CCF1 - 340 projects –Estimated reduction at application stage – 750,000 tCO2eReported reduction (from those which reported) – 126,000 tCO2 no agreed methodology, signposted projects to the range of tools that were available – some used on line tools, some used the estimates from EST/ESSacs, some used REAP petite, some looked to us to give conversion factors for their activities – how much carbon does an event save!?!When CCF2 started, still in the same position.
CCF review looked for success factors in 21 of the most successful projects8 of them, Ecometrica took the data which they had collected and did a proper assessment of their carbon reductions – variable results.With a energy efficiency installation project – some variationBut a food project – much bigger gap between upper and lower estimateAnd others were even biggerMuch of that down to the methodology and assumptions they had made and the data that was collected by the project, From this, several recommendations were made and adopted.
Suddenly brought in recommended methodology, became very directive! Shock to some, relief to others!Ecometrica – who did the carbon accountingWorked with us on our guidance an the LCRMConstantly trying to improve on this, all current projects and new applicants have this support and more
What we do now.CO2 a key indicator, one of a suit of indicators,Will the CO2e figures from CCF3 be more accurate? Before we answer that questions Let’s go back and look at what we got from CCF 2
We collected end of project data more consistently from the 130 projects – easier when doing it all at the same time. Asked for specific pieces of information - not totally fair as we hadn’t started off with this – but relatively simple indicators and data –Then ran them through a consistent lifetime matrix Annual saving fell far short of estimateCost - £8.3MAround 1% of the annual savings needed to meet our Scottish targets – also, we really shouldn’t be counting some of this as other initiatives will be counting it – installed measures – EST/CERTI expected that the better data from CCF3 will not reverse this and we will suddenly be saving tonnes moreSo why bother measuring this at all
Why bother with the accuracy of these little changes?We have been told we shouldn’t bother – mostly by projects.Pragmatic/political response – we can’t stopIf we stopped reporting on emissions – there would be a lot of political backlash, and from current and past projects. Not just a community improvement fund, the emissions matterHowever, much more important reason not to stop the CCF projects counting their emission reduction,From the RPP2 (Report on Policies and Proposals 2 – Low Carbon Scotland – meeting our emissions reduction targets 2013 to 2027)Grow Greener project, Parent Action for Safe Play in Coatbridge – even at the application stage, when they started to work on the carbon sectionBeith Big Swap – sports club,
Best way to address some of these barriers is to build popular support, awareness & understandingBest way to combat the deniers build popular support is to improve general awareness of the basics, more people with a grasp of the causes and impacts of climate change.Still a lot of misconceptions about what is the best thing to do to cut emissions, still some hope that we can keep on doing the things we want to do. NSI.There is only so much that individuals and community groups can do – and recognition that for big changes, big things will need to happen.We saved this amount, but we drove these miles!Our hall is nice and comfy warm and we saved this amount – what can we save next!This is why, in general, we have not found other organisations tools/spreadsheets/ footprinting black boxes less useful. EST/ESSac spreadsheets, GCNS Carbon crib sheet,. Missing out on lots of key steps, invisible assumptions, hidden processes.We have simplified the process, but not dumbed down
Go back to the questionFrom a CCF point of view, don’t want more experts. The weakest projects have been those who outsourced their carbon counting to specialist consultants. They got the report, sent it to us, many didn’t read it and those that did, didn’t understand it. Increased awareness, understanding, improved carbon literacy – missed.I would love to have indicators for improving CL. We can see it in the applications, many are comfortable with the methodology now. We are also getting more expressed need for training on the basic science of climate change – not the communication and marketing, but to improve their understanding. Have them for waste, give us Scottish ones and we can use them.Many projects are still at the ‘we don’t mention carbon to our village , they are not interested. But it is becoming more mainstream, more likely that people are joining the consensusDon’t leave it all to the grass roots, the big changes still have to happen. And LEADERSHIP is vital. No time for hypocrisy.s
We give them a list of indicators we would like them to usekWhs & type of fuel, miles travelled & mode of travelWeight of food grown, food wasteIndicators for which there are rigorous conversion factorsThey define the target group – who are they working with, how many people (they can collect data from a sample of them)Conversion factors that we signpost them to (Usually the latest Defra ones, we have a simple sheet, but for waste we have figures from ZWS from their carbon metric)Lifetimes for hard measures – from ESTLifetimes for BC – using those suggested by Ecometrica in the CCF review, high, low medium.
What information do we need from community carbon accounting? | Kate Airlie
_____________________________________________ WHAT INFORMATION DO WE NEED FROM COMMUNITY CARBON ACCOUNTING? Kate Airlie, Climate Challenge Fund February 2013
Climate Challenge FundLaunched June 2008 – “support communities to take action onclimate change”To date - awarded £44M to 399 groups to deliver 540 projectsLargest grant - £750,000 to Bike Station in EdinburghSmallest - £390 to Invergordon Golf ClubCCF phase 1 – June ‘08 to March ‘11 – carbon counting left to projects Caused a few problemsCCF phase 2 – April ‘11 to March ‘12 – one year programme – still noset methodology for carbon counting.CCF Review published in June 2011 Caused a few more problems
CCF Review recommendations• A consistent methodology – measuring the project scenario emissions against baseline emissions and• Include the lifetime savings for the project activities – both hard measures and behaviour changes.We included• A list of recommended indicators• Signposts to the recommended conversion factors• Re-wrote the Application Guidance with worked examples for using the new methodology• Redrafted the Low Carbon Route Maps, implementing the recommendations, with more worked examples.
Embedding CO2e intoMonitoring & Evaluation• CO2e is still our USP, and a key outcome for all CCF projects• About measuring the difference they have made, the changes that their activities have brought about.• Reporting to their community, member, volunteers on their successes, not just their funders.• Finding out what is working – M&E should be about learning.• Work with Evaluation Support Scotland – joint training and support.
CCF phase 2 Estimated reductions at application stage – 42.18K CO2eCO2e emissions reduced during project lifetime Food 2,350.83 t Lifetime impact of emission reductions Transport 4,039.14t 23,500t Energy Efficiency 5,524t 1,841.33t Behaviour Change Installed measures 17,720t 3,544.15t 100,766t Total - 11.76K t CO2e Total – 147.5K t CO2e
Why count these small amounts?Still the USP of the CCF – and we report on the cumulativeeffect on emissions.From the RPP2 – CCF is identified as “a supporting andenabling measure, a measure which may not directly leadto a significant reduction in emissions, but which worksmainly towards removing barriers or maximising thesuccess of other policies.”Barriers include current levels of publicawareness, understanding and carbon literacy – the CCFprocess can address these.
PROCESSWhen the board, volunteers and staff get involved in theprocess of estimating and measuring theiremissions, things happen:-• Increase awareness of the issue.• See where they can make a real difference, and where they can’t.• Starting to take a broader view – netting out, spill over.More interested in the process taking place and thelearning happening than in the absolute accuracy ofthe numbers.
WHAT INFORMATION DO WE NEED FROMCOMMUNITY CARBON ACCOUNTING?From CCF point of view• Please don’t professionalise community carbon counting.• How do we assess improvements in carbon literacy?• Give us better Scottish conversion factors!• Help us shout about what communities are doing – not a ‘supporting and enabling measure’ if we don’t mention it.• Be realistic about what communities can and will do – bottom up has to meet top down. Thank you. Questions?
METHODOLOGYBaseline (indicator measured at start of project x targetgroup x conversion factor)–Project Scenario (indicator measured at a later point xtarget group x conversion factor) xlifetime for measure/activity.=Project emission reduction