Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects

Transcription

1 Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects December 2009 Page 1

2 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. and call: The Forum for the Future is a non-profit company limited by guarantee and registered in England and Wales. Registered office: Overseas House, Ironmonger Row, London, EC1V 3QN, UK. Company No VAT Reg. No Charity No Page 2

3 Contents 0HAcknowledgements 3HKey Terms 1HProject Team 2HSteering Group 32H5 33H5 34H5 35H6 4H1 Introduction 8H2 Scope 36H8 5H1.1 Project initiation 37H8 6H1.2 Who Should Use the Framework? 38H8 7H1.3 Context 39H9 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 17H5 Boundaries 21H6 Whole 27H7 Carbon Participants 45H14 14H4.1 Definitions of Project Participants 46H14 15H4.2 Understanding How Project Participants Affect Carbon and its Management 16H4.3 Mapping Project Participants 48H16 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 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 Management and Reduction Strategies 59H39 28H7.1 Introduction 60H39 29H7.2 Organisational Carbon Management 61H40 30H7.3 Carbon management of projects 62H40 47H15 31H8 Next Steps and Recommendations 63H44 Page 3

4 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 Page 4

5 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. Page 5

6 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 :2004/BS ISO :2004, ]. For the purposes of this framework, maintenance also includes all renewal and refurbishment of an asset within 60 years of the service commencement date. Page 6

7 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. Page 7

8 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 21 st 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 emissions 1. 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 UCL, BERR, Defra & Office for Climate Change. Page 8

9 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. Page 9

10 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. Page 10

11 Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects e21c Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects e21c - Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure 11

12 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. Page 12

13 Figure 3.1: The Framework Process Page 13

14 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 Page 14

15 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. Page 15

16 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. Page 16

17 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 Client Construction Contractor Design Consultant Wider Stakeholder 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. Page 17

18 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 Page 18

19 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 projectassociated 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. Page 19

20 Figure 5.2: Carbon Data Collection Against Key Framework Activities Page 20

21 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 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 Page 21

22 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 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 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 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. Page 22

23 Figure 5.4: Embodied Carbon of Materials 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. Page 23

24 Figure 5.5: Rules of Thumb for Boundary Setting Page 24

25 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 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. Page 25

26 Figure 5.6: Carbon Categories 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 Page 26

27 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 Report 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. 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. Page 27

28 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. Page 28

29 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. Page 29

30 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. Page 30

31 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 Page 31

32 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 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. Page 32

33 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 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 Page 33

34 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 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. Page 34

35 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 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. Page 35