrastructure projects. The framework recognises and accounts for the whole life of the infrastructure relating to a project, and refers to whole life carbon. Whilst not all sources of carbon over the lifetime of the project can be directly controlled, whole life carbon can often be influenced through effective design. Therefore, this framework will refer to carbon reduction through management and influence. The framework also gives guidance on how to set boundaries around these different categories of carbon and then to assess the significant sources of carbon to be actively managed. General methods of calculation are also provided along with tips for data collection and levels of accuracy.

1.2 Who Should Use the Framework?

The framework is shaped around existing project management systems. It is intended for clients and sponsors (such as the Highways Agency and Network Rail) as well as project partners that help deliver projects. The framework is not embedded into specific contracts at this stage, though it is intended to inform that process. Taking into consideration the various

1 Carbon Pathway Analysis: Informing development of a carbon reduction strategy for the Transport Sector, July 2008. UCL, BERR, Defra & Office for Climate Change.


obligations and emissions targets set out by the UK Government, it is envisaged that the framework will provide a basis for future carbon management systems. The framework has been developed with detailed involvement from the Highways Agency and with the participation of Network Rail. It is therefore aligned to best suit the major infrastructure projects for which these organisations have responsibility, either as a client or as a result of a specific agreement (e.g. with the Department for Transport or Transport Scotland). Outside the immediate project participants, the concepts discussed in the framework will be applicable to other sectors and useful as a tool for education.

1.3 Context

Quantification and management of carbon is developing in industry. A number of carbon calculation tools are now available providing guidance and various measurement techniques (see Annex C). The majority of these give quantification methods and factors, requiring specific data collection and input. Limitations exist where tools are difficult to compare with inconsistent outputs, factors and broad assumptions, making it difficult to gain a full picture of the carbon associated with the project. This framework has been developed to create some links between the various calculators and assessment guides. Throughout the project, the major reference points have been Publicly Available Specification (PAS) 2050, Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol, CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme, DEFRA Guidance for reporting emissions, and carbon calculator principles from The Carbon Trust, Environment Agency and the Highways Agency. Links to all these documents are provided in Annex E. The framework aims to complement these guidelines and assessments by acting as an enabler to translate the macro-level national objectives and principles into infrastructure-specific processes that can help effectively manage carbon at project level.


2 Scope 2.1 Scope of the Framework

This framework was developed in order to manage and reduce the carbon emissions associated with a major infrastructure project. The framework differs from many other carbon calculators and tools, as the focus is on whole life carbon rather than broken down sections of a project. Moreover, this framework is not a tool that focuses solely on the quantification of carbon; it is a document that provides guidance on efficient carbon management and reduction. The framework describes how carbon should be managed, influenced and reported in a project. It not only covers the process from inception to handover into operation and maintenance, but also strategically considers the operation, maintenance, use and decommissioning of the infrastructure. The recognition that decisions and recommendations made early in the project lifecycle can influence carbon emissions at a later date is a key feature of the framework. The framework gives direction on how to set and apply boundaries relating to carbon and how this carbon can be identified, managed and reduced. The process then involves quantifying prospective carbon usage to inform design decisions, option appraisal, procurement, and construction methods. This will allow a carbon budget to be set. As the project progresses, carbon is quantified retrospectively to collate actual data which can be used to develop norms and trends and compare against estimates and the project budget. The data could also be collated to feed into future projects to enable identification of best practice and setting of future project carbon budgets.

2.2 Alignment with Existing Project Management Frameworks

The framework aligns to the project management processes most commonly used in rail and road major infrastructure projects, i.e. Guide to Railway Investment Projects (GRIP) for railway projects and Project Control Framework (PCF) for road projects. GRIP and PCF have many comparable characteristics in terms of project stages and the activities that take place within these stages. This has allowed three key project activities to be defined: pre-design, design and construction. These three terms are used throughout this framework. Figure 2.1 shows how these activities broadly align with the GRIP and PCF stages. This is not intended to be an exact process map and it is accepted that in many projects there will be deviations from this template format, e.g. a certain amount of design activity may take place at the same time as the construction activity. Using the term ‘activities’ enables this flexibility to be accommodated within the framework. For the period when the infrastructure is in service, a further four activities are defined: operation, maintenance, use and decommissioning.

Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects e21C Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects

e21C - Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure 11


3 How to Use the Framework

3.1 The Framework Process

Figure 3.1 is designed to guide the user through the framework process, highlighting key deliverables and the route towards these. The matrix follows the chapters (left-hand column) of the framework and the processes that should be undertaken within each project activity (top row). These activities cover pre-design to construction as this is when the framework is intended for use. The subsequent activities which include operation, maintenance, use and decommissioning are all to be considered and managed during this time. The main inputs and outputs of information sit at the top and bottom of the diagram and are relevant to all parts. The chapters of the framework expand on the processes found within this matrix.


Figure 3.1: The Framework Process


4 Project Participants Chapter Contents:

4.1 Definitions of Project Participants

This section defines the four categories of project participants

4.2 Understanding How Project Participants Affect Carbon and its Management

This section discusses how each participant can affect the carbon outputs of a project

4.3 Mapping Project Participants

This section describes how to map out the influence project participants have on carbon decisions and why this is important

4.1 Definitions of Project Participants

All the participants in a project have an influence over carbon emissions, so communication and engagement is important to ensure they are aware of commitments to carbon targets and how their own involvement contributes to the process. The level of influence varies between participants and stages. The project participants categorised in this framework are defined below. Client The client is the body, group or person charged with delivering the project. The client will lead the application of carbon management. Project Partner A project partner is a body, group or person who has a role in delivering the project and has a contract with the client (e.g. a construction contractor, design consultant, utility company). Supply Chain The supply chain is the system of organisations, people, groups, information and resources involved in delivering the project that have a contract with a project partner or with another supply chain member. Wider Stakeholders In construction projects, the term ‘stakeholder’ is often used to describe any party involved with a project. For the purposes of this framework, the term ‘wider stakeholder’ has been used to describe any body, group or person who has an interest in a project but not on a contractual basis, e.g., local authorities, cycle groups, bus companies, emergency services, the local


community, freight haulage companies and customers (those who are the end users of the infrastructure). Some of these wider stakeholders are ‘Statutory Bodies’ (e.g. Environment Agency, English Nature, English Heritage). Statutory Bodies are groups or bodies that must be consulted by law and whose consent is required for design and construction proposals. Figure 4.1 shows how the project participants sit within the project boundary and their relationship to each other.

Figure 4.1: Relationships between Client, Project Partners, Supply Chain and Wider

Stakeholders

4.2 Understanding How Project Participants Affect Carbon and its Management

For wider stakeholders, where no contractual link exists between parties, the level of influence they hold over a project may be unclear. Some stakeholders can have a significant – potentially ‘make-or-break’ – impact on decisions made in the early stages of a project. For example: whether the project is actually needed or not; what route it will take; and where the junctions and stations will be located. The mechanism for influence at this stage may be through lobbying, elected officials, consultation exercises, Public Inquiries, etc., and can have significant impacts on the carbon output. Wider stakeholders may also make an impact on further details of a project, such as local residents taking an interest in construction methods or traffic management layouts. Engagement with wider stakeholders and communication of carbon goals and aspirations are critical. However, when a wider stakeholder is exerting influence over a project, the management of carbon is complex. Projects can be emotive and the management of carbon will need to be balanced against other drivers and considerations for the project. Project partners have a more direct influence on decisions affecting carbon. The designer of a project will decide how to interpret the design standards, what materials to specify and the form of structure. The construction contractor building the project decides from where to source materials, construction methods, temporary works arrangements and temporary traffic management.


If there is a contractual relationship, the management of carbon can be undertaken on a more direct basis. For example: performance requirements can be written in specifications; Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) can be set up; and restrictions can be included in the contract. The level of influence that an individual member of the supply chain has over carbon will vary upon whether it supplies a physical product, a service or specialist advice. In all cases, the influence the client has on any supply chain’s carbon production is through the contract the client has with the project partner that ‘owns’ that supply chain. It is therefore important to ensure that project partners are aligned with the client’s view on carbon, so that the contract between the project partner and supply chain is supportive of any carbon targets or initiatives. This may be done through partnering, or through the contract the client has with the project partner specifying back-to-back contracts within the supply chain. An example of different layers within the supply chain is shown in Figure 4.2.

Figure 4.2: Example of Different Layers within the Construction Supply Chain

4.3 Mapping Project Participants

Project partners, the supply chain and wider stakeholders will all play an important part in carbon reduction at some stage of the project. It is a useful process for the client to map out all the organisations and groups involved in the project, including itself, to understand who influences project decisions, how decisions affect carbon, and also when in the project influence is exerted. This overall ‘stakeholder map’ will enable the client to identify key players and carry out efficient and targeted carbon management (discussed in more detail in Chapter 7). As the project progresses, the ‘stakeholder map’ will remain a live document. For optimum use, departments, teams and even individuals who are key decision makers should be named, rather than just organisations. An example stakeholder map has been included in Annex D. This has been shown on a percentage basis and is useful to illustrate how the influencers of carbon alter throughout the life of a project. One clear drawback of this method is that it is subjective and does not differentiate between influence and the overall decision maker. An alternative method, which would enable the client to drill down further into the complexities of relationships, is to populate a RACI matrix from the map.


RACI stands for: Responsible: Those who carry out the task, for example a designer. Accountable: Those who are ultimately accountable for the thorough and correct completion of the task. There is only one ultimate accountable for each task and in many cases for the project this will be the client. Consulted: Those whose opinion is sought and with whom two-way communication is undertaken. Informed: Those who are kept up-to-date about a task. Generally only one-way communication is required. By using RACI, more effective targeted carbon management can be utilised. An example of a RACI matrix is shown in Table 4.1. RACI matrices are used to map out deliverables against roles. Deliverables may be a decision or process affecting carbon and the roles can be made specific to refer to teams or individuals.

Table 4.1: Example of a RACI matrix

Clie

nt

Con

stru

ctio

n C

ontr

acto

r

Des

ign

Con

sulta

nt

Wid

er

Sta

keho

lder

Preferred Route A I R C

Design A&C I/C* R I/C**

Construction Methods A&C R C I/C**

Materials selection C A&R C I/C**

*depends on contract ** depends on statutory / non-statutory stakeholder

This chapter has defined the different groups and organisations that will take part in carbon management and the importance of understanding the different roles that each of them will play. This process will help to understand the organisational boundaries. The next step is to understand the carbon boundaries and how this can be broken down to enable effective management.


5 Boundaries Chapter Contents:

5.1 Timeframes and Sources to Consider

This section describes the period over which carbon arising from a project should be considered.

5.2 The Project Carbon Boundary

This section describes how to decide which carbon sources are included.

5.3 Categorising Carbon Within the Project Boundary

This section describes how to decide which emissions are most significant and how carbon within the boundary should be categorised and managed, influenced and reported.

Major infrastructure projects are often very large and complex. Associated carbon correspondingly comes from many different and varied sources, occurring over a long period of time and emitted by the activities of many different project partners. It is important that all emission sources that can be attributed to the project are identified, mapped and categorised. Chapter 4 described how project partners, the supply chain and wider stakeholders can be mapped (in effect, an “organisational boundary”). A similar process can be followed to identify the various sources of carbon within a major project. This chapter gives guidance on how to set the broad boundaries within which carbon should be considered and how the carbon within the boundary should be categorised in order to manage, influence and report emissions (see Figure 5.1).

Categorise

Figure 5.1: Simplified Schematic of Boundary Setting and Categorisation


5.1 Timeframes and Sources to Consider

Carbon emissions associated with a project are released over a prolonged period of time. From project inception, carbon is emitted from offices in which project staff are based. Physical works such as site preparation and construction produce emissions; so do the processes used in producing and manufacturing the materials, plant and equipment that are used during these activities. Furthermore, emissions continue long after the project is completed. Operation, maintenance, use and decommissioning will all produce quantities of carbon that can be directly attributed to, or influenced by, the project. In order to manage whole life carbon, it is vital that carbon emissions throughout the project duration and during infrastructure use are considered. This framework recommends that emissions relating to all activities of a project are included e.g. in a railway project from “Pre-GRIP” up to and including “Post-GRIP”. In addition, consideration should be given to the carbon emissions that are produced during the use of the infrastructure that can be influenced by the project, i.e. operation, maintenance, use, and in some cases decommissioning. In order for it to be possible to compare projects and options, this framework has assumed the infrastructure life to be a period of 60 years after the service commencement date (chosen to mirror the period used for whole life costing and project appraisal). Therefore, all project-associated carbon emitted in this 60-year period should be considered. As the project progresses, the method of capturing carbon data will change. Figure 5.2 shows how carbon is forecast during the early project activities and then later as the project progresses, actual data collection is carried out. The next step in setting the boundary within which carbon should be considered is to identify all the carbon sources in each activity. It is important that all emission sources that can be attributed to the project are at least identified and mapped; management and reduction will come later. Decisions made in any activity can make an impact on the whole life carbon and should be considered in context with the rest of the project.


Figure 5.2: Carbon Data Collection Against Key Framework Activities


5.2 The Project Carbon Boundary

As with financial management, it is important that a clear set of guidelines is followed in order to determine which emission sources are included within the project carbon boundary. Once the boundary is set, it must remain consistent throughout the framework activities. It may be that various carbon sources are categorised differently (see Section 5.3) but the overall project boundary must remain. The boundary may also be refined and made more accurate as the project develops and design decisions are made. Fundamentally, however, all changes in carbon emissions (from the existing condition) arising from the project must be included in the carbon boundary, both temporary and permanent. For example, suppose a project involves a two mile extension to an existing five-mile stretch of railway. All the carbon associated with the extension should be included in the project carbon boundary, but the embodied carbon in the existing five-mile track will not be considered. It is neither practicable nor logical to closely manage every single emission of carbon relating to a project. Some sources may be so minute or so far detached from the project core activities that precise measurement of this carbon would be too onerous given the negligible benefit that would be gained by managing it. Therefore, it is not the case that each and every source of carbon must be recorded and managed. However, an overall project carbon boundary needs to be set and this should initially identify all emissions in concept i.e. Scope 1, 2 and 3 from the GHG Protocol. When setting the overall project carbon boundary, there are a number of general rules that may be useful. The following paragraphs describe some of these and then Figure 5.5 contains some activity specific guidance. At this stage it is not necessary to decide whether carbon is material or immaterial in terms of size and importance. Rather, this describes how the “big circle” should be drawn around which carbon to consider. Further categorisation will take place after this has been done.

5.2.1 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol

The majority of carbon management tools and methods are now produced in line with the GHG Protocol. This protocol was developed with the aim of producing internationally accepted GHG accounting and reporting standards and/or protocols, and to promote their broad adoption. Therefore, this framework recommends that carbon is managed in accordance with this document. In order for this to be the case, there are two “scopes” of carbon emissions that must be incorporated into any evaluation. These are: Scope 1: Direct GHG emissions “Direct GHG emissions occur from sources that are owned or controlled by the [project].” Scope 2: Electricity indirect GHG emissions “Scope 2 accounts for GHG emissions from the generation of purchased electricity, heat, steam or cooling consumed by the [project].” These two mandatory scopes are joined by a third, optional scope: Scope 3: Other indirect GHG emissions “Scope 3 is an optional reporting category that allows for the treatment of all other indirect emissions. Scope 3 emissions are a consequence of the activities of the [project], but occur from sources not owned or controlled by the company. Some examples of Scope 3 activities


are extraction and production of purchased materials; transportation of purchased fuels; and use of sold products and services.” This framework recommends that, where possible and practicable, Scope 3 emissions are included within the project carbon boundary.

Figure 5.3: Scope 1, 2 and 3 Emissions (Source: GHG Protocol Corporate Standard)

This framework does not mandate that each scope must be reported separately. However, it is worth noting that some organisations have internal reporting requirements where emissions related to each scope are split. Therefore, framework users should refer to internal standards or guidance to determine if this is necessary.

5.2.2 Financial Boundary

It is possible to align the carbon boundary with the financial boundary for some activities such as construction where materials and plant will be clearly accounted (e.g. using a bill of quantities). However, this approach will result in some gaps where the carbon boundary is wider than the financial boundary e.g. maintenance, operation and use.

5.2.3 Issues of Scale and Cumulative Effects

In terms of volume of emissions, one rule of thumb could be that very small emissions are excluded. However, when a cumulative effect is considered this may become more significant. An example of this would be that the embodied energy of an item of plant used for one day on site may be outside the scope of any carbon quantification (in this case it is likely that only the fuel used by the plant would be included). However, if there are a number of items of plant used for a number of years on site then the cumulative effect of this will grow and the embodied carbon will become significant and hence should be included.

5.2.4 Supply of Materials

Figure 5.4 shows a breakdown of the various elements of embodied carbon in a material and how it should be gathered and aligned to the project. Carbon from materials is taken as the embodied carbon of a material at the manufacturer’s gate (figure supplied by the manufacturer) plus all transport to site and any subsequent fabrication or installation input of carbon. If materials can be manufactured via different routes, which result in different embodied carbon, this will show up in the manufacturer’s factory gate data.


Figure 5.4: Embodied Carbon of Materials

5.2.5 Framework Activity Boundaries

One method of setting boundaries within the project is to consider the emissions caused by the project during each framework activity. It is then possible to make a decision on what falls inside and outside the project carbon boundary. Figure 5.5 describes some general rules of thumb that should be followed for each activity.


Figure 5.5: Rules of Thumb for Boundary Setting


5.3 Categorising Carbon Within the Project Boundary

Once the carbon boundary has been set and carbon sources have been identified, these can be categorised to assist management. Rather than treat all carbon with equal attention, it is more efficient to prioritise some sources over others by determining the ‘significant’ carbon. To do this, a set of decision-making criteria are required to help prioritise the carbon sources and carry out a significance test. DEFRA suggests a number of criteria which may be useful when considering Scope 3 (indirect) emissions. Scale: What are the largest indirect emissions-causing activities with which your organisation is connected? Importance to your business: Are there any sources of GHG emissions that are particularly important to your business or increase the company’s climate change risk (e.g. electricity consumption in the case of consumer use of energy using products or emissions from vehicle use for motor manufacturers)? Stakeholders: Which emission causing activities do your interested parties e.g. customers, suppliers, investors expect you to report? Potential for reductions: Where is there potential for your company to influence or reduce emissions from indirect emission activities? Ability to ‘influence’ data gathering: How easy / cost effective will it be for you to get activity data or emissions data from your suppliers / customers? Ref: DEFRA – Guidance on how to measure and report your greenhouse gas emissions; September 2009. The following section suggests some useful categories for carbon management and sets out the process of how carbon should be managed, influenced and reported. Put simply, the focus must be on the most significant, most controllable and most reducible carbon emissions associated with the project in order to maximise reduction in carbon emission. Other emissions will still be reported, though they may be based on estimates. Therefore, where practicable, all carbon emissions within the project boundary are “reported”, no matter the level of significance. If an emission is deemed as significant, then it must be “managed”. The following figure displays how carbon relating to a project can be broadly categorised.


Figure 5.6: Carbon Categories

5.3.1 Manage

Carbon should be “managed” if it is a significant volume of carbon that is directly controlled by the project. This carbon must be associated with the project, i.e. it would not exist in the project’s absence. What carbon can be managed? In order for carbon to be manageable, it must be

• significant • controllable • reducible • quantifiable • measurable • reportable

What carbon should be managed?

• Only significant carbon should be managed. How can carbon be managed?

• Through strategic decisions; e.g. line-of-route, whether to build an embankment or a bridge

• Through carbon reduction strategies (see Chapter 7) • Through day-to-day decisions; e.g. design decisions such as surfacing type or

procurement decisions in terms of choosing a lower carbon material or equipment that meets the project specification

• Through monitoring of carbon emissions against estimated output


5.3.2 Influence

Carbon which can be “influenced” is a volume of carbon produced or emitted that can be impacted upon by strategic decisions or recommendations made by the project but over which the project does not have direct control. This carbon must be associated with the project, i.e. it would not exist in the project’s absence. What carbon can be influenced?

• All carbon within the project boundary can be influenced. • Further carbon emitted beyond the project boundary (e.g. outside the timescales of

the project or not controlled by the project team) may be influenced, e.g. in maintenance or use of the infrastructure.

• Some elements of this carbon will be measurable and some will not.

What carbon should be influenced? • All carbon that can be positively and effectively influenced should be influenced.

How can carbon be influenced?

• Carbon can generally be influenced through strategic decisions or recommendations from project partners or wider stakeholders.

• All carbon that can be influenced should be forecasted to ensure a record of carbon reduction is retained.

5.3.3 Report

Carbon which can be “reported” is the carbon, which can be quantified and formally recorded. At minimum, all carbon that is “managed” should be reported. Furthermore, all carbon that falls under Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions of the GHG protocol should be reported. What carbon can be reported?

• All quantifiable carbon can be reported.

What carbon should be reported? • As a minimum, all managed carbon must be reported but it is recommended that all

carbon within the set project boundary is reported. • All Scope 1 and Scope 2 carbon should be reported. • Carbon information that can be directly associated with the project and is known to be

reported elsewhere may be collated and reported in overall project figures.

How can carbon be reported? • Carbon can be recorded using the various tools recommended in this framework, or

through the collection (and conversion) of raw data. • If emissions cannot be measured, they may need to be estimated. If this is the case

then the method used to derive the estimate should be recorded. • In some cases organisations may have carbon reporting systems in place. Where

possible, pre-existing reporting methods and channels should be used but with an element of caution as boundaries may differ to those recommended in this framework.

• This framework does not mandate that each GHG protocol scope must be reported separately. However, it is worth noting that some organisations have internal reporting requirements where emissions related to each scope are split. Therefore, framework users should refer to internal standards or guidance to determine if this is necessary.

Figure 5.7 shows the simple process that can be followed to place the carbon into the three categories above.


Figure 5.7: Carbon Categorisation Flowchart

This chapter has described how the framework user should consider the project lifecycle and a 60-year use period thereafter; identify carbon sources within this period; decide which sources are most significant and categorise sources based on their significance. The next step is to carry out a quantification and assessment of the carbon within the boundary.


6 Whole Life Carbon Quantification and Assessment

Chapter Contents:

6.1 Using this Chapter

This provides guidance on quantifying, through estimation or calculation, and assessing the whole life carbon of a major infrastructure project.

6.2 Five Carbon Spiders

This introduces the five carbon spiders that represent key components of a project and its legacy.

6.3 Breakdown of a Project into the Carbon Spiders

This demonstrates how all the sources of carbon associated with a generic major infrastructure project can be categorised under the carbon spiders.

6.4 Breakdown of the Carbon Spiders

This explains what carbon each spider represents, how that carbon can be quantified and how the spiders link together.

6.5 Assessment

This describes how the whole life carbon of a major infrastructure project should be assessed once it has been quantified.

6.1 Using this Chapter

The methodology for carbon quantification is based around five carbon spiders that represent key components of a project and its legacy. They are designed to work alongside data and processes that are already used as standard practice to evaluate whole life cost. They can be used at any time during any framework activity. The level of detail involved in the quantification and assessment of carbon will vary throughout the project. Macro-level estimates are carried out at pre-design. More detailed calculations are used as the project becomes more defined during design, construction, operation, maintenance, use and decommissioning. As with whole life cost, it is not sufficient to consider a particular activity in isolation. The emphasis in this chapter – and indeed the framework – is on whole life carbon. Thus, throughout the project it is important that all carbon from all framework activities within the defined carbon boundary is identified and accounted for.


The key steps of this method are: • Break down a project into appropriate parts. • Break down the parts into individual items. • Break down the items into carbon sources for quantification.

The aim of this process is to break down the project into manageable pieces for which the carbon impact can be quantified (using measured or estimated data). These pieces can then be built up and assessed to provide a clearer picture of the carbon impact of the project.

6.2 Five Carbon Spiders

Carbon is emitted during every framework activity. All sources can broadly be categorised under one of the following carbon spiders:

• materials • plant and equipment • utilities • change in land use • transport

The carbon spiders are the building blocks of a major infrastructure project and its legacy, and will provide a useful checklist to help to identify sources of carbon within the defined project carbon boundary.

6.3 Breakdown of a Project into the Carbon Spiders

As an example, a generic major infrastructure project is used here to demonstrate how sources of carbon can be categorised under the carbon spiders. Work breakdown structures for three framework activities (construction, operation and maintenance), similar to those used when quantifying and assessing whole life cost are shown in Figures 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3. The aim at this stage is to break down the project parts, through tasks, to the spider level. The colours of the boxes in the three figures have the following meaning:

• Yellow is used to highlight the breakdown of an activity using the carbon spiders. • Blue is used to highlight an item that can be broken down using the carbon spiders but

for simplicity has not been broken down here. Transport is not shown separately because it is linked to the other carbon spiders, as described in Section 6.4.


Figure 6.1: Construction Carbon Breakdown

In this example, construction is broken down into enabling works, main works and support. The main works of a project will usually be divided among a number of different organisations or individuals, according to their specialism. The stakeholder maps referred to in Chapter 4 will be a useful reference to allocate responsibilities and reporting lines. Carbon quantities can be built up from the work forecasts of the different parties, each responsible for different aspects of the project.

Figure 6.2: Operation Carbon Breakdown


As is the case for the construction activity, the carbon associated with the operation of the infrastructure will also be divided among a number of different organisations or individuals, according to their specialism. Again, data should be built up from each responsible body.

Figure 6.3: Maintenance Carbon Breakdown

From the Key Terms, “maintenance” refers to maintenance, renewal and refurbishment works. It therefore follows that the breakdown in Figure 6.3 looks similar to that in Figure 6.1.

6.4 Breakdown of the Carbon Spiders

The carbon spiders are not intended to provide a definitive list of the sources of carbon or to specify a strict method of quantifying whole life carbon. They should be used to ensure that all sources of carbon are explicitly included or excluded and to avoid double counting or omissions. Not all spiders need to be fully utilised or replicated. However, it is important to adopt the principles of the method for consistency in accounting. The next step of the method is to put some numbers against the spiders to develop a sense of materiality between the sources of carbon. Carbon should be quantified and assessed in a similar way as cost, reflecting contractual splits and mirroring the accountabilities in the project (noting that the carbon boundary may be wider than the financial boundary). The following spider diagrams present a further breakdown of the five carbon spiders (showing the sources of carbon i.e. the spiders legs), which will help to develop a more accurate carbon figure. In each case, the depth to which the breakdown can be carried out is dependent on the level of detailed data available. The more detailed the breakdown, the more accurate the carbon quantification. It is at the discretion of the project team to apply a method appropriate to the framework activity and the data available. When doing this, it is important to remain consistent in the level of detail – if the spider can be broken down to assess each leg separately, the estimate for the whole spider should no longer be included.


The colours of the boxes in the spider diagrams have the following meaning: • Yellow is used to highlight the name of the carbon spider. • White is used to highlight a source of carbon (i.e. a spider leg). • Blue is used to highlight a link to another carbon spider.

6.4.1 Materials

Information about quantities of materials will already be collated to estimate project costs (for example, from bills of quantities). This data can be converted into carbon data using carbon calculation tools (see Annex C). Once the quantities of material have been evaluated, the whole life carbon can be obtained by multiplying the quantity of each material by the carbon per unit and summing the results.

Whole Life Carbon from all Materials i = ∑ i quantity i × unit carbon i

Figure 6.4: Spider Diagram for Materials

To gain a more accurate assessment of the carbon impact of materials, the following parts of the spider diagram for materials (see Figure 6.4) need to be considered. Embodied Carbon As the discipline of carbon accounting matures, suppliers may need to provide an estimate for the total carbon embodied in their products (see Figure 5.4). Currently, there are tools that can quantify the embodied carbon of materials based on a bill of quantities (see Annex C). Alternatively, a model can be built from first principles based on the embodied carbon data from the University of Bath and the project’s bill of quantities. Reuse and Recycling For reused and recycled materials, only part of the embodied carbon needs to be counted. For example, suppose Project 1 will use virgin steel and Project 2 will use steel that has been recycled from Project 1. The carbon emissions associated with the steel up to and including transport from the first site should be reported under Project 1. Carbon emissions associated with recycling and delivering the steel to the second site should be reported under Project 2. Transport of Materials to and from Site The carbon associated with the transport of materials from the warehouse gate to site and from site to landfill or a recycling centre can be a significant part of the overall emissions


associated with a project. This is especially true if a large volume of bulky material, such as the ballast used for railway track, is transported by road instead of rail. When quantifying the carbon from transporting materials, it is important to be clear about how far and by what means the materials will be moved. Waste The final contribution to the whole life carbon from materials is waste. Estimates for the quantities of waste that will go to landfill or will be recycled may already be stated in the Site Waste Management Plan for the project. Further help may also be obtained from tools such as WRAP’s Net Waste Tool.

6.4.2 Plant and Equipment

The spider diagram for plant and equipment is shown in Figure 6.5.

Figure 6.5: Spider Diagram for Plant and Equipment

Embodied Carbon The embodied carbon of plant and equipment (i.e. the carbon associated with their production, maintenance and decommissioning) should be calculated based on the period of time they are used in the framework activities relative to their service life. For example, a piece of equipment may have a service life of 10 years and be used in the framework activities for 1 year. In this case, 10% of the total embodied carbon of the equipment should be counted under the project. Fuel Electricity or fuel that is consumed by the plant and equipment should be accounted for, particularly during construction, operation, maintenance and decommissioning. As the discipline of carbon accounting matures, suppliers may need to provide an estimate for the embodied carbon of plant and equipment and the volume of fuel used. Until then, it is recommended that standardised data and engineering judgement be used. Benchmark figures for fuel usage in past projects and published data for fuel use per vehicle type will also be helpful.


6.4.3 Utilities

The spider diagram for utilities is shown in Figure 6.6. This will be relevant for the use of support buildings (e.g. project offices and site accommodation) and the operation of infrastructure assets. The significance of the operational usage will vary depending on the project under consideration.

Figure 6.6: Spider Diagram for Utilities

The significance of the whole life carbon from utilities will vary depending on the project under consideration. For example, a road tunnel would require considerably more power (for lighting, ventilation and service buildings) than an equal length of unlit road.

6.4.4 Change in Land Use

This category considers the physical changes to land that are a direct result of a project and the gains and losses (with respect to carbon) associated with these changes. For example:

• building infrastructure on a green-field site would remove a natural carbon sink • planting trees for the landscaping element of an infrastructure project would create a

natural carbon sink • removing trees in order to convert land into a landfill site would remove a natural carbon

sink

Figure 6.7: Spider diagram for Change in Land Use

Whilst it is important to identify these items, the carbon associated with a change in land use is difficult to quantify and may be small compared to the carbon associated with the other spiders.


6.4.5 Transport

Transport of materials, plant and equipment, staff or users is the final carbon spider.

Figure 6.8: Spider diagram for Transport

There may be organisational requirements driven by external factors for transport to be categorised into the three scopes of the GHG Protocol, that is:

• the client and project partners while working on the project • the supply chain • infrastructure use

Infrastructure use could well be one of the biggest carbon contributors to the whole project and will be an important part of the context. For rail projects, the use activity can be assessed from timetables and planned capacity. For road projects, this may be obtained from traffic modelling or real data. Embodied Carbon See Embodied Carbon for plant and equipment in Section 6.4.2. Fuel See Fuel for plant and equipment in Section 6.4.2. The relative importance of carbon from transport to total emissions will vary for each activity. For example, the carbon from transporting staff to site during construction may be relatively small in comparison to the carbon from materials. In contrast, for the operation and use activities, transport of people may be one of the most significant contributors, e.g. staff travelling to regularly inspect assets and commuters using the completed road.

6.5 Assessment

For any project, it is important to ensure that the optimal solution is implemented. The optimal solution will balance a number of key criteria identified by the client, e.g. whole life carbon, whole life cost, social and environmental impacts. This section is concerned with gaining insight into the carbon impacts of a project and its legacy by assessing the numbers, once the project has been broken down and the whole life carbon quantified. The following three steps of assessment should provide useful guidance for this process and should be used for all framework activities.

6.5.1 Step 1: Data Quality Assessment and Sensitivity Analysis

Modelling the future in terms of demand growth and technological improvements requires that a number of assumptions be made. Similarly, it is to be expected that the values of input data will be fairly uncertain while carbon accounting is still a developing discipline. It is important that the sources and quality of information, rationale behind engineering judgement, and possible range of values for each of the inputs are captured in a transparent manner. A range of sensitivity analyses can then be carried out to investigate the effect of varying the key assumptions.


6.5.2 Step 2: Benchmarking

Before comparing the different options developed for the project, it is useful to see how the project compares to past projects. Comparing one project against another can be done on a number of bases, such as the whole life carbon per km of route length. When benchmarking, caution needs be exercised even when comparing projects that have used a similar methodology in evaluating whole life carbon. Project boundaries may vary, making comparisons between projects based on asset type or carbon spider difficult. What is classified as main works on an embankment in one project may be classified as enabling works on another project. Furthermore, the carbon intensity of materials may change over time, e.g. through more efficient quarrying methods.

6.5.3 Step 3: Comparison of Project Options

Assessment of project options can lead to new ideas and the development of improved options. Different normalisers may be used to compare the whole life carbon of project options. The level of detail required will determine in what framework activity the different bases can be used. Total Value for Whole Life Carbon Comparing project options based on the total value of whole life carbon is appropriate when forecasting at the beginning of a project. This is useful in the option appraisal process during pre-design. Carbon Associated with Each Activity This involves splitting the whole life carbon of each project option into the pre-design, design, construction, operation, maintenance, use and decommissioning activities2, and comparing the carbon distribution of each option. It can lead to the development of improved options. For example, in Figure 6.9 the total value for whole life carbon of Option 1 is lower than that of Option 2. The only activity for which the carbon created is lower in Option 2 than in Option 1 is construction. This leads to the following questions:

• Can the construction of Option 1 be improved in terms of carbon performance? Perhaps some aspects of Option 2 could be adopted?

• The carbon emitted in the use of Option 2 is much higher than that of Option 1. Can the design of Option 2 be improved to reduce the carbon emitted in use? If so, would this have a knock-on effect on the operational and maintenance requirements and associated carbon?

2 Since the carbon emitted during pre-design and design will be relatively low, it may be beneficial to amalgamate these with the carbon emitted during construction.


Figure 6.9: Example distribution of carbon emitted by Framework Activity

Carbon Associated with Each Asset Type or Geographical Area Depending on the work breakdown structure of the project, the whole life carbon of each option may be split by asset type or geographical area. As is the case when comparing carbon associated with each activity, significant differences between the values of each project option can quickly generate new ideas for possible solutions. Carbon Associated with Each Carbon Spider Carbon associated with each carbon spider is the most detailed basis of comparing project options. This level of scrutiny will provide the level required to plan specific and practical carbon reductions. As always, this has to be considered in a whole life carbon context. When considering carbon reductions that could be made during design and construction, the impacts on operation, maintenance, use and decommissioning should also be taken into account. For example, materials with low carbon impact in production may cause a higher carbon impact in maintenance by requiring regular replacement and upgrades. This chapter has provided guidance on quantifying and assessing the whole life carbon of a major infrastructure project; the five carbon spiders that represent key components of a project and its legacy; and how the whole life carbon of a major infrastructure project should be assessed once it has been quantified. The next step is to look at how organisations can set up carbon management plans to enable the overall reduction of carbon.


7 Carbon Management and Reduction Strategies

Chapter Contents:

7.1 Introduction

This section outlines the requirements for Carbon Management and Reduction (CMR).

7.2 Organisational Carbon Management

This section briefly discusses how carbon reduction can be achieved within organisations.

7.3 Carbon management of projects

This section outlines the key themes of CMR applicable to projects in order for carbon to be considered through a project lifecycle.

7.1 Introduction

Following on from the previous chapters, carbon sources will be reported, managed or influenced according to their relative categorisations with the ultimate aim of carbon reduction. After setting boundaries and carrying out the carbon quantification and assessment process, sources of carbon will have been identified that will form the foundation of effective carbon reduction plans. These will focus on the most significant and manageable sources available to reduce absolute carbon. Carbon Management and Reduction (CMR) is the term used to describe a plan of action designed to reduce carbon outputs of a particular project, activity or task. Up to this point the focus of the framework has been aimed at identifying, understanding and measuring the sources of significant carbon. However the ultimate aim of the framework is to encourage carbon reduction of major infrastructure projects. This requires planning.


7.2 Organisational Carbon Management

Successful carbon management and reduction needs to be backed up by senior management commitment, education and awareness at an organisational level, within all project partners. At an organisational level, carbon management needs to be supported by:

• Awareness of carbon policies (national, industry and organisation) and the relevance to infrastructure projects

• Understanding and implementing carbon legislation and regulations • Specialist training (e.g. low-carbon design, driver training, energy efficient equipment

use) • Establishing a culture within clients and partners that is focused on carbon reduction

7.3 Carbon management of projects

This section will provide practical advice about setting budgets and targets, implementing monitoring systems, allocating responsibilities, aligning carbon with cost in decisions and embedding carbon in contracts etc. Figure 7.1 illustrates how the process works on a generic project basis. Developing a CMR plan can be formed on a cyclic basis to allow for continuous improvement to be reported and implemented into future projects.

Figure 7.1: Carbon management and reduction steps


7.3.1 Identify Drivers and Aims

The first step to producing a CMR plan is to define the goals driving the project in terms of carbon. This may include organisation level targets, government targets, planning requirements etc. It is important to understand the overall aims and origins of these to set the level of ambition for the plan.

7.3.2 Objectives and Boundaries

The development of boundaries (set out in Chapter 5) and the process of categorising carbon will help to inform objectives. Identifying the key areas for potential carbon reduction and differentiating between carbon that will be reported, managed and influenced, this will inform the objectives for the plan.

7.3.3 Carbon Reduction Targets

Similar to the financial planning process, a target carbon budget for the overall project should be set based on the carbon forecasts and any previous experience from similar projects. A carbon budget should be set which sets the maximum tolerance of carbon permitted for a project. Setting the budget will involve setting long-term project targets. This could be expressed as an emissions profile, by providing estimates of the potential for achieving carbon reductions within a given timeframe e.g. reducing the ratio of emissions relative to a project over time.

7.3.4 Identify Opportunities for Carbon Reduction

Using the carbon spiders to break down a project and quantify the parts will enable carbon opportunities to be highlighted, where carbon can be practically and effectively reduced. These opportunities can then be used as key performance indicators (KPIs) that best illustrate the significant sources of carbon on a project, enabling progress to be measured. When identifying reduction opportunities it is important to test out any scenarios in the carbon spiders to check the whole life impacts of any decision. For example a carbon intensive material may be used for construction that requires little or no maintenance during a project life, versus a low carbon intensive material that requires much more maintenance. The ability to influence the carbon impact of a project is likely to follow a similar line to the cost-curve of a project. The following diagram shows how the greatest ability to reduce absolute carbon of a project is at early conception stages. The concept of influence was discussed in Chapter 4 as this relates differently to all the parties involved and should be referred to when developing the CMR plan.


Figure 7.2: Ability to Influence Carbon Throughout a Project

7.3.5 Set Up Measuring, Monitoring and Reporting

This is the point where carbon management needs to become a formal requirement and embedded into project systems. Measurement, monitoring and reporting should be set up and embedded into projects, in the same way as cost, progress, H&S and risk. Monitoring and reporting of carbon should be done through regular reporting / reviewing periods, specified by the client and project team. It is important to give details of ownership of the carbon source and when / how these should be measured. For example material choice can be specified at design stage taking into consideration embodied carbon, but will be measured and accounted for at construction stage. The stakeholder maps (discussed in Chapter 4) will be a useful reference point at this stage. Carbon is a fairly new requirement for projects. Therefore, data capture and management is vital to ensure that project participants understand where the greatest carbon impacts are and to gradually provide benchmarks for future projects. To help with the embedding process, the CMR plan should be incorporated into the project management system, e.g. Highways Agency’s PCF and Network Rail’s GRIP frameworks (see Section 2.2).

7.3.6 Putting Carbon Management into Practice

Carbon benefits should be tracked to record the outcomes and any design amendments required to reduce carbon impact. The CMR plan should make clear the process for allocating responsibilities within the project team for meeting carbon budgets and KPIs. Carbon reduction targets, expressed as budgets or KPIs, should not be passed to organisations that do not have the opportunity to effect any carbon reductions. For example, a designer has substantial scope to reduce carbon and will therefore be given aggressive reduction targets, whereas the selected supplier of a specific piece of standard equipment will have clear limitations to the amount of carbon that can be reduced. The CMR plan should ensure that the requirement for carbon reporting is clearly written into all contracts and procurement documentation used on the project. Suppliers unable to provide such information will therefore have to seek exemption from the requirement, and the project team will have to provide estimates to maintain the integrity of reporting.


7.3.7 Monitor Project Progress

The monitoring and reporting systems set up should be put into practice. Each KPI will be related to an overall target and objective and will have clear reporting responsibilities. This is the carbon equivalent of the earned value analysis. Throughout the lifecycle of the project and its legacy, actual carbon created should be monitored against the baseline carbon that was predicted to be created for the amount of progress made on the project. It gives an early indication of the project’s carbon performance and enables corrective action to be taken as soon as possible, where required.

7.3.8 Report on Performance

All carbon sources will be reported, as discussed in Chapter 6. Attention can be given to areas where carbon will be actively managed and reduced. Reporting of carbon will differ for the framework activities – pre-design, design and construction, operation, maintenance, use and decommissioning – as the degree of accuracy against assumptions and estimates will vary according to activity. Reporting will enable lessons learnt to be passed on to future projects and inform benchmarks. There are many parallels between carbon management and cost management, and with time carbon management including measuring, monitoring and reporting will mature, ultimately becoming an integral part of the project controls process.


8 Next Steps and Recommendations The following recommendations are suggested as steps to embed some of the principles of this framework into everyday practices for major infrastructure projects.

• Pilot the framework on real projects Test out the principles and working methodology on real projects, at all stages, and feedback how the framework was used (making adjustments where necessary).

• Embed the framework into existing processes and new contracts

The framework is written as a separate, generic process, but in order to encourage its use it needs to be embedded in project management systems and contracts.

• Communicate the framework with other organisations and government departments

Concepts such as whole life carbon and boundary setting are core to this framework and we would want to share these explanations with relevant organisations to help inform all projects. This would include dissemination into the maintenance and operation community.

• Communicate the framework with local and regional councils

Although the framework was written with the Highways Agency and Network Rail, with a focus on major infrastructure, it is recognised that there are significant projects carried out on local networks and this should be equally relevant for local and regional authorities.

• Set up central, shared knowledge base of carbon data

The lack of carbon data is one of the major limitations at this stage. The development of a managed, central knowledge base should be supported to collect and assess carbon data. Linked to this, a cross-sector forum of good practice for carbon management in infrastructure would be a useful group.

• Develop a project planning carbon tool

Linked to the knowledge base, there is a long-term target of developing a tool that can access the data and provide capability to help plan projects taking carbon into consideration.

• Promote framework for education

Some of the key concepts and issues discussed in the framework could provide useful content for higher education and professional training.

• Link into organisation level carbon plans

The framework needs to be related to organisation’s carbon strategies and targets to enable framework embedment and support organisations in understanding their scope 3 emissions. These targets can also be considered against government carbon targets and used in budget reviews.

• Evaluate the progress and uptake of the framework in 5 years time and revise.

Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects e21c Project Report

Glossary Baseline A reference for measurable quantities from which an alternative outcome can be measured. [IPCC; Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change: 2007, Appendix II] Boundaries GHG accounting and reporting boundaries can have several dimensions, i.e., organisational, operational, geographic, business unit, and target boundaries. The boundary determines which emissions are measured or calculated and reported by the organisation. [DECC] Carbon For ease of reading and consistency throughout, this framework refers to carbon rather than carbon dioxide, carbon dioxide equivalents or greenhouse gases. Where carbon is stated, this should be taken as encompassing all harmful greenhouse gases that could cause climate change, expressed as carbon dioxide equivalent. Carbon Budget The amount of carbon that can be emitted in a given amount of time by a set of activities that fall within the project carbon boundary. Carbon Calculator A tool used to determine the level of carbon (or carbon equivalent) produced by, for example, a task, system, scheme or organisation. Carbon Dioxide Equivalent A measure for describing how much global warming a given type and amount of greenhouse gas may cause, using the functionally equivalent amount or concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) as the reference. The six main GHGs covered by the Kyoto Protocol are listed below.

Greenhouse Gas Global Warming Potential Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 1 Methane (CH4) 21 Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 310 HFC-134a 1,300 HFC-143a 3,800 Sulphur Hexafluoride (SF6) 23,900 Carbon Dioxide as Carbon 3.67

Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC) A legally binding climate change and energy saving scheme [DECC] Carbon Target A carbon target is a level of carbon, usually expressed in terms of a percentage reduction or an absolute reduction. For example, a project may have a target to reduce carbon by 50 per cent, or to save X tonnes of carbon compared to a standard project of similar scale and purpose. Client The client is the body, group, or person charged with delivering the project. The client will lead the application of the framework. Climate Change Climate refers to the average weather experienced over a long period. Human activity is the primary driver of the observed changes in climate, [Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)]. The main human influence on global climate is emissions of the key greenhouse gases, [DEFRA]. Risks attached to climate change include rising global temperatures, which will bring changes in weather patterns, rising sea levels and increased frequency

45


and intensity of extreme weather events. The effects will be felt in the UK and internationally there may be severe problems for people in regions that are particularly vulnerable, [DEFRA] Climate Change Act 2008 The world’s first long term legally binding framework to tackle the dangers of climate change. The Climate Change Bill was introduced into Parliament on 14th November 2007 and became law on 26th November 2008, [DECC] Control The ability of a company to direct the operating policies of an operation. More specifically, it is defined as either operational control (the organisation or one of its subsidiaries has the full authority to introduce and implement its operating policies within the operation), or financial control (the organization has the ability to direct the financial and operating policies of the operation with a view to gaining economic benefits from its activities), [DECC] DECC Department of Energy and Climate Change Decommissioning For the purposes of this framework, where decommissioning is referred to this should be taken as including demolition or disposal of an asset. Decommissioning should only be considered if this is expected to occur within 60 years of the Service Commencement Date. DEFRA Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Double Counting When two or more reporting companies (or project partners) take ownership of the same emissions or reductions, [DECC] Embodied Carbon Embodied carbon may be taken as the carbon emissions associated with the manufacture of products (see Figure 5.4) Embodied Energy Embodied energy may be taken as the total primary energy consumed during resource extraction, transportation, manufacturing and fabrication of a product [SERT, University of Bath]. Emitted Carbon Carbon released through the functioning of a building, vehicle, plant or any other object capable of producing carbon. Framework This document is the framework. It provides a consistent methodical approach to carbon management within a major infrastructure project. Framework Activities These comprise all project activities (see ‘Project Activities’ defined below) and operation, maintenance, use and decommissioning of a project (see Figure 2.1). Global Warming Potential A factor describing the radiative force impact (degree of harm to the atmosphere) of one unit of a given GHG relative to one unit of CO2 [DECC] Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) Gaseous constituents of the atmosphere, both natural and anthropogenic, that absorb and emit radiation at specific wavelengths within the spectrum of infrared radiation emitted by the earth's surface, the atmosphere, and clouds. [PAS 2050: 2008, 3.26]

46


Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Release of GHGs to the atmosphere [PAS 2050: 2008, 3.24] Guide to Railway Investment Projects (GRIP) GRIP describes how Network Rail manages and controls projects that enhance or renew the national rail network. It covers the project process from inception through to the post-implementation realisation of benefits. Influence The ability of stakeholders and project partners to affect a decision relating to carbon. Infrastructure The product of a project e.g. new road or track, which comprises of a number of individual assets e.g. section of road, bridge, junction, lighting column etc. Kyoto Protocol A protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC or FCCC). The Kyoto Protocol establishes legally binding commitments for the reduction of the Kyoto gases which came into force in 2005 and committed signatories to a reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to between 20-24 billion tonnes by 2050 (about 50-60% below 1990 global levels), [DECC] Maintenance A combination of all technical and associated administrative actions during an item's service life with the aim of retaining it in a state in which it can perform its required functions [BS 6100-1:2004/BS ISO 6707-1:2004, 7.1.40]. For the purposes of this framework, “maintenance” also includes all renewal and refurbishment of an asset within 60 years of the service commencement date. Major Infrastructure Project A project of significant size e.g. for the Highways Agency this is a project with a contract value of over £10m (as stated in the Project Control Framework). Operation The operation of the asset including, for example lighting and control systems, operational staff and vehicles (note: for rail, this excludes train operations and for road, it excludes traffic). Project A body of work that encompasses the pre-design, design and construction activities of an infrastructure asset Project Activities Activities that occur within a major infrastructure project, in sequential order: pre-design, design and construction.

• Pre-Design Activities aligned with the early stages of a project such as pre-feasibility and option selection. These are activities that take place prior to the detailed design process.

• Design Activities within the project that relate to detailed design of infrastructure elements or features. Construction

Activities linked with physical works. This includes site clearance, main construction through to commissioning, handover and closeout.

Note: Design and construction may take place at the same time, but are treated separately within this framework. Project Carbon Emissions Carbon emissions that would not occur in the project’s absence

47


Project Control Framework (PCF) The PCF sets out how the Highways Agency, together with the Department for Transport, manages and delivers major improvement projects. The framework includes a project lifecycle that breaks down the development and delivery of a major project into stages. Project Duration The entire project length: from conception to approvals and design, construction to handover, and maintenance. Project Partner A project partner is a body, group or person who has a role in delivering the project and has a contract between them and the client (e.g. a construction contractor or a design consultant). Scope 1: Direct GHG emissions Direct GHG emissions occur from sources that are owned or controlled by the project. [GHG Protocol] Scope 2: Electricity indirect GHG emissions Scope 2 accounts for GHG emissions from the generation of purchased electricity consumed by the project. [GHG Protocol] Scope 3: Other indirect GHG emissions Scope 3 is an optional reporting category that allows for the treatment of all other indirect emissions. Scope 3 emissions are a consequence of the activities of the project, but occur from sources not owned or controlled by the company. Some examples of scope 3 activities are extraction and production of purchased materials, transportation of purchased fuels and use of sold products and services. [GHG Protocol] Sensitivity Analysis The test of the outcome of an analysis by altering one or more parameters from initial value(s) [BS ISO 15686-5: Life Cycle Costing] Service Commencement Date The date on which the infrastructure starts being used. Spider Diagram A pictorial representation depicting sources of carbon within each component of a major infrastructure project, i.e. materials, buildings, transport, plant and land use change. Stakeholder Map Illustrates the influence each stakeholder has over carbon related decisions made in each framework activity. Supply Chain The system of organisations, people, groups, information and resources involved in delivering the project that have a contract with a project partner or with another supply chain member. Transport For the purposes of this framework, ‘transport’ refers to the movement of materials, plant, labour, and etc during a project, not the traffic using the infrastructure during the use activity (see “use”). Use Road vehicles and train operation on the completed infrastructure. Users/traffic The train or freight operators and road vehicles that use the infrastructure

48


Whole Life Carbon All carbon associated with the framework activities. Wider Stakeholder Any body, group, or person who has an interest in a project but not on a contractual basis. For example, local authorities, cycle groups, bus companies, emergency services, the local community, freight haulage companies, and car drivers. Some of these wider stakeholders are ‘Statutory Bodies’, groups or bodies that must be consulted by law and whose consent is required for design and construction proposals.

49


Annex A

Case Study One: Testing the Assumptions of the Framework

with Rail Project Data

Case study introduction In order to develop the framework, it was important to check the initial assumptions made through practical application. This process served to highlight limitations within the framework but also guided the evolution of the framework’s development. This case study is not a complete application of the framework. It is included to document the processes and investigations involved in developing the framework and to highlight the ‘knowledge gaps’ often limited by the availability of data. Aim of testing By using a sample set of whole life data from a railway project, quantification methods were explored to help inform the framework. It also allowed any possible assumptions and inconsistencies to be highlighted for future reference. Data used The data used to test the framework is taken from the report Orient Way Railway Sidings Redevelopment, by Best Foot Forward with Balfour Beatty, for the Olympic Development Committee. The content of these data is explained in further detail below but it was the most extensive report that contained whole life carbon emission data in a railway construction project. Description of the project The Orient Way redevelopment is located just north and west of the main Olympic Park site. The new sidings replaced aging ones at nearby Thornton’s Field (within the enclosure of the Park) allowing an area to be freed up for development. This project provided an upgrade to the existing facilities. The move from Thornton’s Field will also result in a 3.2 km extension of the total track distance. Method In order to identify the main contributors of carbon throughout the project lifecycle, the first step was to find the scope of the project data that were available. The report presented two different scenarios of data; a ‘business as usual’ estimate of the carbon outputs and an estimate where an active attempt to reduce the carbon impact had taken place. For this assessment, the data used were the ‘business as usual’ estimate. The charts of carbon usage from the project in both scenarios are displayed below.

Figure A.1 CO2 Footprint of the Orient Way sidings Source: Carbon Audit of Orient Way Railway Sidings Development; Best Foot Forward, 2008

50


Boundaries This project’s boundaries were set externally by the data that was recorded at the time by Balfour Beatty. This meant that the focus of this case study was the carbon already measured and reported, rather than estimates in pre-design stage. As described in Chapter 6.5, it is important to assess the data quality. The table below shows information on the data provided regarding its quality. This allowed a good understanding of where there were assumptions in the carbon data and the manner in which data sets had been split up. This gave an understanding of the boundary of carbon reporting in this project.

Figure A.2 Carbon data available for Orient Way Source: Carbon Audit of Orient Way Railway Sidings Development; Best Foot Forward, 2008 The data collection process that has already taken place has preset the boundaries. The ‘commuting and accommodation’ section for example collected data from project staff’s travel to and from work, with additional measurements taken on the accommodation of staff in hotels. This was the boundary that was preset by Balfour Beatty Rail. The accuracy of the data was limited by the 21% success rate in the data retrieval. The boundaries of this information have focused on the carbon emissions associated with construction stage activities, based on the data that was presented. At pre-option design, there was also a focus on finding the lowest emitting carbon project options demonstrated by reference and actual data comparison of two options. This meant the client had a key role in the management of carbon due to their ability to select the lowest carbon option and the active role they had to play in implementing carbon reduction strategies. It was difficult to separate whole life carbon information into activities that met the framework criteria due to gaps in the project data, and it wasn’t apparent what project timelines had been used. This meant it was not possible to separate the data into their pre-design, design and construction activities as was suggested in the framework. The report did present the overall carbon usage (See Figure A.3 below) for the whole of the project, separated into different criteria. Using spider maps, it was possible to apply the data to the framework.

51


Figure A.3: CO2 emissions of Orient Way construction by component, actual and reference scenarios Source: Carbon Audit of Orient Way Railway Sidings Development; Best Foot Forward, 2008 In the report the data above was split further into its respective data sets, such as materials and transport. This was used with the spider diagrams to create a layout for the data that was similar to the framework being created. The spider diagram for materials (shown in section 6.4.1) was used as reference to ensure that all carbon sources had been considered. This was used to create the table below with the materials and carbon split into individual components.

Materials tonnes tCO2 Steel: Rail 617 1,123 Concrete sleepers 2,210 392 Quarried aggregate (railway ballast) 32,800 262 Steel: general 54 98 Hardwood sleepers 59 28 Softwood for walkways 1,590 700 Steel: Train Platforms 170 309 Steel: Fencing 129 234 Concrete 1,770 231 Steel: OLE Masts 47 86 Copper / Silver OLE Contact Wire 7 41 Pipes and ducting 7 15 Steel: bar & rod for OLE foundations 7 12 Steel: Train platform and building foundations 5 9 Sand & gravel 400 4 Total 39872 3544 Waste tonnes tCO2 Metal 1.7 0.9 Aggregate 2.2 0.3 Timber 2 1 General waste 36.3 21.1 Total 42.2 23.2

Figure A.4. Carbon emissions per component for the Orient Way Sidings project Source: Carbon Audit of Orient Way Railway Sidings Development; Best Foot Forward, 2008

52


Results The graph below shows the largest carbon contributors. The largest carbon contributor was steel; due to its high level of embodied energy. The softwood for the walkways was more of a surprise and would require further investigation. Figure A5: Embodied carbon of materials used in Orient Way Sidings project

CO2 (tonnes) against spider category

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

Buildings Transport Plant Land Use change Materials

Spider Map Category

CO

2 (to

nnes

)

CO2

Figure A6: Carbon impact of materials in Orient Way Sidings project, categorised against the carbon spiders Figure A6 was created by collating the overall carbon data and categorising it against the carbon spiders used in the framework. From this it was clear that the carbon emissions from the materials caused the greatest carbon impact. The steel for the rails is identified as one of the largest carbon emission contributors when assessing data across a whole railway project. Data gaps It was not possible to ascertain, from the report, what the carbon figures for maintenance, operation or usage would be. There were several gaps within the data; either it was not possible to distinguish between data or data was not provided. Equally, it was difficult to interrogate the data fully to find out at what point this carbon could have been managed or influenced as the report did not show how the project had been split up.

Carbon Spider

Steel: Rail

CO2 (tonnes) per Material

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Type Of Material

CO

2 (to

nnes

)

Concrete sleepers

Quarried aggregate (railway ballast)

Steel: general

Hardwood sleepers

Softwood for walkways

Steel: Train Platforms

Steel: Fencing

Concrete

Steel: OLE Masts

Copper / Silver OLE Contact Wire

Pipes and ducting

Steel: bar & rod for OLE foundations

Steel: Train platform and building foundations

Sand & gravel

53


Conclusions and improvements From the assessment it is clear that the carbon spiders perform their function of enabling identification of the main contributors of carbon, and presenting them in a way that displays where the greatest proportion of the carbon derives. This assessment could have been improved further if data on the usage and maintenance activities had been available. This would have put into perspective the total carbon emitted in construction against a 60-year cycle. Analysing carbon on this scale would have been a lengthy process running concurrently with other projects to enable benchmarking and establish relativity. Additionally, most carbon calculators do not perform estimations across a large time scale (i.e. whole life). This is significant as it means the long-term effects of a project in terms of carbon emissions may not be considered. Within the Orient Way railway sidings report there was a lack of reporting of which carbon calculators were used. This meant that it was impossible to find any discrepancies or sources of error from different normalised figures provided by each calculator. Additionally specific notes should have been made showing at what point each carbon emitting operation was carried out so that it would be possible to find ways of benchmarking framework activities and getting normalised figures. This would have enabled a comparison with future projects in terms of carbon emissions.

54


Annex B Case Study Two: Testing the Assumptions of the Framework with Road Project Data

Case Study Introduction In developing the framework, it was important to check the assumptions made through practical application to both highlight errors and also guide the evolution of the framework. This case study is not testing the framework. It is included to demonstrate the thought process that was involved in constructing the finalised version of the framework. In essence, this case study is a worked example of the framework with significant ‘knowledge gaps’, often limited by the scope of information (in particular relevant carbon data) available to the project team. The conclusion illustrate that a rational numerical approach is possible and can be estimated to the same order of magnitude as that shown by real data. Aim of Testing By using a sample set of whole life data from a major highway infrastructure project it was possible to test and refine the framework. It also allowed any assumptions or inconsistencies to be highlighted for future reference. It was hoped that a carbon estimate of a scheme currently in development could be obtained using estimates for the quantities of materials, and carbon conversion factors to calculate a carbon estimate. This could be benchmarked against actual carbon accounting returns of similar projects in construction to validate the methodology used. Data Used The data that was used to test the framework is taken from a highways scheme currently being progressed through the PCF Development Phase by the Major Projects Directorate of the Highways Agency. This means that the boundaries of the case study are dictated by the data available and will not give a completely accurate representation of the full scope of carbon emissions accrued for the project. Supplementary background data (taken from carbon accounting returns for several major projects currently in construction) were also used to benchmark the theoretical case and to validate the framework methodology. The content of these data is explained in further detail below. Description of Project The project chosen was one typical of the type of major infrastructure project work carried out by the Major Projects Directorate of the Highways Agency. The scheme length is 6.9km and consists of two options. Option 1 which has 50% online widening and 50% offline bypass, and Option 2, which has 30% online widening, and 70% offline bypass. Method The work breakdown data available was obtained from quantity surveyor estimates. These were used to compile a financial construction cost estimate. It was possible to convert the quantity surveyor data from estimated quantities of raw materials into their carbon equivalents. The publically available University of Bath carbon conversion data were used. This could allow option selection decisions to be influenced or perhaps even made, based on a comparison of an options carbon footprint estimate. Figure B1 shows a typical segment of the data used in constructing the carbon estimate of the option. The ‘Description’ and ‘Quantity’ fields both come from the quantity survey data. These are standardised fields across all Highways Agency projects. This means that this method can be applied across the project portfolio allowing comparisons between completely different schemes. The ‘Carbon Estimate’ field shows the result of a calculation that uses the University of Bath’s conversion factors. There is likely to be a degree of assumption involved in the conversion process; for example materials may not match exactly, or there may be no published data at all for a particular item. As carbon accountancy and management evolves and matures, such assumptions and knowledge gaps should be reduced.

55


Figure B.1: Project Data with Carbon Estimates

Results The graph below shows the carbon footprint for the two route options, calculated using the processed quantity surveyors data.

Option 2

Option 1

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

Option

Tonn

es C

O2

Figure B2: Carbon impact of the two route options The overall totals can then be broken down into their constituent elements. The figure below shows this, in line with the work break down structure that the quantity surveyors compiled the cost estimate to.

56


0

10000000

20000000

30000000

40000000

50000000

60000000

70000000

PR

ELI

MIN

ARIE

S

Site

Cle

aran

ce

Fenc

ing

Saf

ety

Fenc

ing

Dra

inag

e

Earth

wor

ks

Pav

emen

t

Kerb

s, F

ootw

ays

and

Pave

d Ar

eas

Traf

fic S

igns

and

Roa

dM

arki

ngs

Roa

d Li

ghtin

g

RO

ADW

OR

KS

STR

UC

TUR

ES

Land

scap

ing

and

Eco

logy

Add

ition

al It

ems

kg C

O2

Option 1Option 2

Figure B3: Carbon impact of the two route options, broken down to material parts The figures for the largest carbon contributors in Figure B3 are largely explained by the high-embedded energy materials which need to be quarried and/or transported to and from site or which are used to construct pavements. Many categories may appear to have no associated carbon, but this is only when relative to earthworks and pavements. On a smaller scale, they have substantial carbon quantities associated and should also be managed. Figure B4 shows how the data from a Major Project can be applied to the spider diagrams developed by this framework in chapter 6. The numbers included use actual data taken from one financial quarter’s returns of a Major Project under construction. Not every box of the spider diagram has been populated which identifies some key areas in which a Project Manager should look to seek data from contractors, suppliers, etc. For the cells that have been populated, it gives a simple method for the Project Manager to review the contributors to the schemes overall Carbon footprint. It would be more difficult to populate a spider for a pre-construction Major Project at the option selection stage. This is because Quantity Surveyor estimates typically do not include transport, waste and recycling quantity estimates.

57


Figure B4: Carbon data from the case study, applied to a carbon spider Benchmarking and checks Other data available for use were carbon accounting returns from project teams currently working on the construction and delivery of actual Major Projects. By taking averages of all the data captured it was possible to gain more of an understanding of what levels of carbon to expect from a ‘typical’ Highways Agency Major Project. The types of projects included represent the broad scope of work undertaken by the Major Projects Directorate. This gave an indication that these projects have similar orders of magnitude, rather than to give a precise ‘universal’ average. Of particular interested was the generation of weighted averages (ignoring the highest and lowest outputs) which give the total carbon produced per kilometre and the average amount of carbon produced per financial quarter, per kilometre.

Figure B.5: Carbon comparison of major project schemes under construction Source: Highways Agency Taking an average of all schemes similar to the case study (i.e. removing tunnels and structure replacements) an average carbon / quarter / km of 584 tonnes is calculated. Data Gaps There are numerous data gaps in both the real Major Project construction data gathered as part of the Highways Agency’s Carbon Footprint accountancy work and also the Quantity Surveyor data taken from a Major Project under development. However, these are primarily due to the learning

58


curve and uptake of gathering the information. In time, these gaps will be reduced and even eliminated. With respect to a Major Project under development the data gaps are related to transport and the breakdown of waste because this is not currently included within the Quantity Surveyor cost estimates. It was not possible to ascertain what the carbon figures for maintenance, operation or usage would be. It was also difficult to interrogate the data to find out at what stage of the project this carbon could have been managed or influenced. Conclusions and Improvements The analysis shows that the spider maps help to identify the main contributors of carbon and present them in a manner that displays each source in a clear and simple way. As a tool for comparison, the ability to compare to an average data set representing a ‘typical’ Major Project is particularly attractive in order to make design/investment selection decisions. With the example used, over the programmed construction phase it is estimated to generate 4768 tonnes of carbon per quarter, or 691 tonnes of carbon per quarter per kilometre. This lines up with the average figures of 584 tonnes of carbon per quarter per kilometre. That both sets of carbon figures are of similar magnitudes serves to validate the process used. With further data on the usage and maintenance parts of the project, the analysis could be more detailed. This would also help to put the total carbon emitted in the construction stage in context with 60-year lifecycle. This may result in a better design with perhaps more carbon at the construction stage, leading to a lower carbon impact across a whole 60 year lifecycle, due to savings made in carbon at the usage and maintenance phase.

59


Annex C Carbon Assessment Tools and Datasets

Name SPeAR BRE / BREEAM ENVEST V.2 CEEQUAL (Civil Engineering Environmental Quality Awards Scheme)

Source Arup Building Research Establishment Centre for Sustainable Construction (BRE) ICESource availability

On request - service and assessment provided at a cost On request - service and assessment provided at a cost (BRE assessors)

On request - service and assessment provided at a cost http://www.ceequal.com/Index.asp?bhjs=1&bhsw=1024&bhsh=768&bhswi=1003&bhshi=566&bhflver=5&bhdir=0&bhje=1&bhcold=32&bhrl=-1&bhqt=-1&bhmp=-1&bhab=-1&bhmpex=&bhflex=&bhdirex=&bhcont=lan

Desrciption SPeAR (Sustainable Project Appraisal Routine) is based on a four quadrant model that identifies and relates the key issues of sustainability into a framework, from which appraisal of project performcance can be taken.Key attributes within the four quadrant framework include environmental protection, social equity, economic viability and use of natral reasources. The SPeAR framework works on the basis of lateral thinking of a project, to provide each element of a project with a 'sustainability' measure to provide informed deciion-making and to benchmark against continual performance.

Tool has been largely used for urban regeneration schemes, development plans and manufacturing processes and products

BREEAM is a wide ranging assessment of the environmental impact of a building relating to global, local and internal environments. The assessment relates to the design stage of new build and refurbishment projects, and to the operation and management of the building.

BRE's Environmental Profile Methodology is a standardised methos of gathering and presenting environmental data to cpmare the environmental performance of building materials over the life cycle of a project. These profiles allow designers to make informed desicions about about copmstruction materials by providing information relating to their envioronmental performance of different design solutions. The environmental profile outcomes also present "embodied" environmental data.

BRE Environmental Profile information is used in the ENVEST V.2 tool to assess life cycle environmental impact of building materials at project conception stage

Envest 2 is a software tool that simplifies the process of designing buildings with low environmental impact and whole life costs. Envest 2 allows both environmental and financial tradeoffs to be made explicit in the design process, allowing the client to optimise the concept of best value according to their own priorities.

Environmental data may be presented as a range of 12 impacts, from climate change to toxicity, as well as a single Ecopoint score, for ease of communication, especially in comparison with costs. Costs are measured in £Sterling according to Net Present Value, discounted at 2002 Treasury rates or adiscounted rate set by the user.

CEEQUAL is an award scheme for (publicly) rewarding high environmental quality of civil engineering projects. The scheme acts on current guidance and environmental best practice in construction and supports Gvt. Strategy by providing the industry with a assessment tool for benchmarking and identifying environmental quality of a project, as part of a wider initiative to contribute to sustainable construction. Four types of award are available:Whole project awardDesign and build awardDesign awardConstruction process award

CEEQUAL includes the wide ranging environmental aspects and is based on a self assessment questionairre/scoring carried out by a trained assessor, validated by an external verifier.

Availability Cost to decision-maker for the service and assessment Cost to decision-maker for the service and assessment Cost to decision-maker for the service and assessment Self assessment questionairre

60


Name EA Carbon Calculator V.2.1 Highways Agency Carbon Accounting Tool 2008 V1 ROCC (Remediation Options Carbon Calculator) Department for Children Schools and Families (DCSF) Construction Carbon Cacluator

Source Environment Agency UK Highways Agency Atkins Faithful and GouldSource availability

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/cy/busnes/sectorau/37543.aspx

HA Website http://www.atkinsrocc.com/Public/Default.aspx http://www.fgould.com/carbon-calculator/

Desrciption Carbon calculator used to measure the emodied CO2 of materials and the CO2 associated with their transportation. Considers personal travel, energy site activites and waste management. Carbon volumes are expressed as t/CO2. Needs Bill of Quantities for data entry

Carbon accounting tool to evaluate the 'carbon footprint' associated with HA activites including amount of carbon associated with construction, maintenance and operational activities. Tool reports volume of carbon (and GHG emissions) produced for these activities. Includes calcualtion tools for MAC, DBFO and major infrastructure projectsEmissions are accounted for at the point of purchase rather than across the lifcycle of the asset.

Web-based tool developed to compare the carbon emissions of a large suite of contaminated land remediation regimes and investigate carbon implications of remedial technology selection.ROCC covers excavation and export, thermal desorption, bioremediation, soil washing and solidification and stabilisation

Web-based tool developed to evaluate the procurement of new schools under the Building Schools for the Future programmeEnables intial estimates of carbon saving and capital costs to be evaluated, which is useful for budgeting and procurement issues

Availability Free and readily available Free and readily available Free limited demonstration. One license is £500 Free and readily available

Name Carbon Trust Guidance WRAP and Aggregain (The CO2 emissions estimator tool for the use of aggregates in construction v1.0)

DEFRAEnvironmental Key Perfomance Indicators PAS 2050

Source Carbon Trust WRAP and Aggregain (and C4S) DEFRA BSI (co-sponsored by DEFRA and the Carbon Trust)

Source availability

http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/solutions/CarbonFootprinting/how_to_calculate_a_full_carbon_footprint.htm

http://www.aggregain.org.uk/http://www.wrap.org.uk/downloads/AGG0079-007_User_Guide_WRAP_format1.421ba913.2923.pdf

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/business/envrp/pdf/envkpi-guidelines.pdf

http://www.bsi-global.com/en/Standards-and-Publications/How-we-can-help-you/Professional-Standards-Service/PAS-2050/

Desrciption This documentation provides information on how to calculate a carbon footprint and makes reference to the GHGP methodology ISO 14064 which outlines the following steps for producing an accurate carbon footprint:1. define the methodology2. specify the boundary and scope3. collect emissions data and calculate the footprint4. verify results (optional)5. disclose the footprint (optional) Energy and Carbon Conservation giodance document also provides details on how to calculate energy consumption and trnslate common energy units into carbon emissions equivalent

WRAP:includes information on sustainability issues and recycling for the following sectors:construction, manufacturing, local authorities and communities (incl. schools), businesses, retail, manufacturing, composting and home

AggRegain is an information service provided by WRAP Aggregates Programme focusing on providing information regarding sustainable aggregates inclduing a CO2 emissions calculator for the construction industry. This tool evaluates emissions outputs from the following applications - bitumen bound, concrete, hydraulically bound and unbound - using the output to estimate CO2 reductions/savings by using 'sustainable' construction techniques and materials (recycled/secondary)

This report provides guidance for UK Businesses on how to report their environmental performance through KPIs.22 KPIs which are considered relevant to UK Business are reported under the following four headings: emissions to air, emissions to water, emissions to land, and resource use.GHGs are a key factor under emissions to air and as such conversion and emissions factors are published annually to provide guidance on business reporting.The aim of the report is to identify where cost savings and increased efficiency can be made through management, and reduction, of resource use. Typical areas where cost savings can be created are identified as: the use of raw materials and supplies, reductions in waste, water and energy use and transport, travel, and packaging (with the aim of reducing environmental impacts such as waste to landfill).

PAS 2050 is a current British Standard titled "Specification for the Measurement of the Embodied Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Products and Services"The aim of PAS 2050 is to provide a method of measuring embodied GHG emissions of products and services for businesses, to assess the climate change related impact of their products and services and ultimately provide information to businesses to help improve their climate change performance.

61 Availability Free and Readily available Free and Readily available Free and readily available Free and readily available


Annex D Stakeholder Maps

Figure D.1 and Figure D.2 give an example of outputs that may be obtained when producing stakeholder maps for a rail infrastructure project. Figure D.1 shows how the levels of influence of different stakeholders in managing carbon might vary in the various GRIP stages. Figure D.2 shows how the levels of influence of different stakeholders in managing carbon might vary in the framework activities which are not subject to the GRIP process.

62


Figure D.1: Levels of Influence in Managing Carbon in the GRIP Process

63


Figure D.2: Levels of Influence in Managing Carbon During Operation, Maintenance and Use

64


Annex E Useful Links

DEFRA / DECC Guidelines http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/business/reporting/index.htm Greenhouse Gas Conversion Factors http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/business/reporting/conversion-factors.htm Highways Agency Procurement Strategy http://www.highways.gov.uk/business/13042.aspx Publicly Available Specification (PAS) 2050 http://shop.bsigroup.com/en/Browse-by-Sector/Energy--Utilities/PAS-2050/ Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol Initiative http://www.ghgprotocol.org/calculation-tools CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/what_we_do/lc_uk/crc/crc.aspx The Carbon Trust Carbon Footprint Calculator http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/solutions/CarbonFootprinting/FootprintCalculators.htm The Environment Agency Carbon Calculator for Construction http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/sectors/37543.aspx Highways Agency Carbon Calculator http://www.highways.gov.uk/knowledge/16210.aspx Bath University Embodied Carbon Calculator http://www.bath.ac.uk/mech-eng/sert/embodied/ PCF http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/19638.aspx GRIP http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/4171.aspx

45

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/business/reporting/index.htm

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/business/reporting/conversion-factors.htm

http://www.highways.gov.uk/business/13042.aspx

http://shop.bsigroup.com/en/Browse-by-Sector/Energy--Utilities/PAS-2050/

http://www.ghgprotocol.org/calculation-tools

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/what_we_do/lc_uk/crc/crc.aspx

http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/solutions/CarbonFootprinting/FootprintCalculators.htm

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/sectors/37543.aspx

http://www.highways.gov.uk/knowledge/16210.aspx

http://www.bath.ac.uk/mech-eng/sert/embodied/

http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/19638.aspx

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/4171.aspx

carbon management framework for major infrastructure projects · pdf...

Documents