Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21C Project Report
Carbon Management
Framework for Major
Infrastructure Projects
e21C Project Report
December 2009
Page 1
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21C Project Report
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
Page 2
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21C Project Report
Contents
Acknowledgements
5
0H
32H
Project Team
Steering Group
5
5
1H
33H
2H
34H
Key Terms
6
3H
1
4H
35H
Introduction
8
36H
1.1 Project initiation
1.2 Who Should Use the Framework?
1.3 Context
2
8H
8
8
9
5H
37H
6H
38H
7H
39H
Scope
10
40H
2.1 Scope of the Framework
2.2 Alignment with Existing Project Management Frameworks
3
11H
10
10
9H
41H
10H
42H
How to Use the Framework
12
43H
3.1 The Framework Process
12
12H
4
13H
Project Participants
44H
14
45H
4.1 Definitions of Project Participants
4.2 Understanding How Project Participants Affect Carbon and its
Management
4.3 Mapping Project Participants
14
14H
46H
15H
15
16
47H
16H
5
17H
Boundaries
48H
18
49H
5.1 Timeframes and Sources to Consider
5.2 The Project Carbon Boundary
5.3 Categorising Carbon Within the Project Boundary
6
21H
50H
19H
51H
20H
52H
Whole Life Carbon Quantification and Assessment
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
22H
23H
24H
25H
26H
7
27H
19
21
25
18H
29
53H
Using this Chapter
Five Carbon Spiders
Breakdown of a Project into the Carbon Spiders
Breakdown of the Carbon Spiders
Assessment
Carbon Management and Reduction Strategies
29
30
30
32
36
54H
55H
56H
57H
58H
39
59H
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Organisational Carbon Management
7.3 Carbon management of projects
8
31H
39
40
40
28H
60H
29H
61H
30H
62H
Next Steps and Recommendations
44
63H
Page 3
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21C Project Report
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
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21C Project Report
Acknowledgements
0B
Project Team
2B
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)
Steering Group
3B
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
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21C Project Report
Key Terms
1B
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 61001:2004/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.
Page 6
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21C Project Report
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
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21C Project Report
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 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 2008. UCL, BERR,
Defra & Office for Climate Change.
Page 8
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21C Project Report
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
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21C Project Report
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
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21C
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21C - Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure
11
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21C Project Report
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
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21C Project Report
Figure 3.1: The Framework Process
Page 13
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21C Project Report
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
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21C Project Report
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
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21C Project Report
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
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21C Project Report
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.
Client
Construction
Contractor
Design
Consultant
Wider
Stakeholder
Table 4.1: Example of a RACI matrix
A
I
R
C
Design
A&C
I/C*
R
I/C**
Construction Methods
A&C
R
C
I/C**
C
A&R
C
I/C**
Preferred Route
Materials selection
*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
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21C Project Report
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
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21C Project Report
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 “PreGRIP” 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
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21C Project Report
Figure 5.2: Carbon Data Collection Against Key Framework Activities
Page 20
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21C Project Report
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
Page 21
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21C Project Report
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.
Page 22
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21C Project Report
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.
Page 23
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21C Project Report
Figure 5.5: Rules of Thumb for Boundary Setting
Page 24
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21C Project Report
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.
Page 25
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21C Project Report
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
Page 26
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21C Project Report
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.
Page 27
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21C Project Report
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
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21C Project Report
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
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21C Project Report
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
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21C Project Report
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
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21C Project Report
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.
Page 32
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21C Project Report
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
Page 33
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21C Project Report
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.
Page 34
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21C Project Report
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.
Page 35
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21C Project Report
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.
Page 36
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21C Project Report
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 activities 2, 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?
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.
2
Page 37
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21C Project Report
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.
Page 38
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21C Project Report
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.
Page 39
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21C Project Report
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
Page 40
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21C Project Report
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.
Page 41
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21C Project Report
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.
Page 42
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21C Project Report
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.
Page 43
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21C Project Report
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.
Page 44
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
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21c Project Report
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
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21c Project Report
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
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21c Project Report
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
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21c Project Report
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
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21c Project Report
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
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21c Project Report
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
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21c Project Report
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
Steel: Rail
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
Total
Waste
Metal
Aggregate
Timber
General waste
Total
tCO2
617
2,210
32,800
54
59
1,590
170
129
1,770
47
7
7
7
5
400
39872
tonnes
1,123
392
262
98
28
700
309
234
231
86
41
15
12
9
4
3544
tCO2
1.7
2.2
2
36.3
42.2
0.9
0.3
1
21.1
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
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21c Project Report
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.
Steel: Rail
CO2 (tonnes) per Material
Concrete sleepers
Quarried aggregate (railway ballast)
1,200
Steel: general
Hardwood sleepers
1,000
CO2 (tonnes)
Softwood for walkways
Steel: Train Platforms
800
Steel: Fencing
600
Concrete
Steel: OLE Masts
400
Copper / Silver OLE Contact Wire
200
Pipes and ducting
Steel: bar & rod for OLE foundations
0
Steel: Train platform and building foundations
Type Of Material
Sand & gravel
Carbon Spider
Figure A5: Embodied carbon of materials used in Orient Way Sidings project
CO2 (tonnes) against spider category
4000
CO2 (tonnes)
3500
3000
2500
CO2
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Buildings
Transport
Plant
Land Use change
Materials
Spider Map Category
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.
53
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21c Project Report
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
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21c Project Report
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
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21c Project Report
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.
120000
100000
Option 2
Option 1
Tonnes CO2
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
Option
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
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21c Project Report
70000000
60000000
50000000
kg CO2
40000000
Option 1
Option 2
30000000
20000000
10000000
Additional Items
Landscaping and
Ecology
STRUCTURES
ROADWORKS
Road Lighting
Traffic Signs and Road
Markings
Kerbs, Footways and
Paved Areas
Pavement
Earthworks
Drainage
Safety Fencing
Fencing
Site Clearance
PRELIMINARIES
0
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 highembedded 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
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21c Project Report
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
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21c Project Report
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
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21c Project Report
Annex C
Carbon Assessment Tools and Datasets
Name
SPeAR
BRE / BREEAM
ENVEST V.2
Source
Arup
Building Research Establishment
Centre for Sustainable Construction (BRE)
Source
availability
On request - service and assessment provided at a cost On request - service and assessment provided at a cost On request - service and assessment provided at a cost
(BRE assessors)
http://www.ceequal.com/Index.asp?bhjs=1&bhsw=1024&bh
sh=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.
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 award
Design and build award
Design award
Construction process award
Tool has been largely used for urban regeneration
schemes, development plans and manufacturing
processes and products
Availability
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 a
discounted rate set by the user.
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
CEEQUAL (Civil Engineering Environmental Quality
Awards Scheme)
ICE
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.
Self assessment questionairre
60
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21c Project Report
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
Source
availability
Environment Agency UK
http://www.environmentagency.gov.uk/cy/busnes/sectorau/37543.aspx
Highways Agency
HA Website
Atkins
http://www.atkinsrocc.com/Public/Default.aspx
Faithful and Gould
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 projects
Emissions 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
programme
Enables 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 DEFRAEnvironmental Key Perfomance Indicators
tool for the use of aggregates in construction v1.0)
PAS 2050
Source
Carbon Trust
WRAP and Aggregain (and C4S)
BSI (co-sponsored by DEFRA and the Carbon Trust)
Source
availability
http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/solutions/CarbonFootprinti http://www.aggregain.org.uk/
http://www.wrap.org.uk/downloads/AGG0079ng/how_to_calculate_a_full_carbon_footprint.htm
007_User_Guide_WRAP_format1.421ba913.2923.pdf
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 methodology
2. specify the boundary and scope
3. collect emissions data and calculate the footprint
4. 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
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
AggRegain is an information service provided by WRAP conversion and emissions factors are published annually
Aggregates Programme focusing on providing
to provide guidance on business reporting.
information regarding sustainable aggregates inclduing The aim of the report is to identify where cost savings and
a CO2 emissions calculator for the construction
increased efficiency can be made through management,
industry. This tool evaluates emissions outputs from the and reduction, of resource use. Typical areas where cost
following applications - bitumen bound, concrete,
savings can be created are identified as: the use of raw
hydraulically bound and unbound - using the output to
materials and supplies, reductions in waste, water and
estimate CO2 reductions/savings by using 'sustainable' energy use and transport, travel, and packaging (with the
construction techniques and materials
aim of reducing environmental impacts such as waste to
(recycled/secondary)
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.
Availability
Free and Readily available
Free and Readily available
Free and readily available
DEFRA
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/business/envrp/pdf/e http://www.bsi-global.com/en/Standards-andnvkpi-guidelines.pdf
Publications/How-we-can-help-you/Professional-StandardsService/PAS-2050/
Free and readily available
61
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21c Project Report
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
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21c Project Report
Figure D.1: Levels of Influence in Managing Carbon in the GRIP Process
63
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21c Project Report
Figure D.2: Levels of Influence in Managing Carbon During Operation, Maintenance and Use
64
Carbon Management Framework for Major Infrastructure Projects
e21c Project Report
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