Carbon footprint and reduction strategies for global fund grants
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•1,113 views
1) The document summarizes strategies for measuring and reducing the carbon footprint of Global Fund grants. It discusses measuring emissions from activities like transportation and health facilities, and integrating reduction targets into grant-making. 2) Case studies show potential reductions from using efficient vehicles, renewable energy at clinics, and obtaining supply chain emissions data. A carbon footprint tool is proposed to track emissions from grant activities. 3) Based on estimated historical disbursements and carbon intensities by disease, the Global Fund's annual carbon pollution is roughly 6.5 million tonnes of CO2e, with a social cost of $194 million per year in climate change damages from current spending levels.
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (20)
Similar to Carbon footprint and reduction strategies for global fund grants
Similar to Carbon footprint and reduction strategies for global fund grants (20)
More from UNDP Eurasia
More from UNDP Eurasia (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Carbon footprint and reduction strategies for global fund grants
- 1. v Carbon Footprint and Reduction Strategies for Global Fund Grants Saving Lives Sustainably Dr Kristian Steele Dr Christoph Hamelmann Presentation at The Global Fund Geneva, 15 April 2015
- 2. v Content • Measuring and managing carbon emissions • Work on UNDP-GF programmes • Grant carbon footprints • Five focus areas • The carbon footprint tool • Integration with NFM • Social cost of carbon • Global Fund climate change impact • Recognition • End
- 3. 3 Measuring and managing carbon emissions: The organisation or sector A region, locality or city A product & its supply chain An asset The building/civil portfolio A programme
- 4. 4 Attributing impact and responsibility
- 5. UNDP-GF programmes • Measure and understand climate change impacts • Identify priorities • Develop response strategies to lower footprint and impacts in priority areas • Explore options for integration of carbon reduction activities with programme delivery
- 7. The carbon team John Macauley Regional Programme Specialist HIV, Health and Development UNDP Regional Centre, Europe and the CIS Elliman Jagne Operations Manager GFATM projects UNDP Zimbabwe Tedla Mezemir Damte (MD,MPH) Program Manager - Global Fund Grants UNDP Tajikistan Graeme Esau Junior Professional Consultant UNDP Zimbabwe Dr. Christoph Hamelmann Regional Practice Leader HIV, Health and Development UNDP Regional Centre, Europe and the CIS Devni Acharya Environmental Consultant, Resource & Waste Management Arup Dr. Maria Brucoli Engineer and Microgrids Specialist, Building Engineering Arup Aleksandra Krukar Admin/Finance Analyst UNDP Tajikistan Tedla Mezemir Damte (MD,MPH) Program Manager - Global Fund Grants UNDP Tajikistan Keith Robertson Senior Sustainability Consultant & Lead Analyst Arup Dr. Kristian Steele Senior Analyst, Advanced Technology & Research Arup Daisy Mukarakate Programme Specialist – Environment and energy UNDP Zimbabwe Volker Welter Senior Procurement Adviser UNDP Nordic Office Saleban Omar (MD, MSc, DTM&H) Senior Regional Programme Advisor, HIV, Health and Development Practice UNDP Regional Services Centre for Africa, EthiopiaDr. Tedla Mezemir Damte Program Manager - Global Fund Grants UNDP Tajikistan Dr. Stamatios Christopoulos Energy & Environment Programme Analyst Bratislava Regional Centre UNDP Europe and the CIS Itana Labovic HIV/AIDS Programme Manager/M&E Specialist UNDP Montenegro
- 8. 8 UNDP-GF grant 1 UNDP-GF grant 2 UNDP-GF grant 3 Identify programme climate change priorities
- 9. Evaluate climate change impact of programme ~ 200,000 tCO2e
- 10. v Fleet vehicles • Aim: identify opportunities for emissions reduction of country vehicle fleet • Finding: • Vehicle use ~ 6% of grant GHG emissions • Efficient vehicles / optimised trip management: 27% GHG emission reduction • Hybrid vehicles ~ 75% reduction in vehicle emissions per km • Full hybrid vehicle use ~ 5% cut of total grant footprint. • Outcome: Must investigate potential to extend efficiencies to sub-recipients and operations beyond PIU
- 11. v Sustainable energy planning of health facilities • Aim: Complete a pilot assessment for a renewable energy system install to an off grid primary health facility • Finding: • Carbon payback in 2 years • Financial payback in 4 years • Significant benefit to GHG emissions reduction if applied at scale, i.e. 100,000’s tonnes CO2e • Outcome: • Review how UNDP-GF programmes support health clinic power infrastructure and incentivise lower carbon renewable solutions
- 12. v Value chain impacts • Aim: Seek better carbon emissions data from supply chains • Finding: • there remains little incentive for manufactures to engage on climate change within procurement systems as they are currently structured • Interest from some manufacturers • Outcome: Confirms need for progressive change approach already under way through the United Nations iIATT-SPHS
- 13. v Action on climate change during programme delivery • Aim: how to extend action on climate change to day-to-day grant management activities • Finding: • Existing systems and reporting processes of grant delivery offer a viable working framework to gather footprint data • Outcome: create carbon footprint module to disbursement and reporting system
- 14. v The climate change and waste management nexus • Aim: was to understand the climate change impact of pharmaceutical waste management • Finding: • GHG emissions of pharmaceutical waste are marginal • resource efficiency hierarchy and climate change mitigation at odds • Outcome: • environmental safeguarding requires clear weighted decision making across issues
- 15. v Service utilisation Emissions from travel of clients to service delivery outlets and emissions from operation of facilities: • Aim: understand emissions levels. Focused study on only 3 interventions 1. Voluntary testing /counselling 2. Antiretroviral treatment 3. Monitoring of HIV-infected • Finding: GHG emissions of 4,764 tCO2e ~ 20% additional to grant footprint • Outcome: spatial aspect of service delivery is interesting a decentralised delivery model could offer a net carbon saving?
- 17. Putting climate change data into grant making: NFM 1. Global Fund / UNDP GHGs strategy review 2. Capacity building for Grant Managers 3. Identification of carbon baseline/budget 4. Early review of benchmark. Module/Activity carbon assessments from previous work 5. Assessment of programme GHG emissions based on proposed grant (disease and HSS component) 6. Review of programme carbon emissions 7. Compliance review of Environmental Safeguarding Policy 8. Monitoring and evaluation of GHG emissions
- 18. Putting climate change data into grant making: NFM Awareness raising / training for grant developers Concept Note development TRP ˅ ˄ GAC Grant making 2nd GAC ˅ ˄ BOARD Grant implemen tation Global Fund / UNDP GHG Strategy review Capacity building for Grant Managers Identification ofcarbon baseline/budget Early review ofbenchark Module/Activity carbon assessmentsfrom previouswork Assessment ofprogramme GHG emissions based on proposed grant (Disease and HSS Component) Review ofProgramme Carbon Emissions Compliance review ofEnvironmental Safeguarding Policy Monitoring and evaluation ofGHG emissions
- 19. v An outline calculation: Rough estimate of Global Fund climate change impact based on initial data Based on our studies the carbon intensity of GF projects are: HIV: 1.5kg CO2e/$ MAL: 1.3kg CO2e/$ TB: 1.6kg CO2e/$ If we take historical disbursement allocations as shown and combine with a known projected annual disbursement: ≈ $ 4.5 billion HIV: 56% MAL: 28% TB: 15% Then GF programmes annual carbon pollution can be estimated as: HIV: 3,753,000 tonnes of CO2e MAL: 1,638,000 tonnes of CO2e TB: 1,088,000 tonnes of CO2e Total Global Fund carbon pollution: 6,479,000 tonnes of CO2e per year
- 20. v The social cost of carbon: Initial estimates An estimate of the economic damage associated with the increase of atmospheric CO2e levels a value of $30 per tonne CO2e defined by Stern as the cost associated with atmosphere CO2e concentrations stabilising at 450-550ppm CO2e and keeping temperature rises within a safe limit of 2oC • This means we can monetize for a programme the cost of climate change damage • It is estimated that GF emission levels have a Social Cost of Carbon of approximately 6% of total GF disbursement; this means: $194 million of climate change damage is incurred with each year of GF disbursement
- 21. v theguardian Sustainable Business Awards 2014 Development of electricity infrastructures in sub-Saharan Africa (Oct 2015) Recognition
- 22. v Thank you for your attention
Editor's Notes
- Climate change mitigation can be dealt with a multiple project scales from national or regional right the way down to product or individual supply chain. The primary aim in each is to create outcomes that minimises the emission of green house gases (often referred to just as carbon) – i.e. low carbon. It commonly comes down to creating a carbon footprint for the ‘working context’ you are studying, and developing strategies for reducing this footprint. It starts by ‘counting carbon’.
- A carbon study will vary in approach and scope depending on where you draw the boundaries of your assessment. There are many standards and guides available which can assist undertaking an assessment. The green house gas protocol has developed some of the most useful. It provides a framework within which carbon emissions are measured and reported. It identifies three scopes. This approach is particularly useful when looking at organisational, or regional carbon footprints. Direct emissions from your business Indirect emissions your business creates due to energy is consumes Indirect emissions from your businesses supply chain and a range of activities such as business travel, waste, purchased goods etc. Such an approach can be used to organise a carbon footprint study and understand where effort and priority can be applied to reduce emissions.
- We are now going to look at this in practice for UNDP-GF programmes United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Global Fund (GF) AIDS Tuberculosis and Malaria programmes (ATM) This is a piece of work that Arup has been supporting UNDP with for 2 years now. First in Europe and CIS and now more recently Africa (Zimbabwe). The aim was to understand the CC impact of the ATM programmes, identify priorities, and then develop strategies for carbon reduction. Using budget based grant information the carbon footprint of various grant programmes has been evaluated and an overall picture built up.
- It was found that although there are notable emissions arising from direct UNDP activities. By far the greatest allocation is coming from its supply chain and the procured goods. As this graph illustrates.
- Carbon emission actually vary depending on the profile of the particular grant. This graph illustrates the point. What it has enabled UNDP to do is start focused efforts in priority areas to reduce emissions. With measurement the process of managing the emissions can being: Low carbon procurement Energy strategy in buildings Transport and logistics Measurement and reporting systems Waste management and low carbon disposal
- It was found that although there are notable emissions arising from direct UNDP activities. By far the greatest allocation is coming from its supply chain and the procured goods. As this graph illustrates.