1 of 27

NLHF GRANTS PORTFOLIO CARBON FOOTPRINT AND PATHWAY TO DECARBONISATION STEERING GROUP MEETING

2 of 27

CONTENTS

2

March 23

1

CONTEXT

2

CHALLENGES OF QUANTIFYING CARBON FOR THE FUND

3

EXPLORING DECARBONISATION

4

NEXT STEPS

3 of 27

1

CONTEXT

4 of 27

1. CONTEXT

WHO AM I?

3ADAPT

4

March 23

PHIL

5 of 27

1. CONTEXT

3ADAPT

© 3ADAPT

5

March 23

NET ZERO &

CLIMATE POSITIVE

RESILIENCE & ADAPTATION

SOCIAL

SUSTAINABILITY

ECOSYSTEMS &

RESOURCES

CIRCULAR

ECONOMIES

INTEGRATED SUSTAINABILITY

6 of 27

1. CONTEXT

WHO WE HAVE WORKED WITH

© 3ADAPT

6

March 23

7 of 27

1. CONTEXT

      • Pulse explored sustainability as a major theme in the second wave:
        • Readiness of the sector
        • Support needed
        • Capability
      • The research was co-funded by DCMS and HE and supported by devolved stakeholders.
      • Subsequent joint updates to DCMS policy teams with HE.
      • State of the sector – evidence has informed this research.

​

HERITAGE PULSE HAS WORKED WITH A WIDE RANGE OF UK PARTNERS ON SUSTAINABILITY

8 of 27

1. CONTEXT

NET ZERO COMMITMENTS

We are also signatories to the Joint Heritage Sector Statement on Climate Change, which aims for net zero emissions for operations and investments by 2050.

THE NATIONAL LOTTERY HERITAGE FUND IS ALREADY COMMITTED TO ACHIEVING NET ZERO FOR OUR OWN OPERATIONS BY 2030.

© 3ADAPT

8

March 23

9 of 27

1. CONTEXT

OVERVIEW OF PROJECT

© 3ADAPT

9

March 23

❶

Understand the pros and cons of different quantification methodologies for estimating The Fund’s Carbon Impacts

❷

Understand the feasibility of collecting new data

❸

Estimate the Annual Carbon Footprint arising from the Projects that The Fund fund

❹

Understand the long-term environmental impact of The Fund’s investments

❺

Communicate a baseline for The Fund’s emissions and a science-based Net Zero target

❻

Deploy an evidence-led approach to reduce the footprint of The Fund’s portfolio

OBJECTIVES

To calculate the carbon footprint of The Fund’s investments (downstream scope 3) to inform a carbon baseline, set science-based targets and develop an evidence-based decarbonisation strategy to meet these targets.

AIM

10 of 27

2

CHALLENGES OF QUANTIFYING CARBON

11 of 27

2. CHALLENGES OF QUANTIFYING CARBON

CHALLENGES

No other major funder has attempted to quantify the carbon footprint of their grant-making. It is complex because of number of factors

TYPES OF PROJECTS: The diversity of the projects funded which range from capital projects, to funding research to large scale landscape projects.

DIVERSITY AND CAPACITY: The different sizes of the organisations funded and the range in knowledge and resources for funding organisations about carbon foot-printing.

SIZE OF GRANT REQUEST: The range of grant sizes (from less than ten thousand to multi-millions pound grands and the need for proportionality in reporting.

COSTS: The cost of doing the work, which is in on top of what is needed for the investment portfolio’s management and for evaluation and learning.

TIMEFRAME OF IMPACTS: Considering the temporary impact of the projects we fund and the longer-term legacy of the heritage we support.

12 of 27

2. CHALLENGES OF QUANTIFYING CARBON

PROPOSED CRITERIA

© 3ADAPT

12

March 23

4

3

2

1

6

5

7

CRITERIA

Information requirements / applicant effort

The additional information that would have to be requested by the Fund and how difficult it would be to acquire.

Accuracy

The likely errors associated with quantifying the carbon emissions with the provided methodology

Breadth of Assessment of Emissions Scopes

The cover of scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions / sequestration

Financial

Coverage

The estimated proportion of the fund by financial value that is covered by the proposed methodology.

Cost of Implementation

Requires significant changes to the application process and the way data is requested of applicants. Cost burden placed upon the applicant.

Repeatability

An assessment of the repeatability of the methodology for tracking improvements as well as baselining

Portfolio Coverage

The extent of coverage of heritage types, project sizes and geographies funding.

13 of 27

2. CHALLENGES OF QUANTIFYING CARBON

SUMMARY TABLE OF SCORING

© 3ADAPT

13

March 23

​

​

A

SPEND-BASED

METHOD

B

ACTIVITY BASED

DATA

C

PROXY

DATA

D

CARBON

FOOTPRINT REPORTER

E

HIERARCHICAL APPROACH

1

INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS

5

1

4

3

4

2

ACCURACY

0

4

2

3

4

3

HOLISTIC EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT

2

3

2

3

3

4

FINANCIAL COVERAGE

4

5

5

2

4

5

NON-FINANCIAL COVERAGE

3.7

3.3

3.3

2

5

6

REPEATABILITY

1

3

3

3

5

7

COST OF IMPLEMENTATION

5

0

4

3

4

METHODS

CRITERIA

14 of 27

2. CHALLENGES OF QUANTIFYING CARBON

3. WORK DONE TO DATE: DATA HIERARCHY

1

CARBON

2

RESOURCE CONSUMPTION

3

ACTIVITY-BASED PROXY

4

COST PROXY

5

NO DATA/ASSUMPTIONS

Indicative error

Increasing

accuracy

SAMPLE SPEND

£6,560,531

SAMPLE EMISSIONS

1340 tCO2e

19/20 TOTAL SPEND

£199,856,165

19/20 TOTAL EMISSIONS

40,485 tCO2e

15 of 27

2. CHALLENGES OF QUANTIFYING CARBON

SMART PROXIES

© 3ADAPT

15

March 23

ORGANISATION (A.K.A. SITES)

The organisation that receives funding

THE PROJECT (A.K.A. PROJECT)

The project that receives funding

THE GRANT

What the grant directly pays for

Could be covered by an organisational decarbonisation target.

i.e. Net Zero by 2030.

Could be covered by a project level decarbonisation.

i.e. UK GBC Net Zero Carbon in construction and operation.

Hard to cover with any specific wider decarbonisation target.

i.e. TBC

Remit of Target

informs

informs

16 of 27

2. CHALLENGES OF QUANTIFYING CARBON

SMART PROXIES

© 3ADAPT

16

March 23

PROMPTS

      • Any thoughts or comments?

​

17 of 27

2. CHALLENGES OF QUANTIFYING CARBON

SMART PROXIES

© 3ADAPT

17

March 23

18 of 27

2. CHALLENGES OF QUANTIFYING CARBON

TIME BASED CHALLENGES

NLHF OWNERSHIP / RESPONSIBLITY

​

APPLICANT TOUCH POINTS

​

SCEHMATIC OF PROCESS

​

DATA COLLECTION

​

DATA

QUALITY

RULE OF THUMB

3 Activity Proxy

4 Cost Proxy

5 No data/assumptions

DESIGN/MODEL

1 Carbon

2 Resource Consumption

3 Activity Proxy

4 Cost Proxy

MEASURED

1 Carbon

2 Resource Consumption

3 Activity Proxy

4 Cost Proxy

PRE-APPLICATION

POST-APPLICATION

REVIEW

INITIAL GRANT (ROUND 1)

DEVELOPMENT

“BIGGER” MONEY

(ROUND 2)

DELIVERY

ENGAGEMENT

Supports application

INVESTMENT?

Analyses applications/distributes funds and collects evaluation reports?

SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION FORM

EVALUATION REPORT

DESIGN

CONSTRUCTION

OPERATIONS

SUBMISSION OF UPDATED INFORMATION FOR BIGGER PROJECTS

INITIAL

DATA

(partially structured through form entry)

BETTER

DATA

(same data request but more accurate?)

BEST

DATA

(Unstructured?)

EOI

19 of 27

2. CHALLENGES OF QUANTIFYING CARBON

SUMMARY OF ASSEESSMENT BASED UPON PROJECTS REVIEWED

© 3ADAPT

19

March 23

​

 

Scope 1

Scope 2

Scope 3

Sequestration

Heritage type

 Sub-type

Onsite combustion and fuel use

Purchase of electricity, heat, etc.

Purchased Goods and services

Capital Goods

Waste

Business Travel

Employee Commuting

Visitor Travel

Upstream leased assets

Franchises

Removals

Avoided

BUILT ENVIRONMENT

ARCHAEOLOGY

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND MONUMENTS

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

COMMUNITY, CULTURES AND MEMORIES AND INTANGIBLE HERITAGE

INTANGIBLE HERITAGE

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

CULTURES AND MEMORIES

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

COMMUNITY HERITAGE

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

LANDSCAPES AND NATURE

LAND AND BIODIVERSITY

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

SEMI-NATURAL AND NATURAL LANDSCAPES, HABITATS AND SPECIES

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

MUSEUMS, LIBRARIES, ARCHIVES AND COLLECTIONS

ARCHIVES

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

MUSEUMS

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

INDUSTRIAL, MARITIME AND TRANSPORT

INDUSTRIAL, MARITIME AND TRANSPORT

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

OTHER

OTHER

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

20 of 27

2. CHALLENGES OF QUANTIFYING CARBON

3. WORK DONE TO DATE: DEVELOPED AND REVIEWED A SAMPLE

HERITAGE TYPE

£10k and under

£10k to

£100k

£100k to

£250k

Over

£250k

Grand

Total

Built Environment

2

3

6

1

12

Community heritage

4

6

2

​

12

Culture and memories

1

2

​

​

3

Industrial, Maritime and Transport

1

1

1

​

3

Landscapes and nature

2

6

1

1

10

Museums libraries archives and collections

2

3

1

​

6

Other

​

​

1

​

1

Grand Total

12

21

12

2

47

21 of 27

2. CHALLENGES OF QUANTIFYING CARBON

KEY DRIVERS OF CARBON (WHERE COST MAY BE A VERY POOR METRIC)

© 3ADAPT

21

March 23

​

PEOPLE

BUILDINGS & INFRASTRUCTURE (CAPITAL)

LAND-USE CHANGE

QUALITY OF MEASUREMENT THROUGH COST BASED METRICS

Very poorly measured by costs in application form

Embodied carbon in partially measured by costs in application form

Very poorly measured by costs in application form

WHAT NLHF ARE FUNDING

  • Number of Visitors
  • Number of Volunteers
  • Number of Staff
  • New Build
  • Refurbishment / Repurpose

​

  • Embodied Carbon in purchase of stuff
  • Change in condition
  • Change in extent

WHAT THAT LEADS TO

  • Visitor Travel
  • Business Travel (measured in costs)
  • Commuting
  • Water Consumption
  • Waste Production
  • Extraction of Construction Materials
  • Change in Energy Consumption
  • Change in carbon emissions from the land
  • Carbon Removals

GHG PROTOCOL CATEGORIES

Scope 3

  • Business Travel
  • Commuting
  • Visitor Travel (not strictly category in GHG)
  • Waste

Scope 1 and 2

  • Onsite combustion (heating)
  • Electricity Consumption

​

Scope 3

  • Embodied carbon from construction

Unclear of scope (new Land Sector and Removal’s Guidance will help)

​

  • Avoided Emissions
  • Sequestration (Removals)

22 of 27

3

EXPLORING DECARBONISATION

23 of 27

3. EXPLORING DECARBONISATION

EXPLORING DECARBONISATION

© 3ADAPT

23

March 23

2.

ENFORCING GREATER ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR PROJECTS

3.

INCENTIVISING IMPROVED ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE

​

4.

VARYING MIX OF ALLOCATED FUNDING TO LOW EMITTING OR CLIMATE POSITIVE HERITAGE

5.

REQUIRING AND SUPPORTING SHARED SOLUTIONS

1.

DO NOTHING

24 of 27

4

SUMMARY & NEXT STEPS

25 of 27

4. SUMMARY & NEXT STEPS

SUMMARY

© 3ADAPT

25

March 23

❶

Understand the pros and cons of different quantification methodologies for estimating The Fund’s Carbon Impacts

❷

Understand the feasibility of collecting new data

❸

Estimate the Annual Carbon Footprint arising from the Projects that The Fund fund

❹

Understand the long-term environmental impact of The Fund’s investments

❺

Communicate a baseline for The Fund’s emissions and a science-based Net Zero target

❻

Deploy an evidence-led approach to reduce the footprint of The Fund’s portfolio

OBJECTIVES

To calculate the carbon footprint of The Fund’s investments (downstream scope 3) to inform a carbon baseline, set science-based targets and develop an evidence-based decarbonisation strategy to meet these targets.

AIM

26 of 27

4. SUMMARY & NEXT STEPS

NEXT STEPS

© 3ADAPT

26

March 23

WE ARE HERE

OUTPUTS

Training, webinars and presentations

Kick off meeting

REPORT

​

PROJECT EXECUTION DOCUMENT

STAGES

INTERNAL ENGAGEMENT

Regular Progress Calls

MAY

APRIL*

MAR

FEB

JAN

DEC

NOV

OCT

SEPT

2. TEST / VALIDATE

1. EXPLORE

Decarbonisation workshop

COMMS AND ENGAGEMENT MATERIALS

3. DEFINE

4. SHARE

OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGIES

​

DRAFT

FINAL

DRAFT

FINAL

Internal

one-to-ones

Stakeholder (internal) Methodology Workshop

ENGAGEMENT PLAN

External Engagement

x15

27 of 27

3ADAPT Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales. Registered number: 10754360. Registered office: 3ADAPT, F5a, The Foundry, Beehive Yard, Walcot Street, Bath BA1 5BT.

​

© 3ADAPT LTD. 2022 

www.3ADAPT.com