Eco-Logica Ltd UK Schools Carbon Footprint Scoping Study for Sustainable Development Commission by Global Action Plan Stockholm Environment Institute Eco-Logica Ltd March 2006 -1- Table of Contents Summary and Recommendations....................................................................................... 4 Report Summary.................................................................................................................4 Context review for studying carbon footprinting .............................................................4 Carbon emissions associated with schools .......................................................................4 Trends which might influence carbon emissions from the school estate.......................6 Collation of good practice ..................................................................................................7 Key Recommendations ......................................................................................................7 WP1: Reviewing the context for studying the carbon footprint of the UK schools estate 9 Climate Change Policy........................................................................................................9 Education for Sustainable Development .........................................................................10 Education Policy................................................................................................................12 WP2: Identifying carbon emissions associated with schools ...........................................15 Summary...........................................................................................................................15 Introduction ......................................................................................................................16 Top-Down Carbon Footprint of Schools ...........................................................................17 Methodology.................................................................................................................17 Hybrid Approach for Estimating the Carbon Footprint of Schools .................................24 WP3: Trends which might influence carbon emissions from the school estate..............28 Introduction ......................................................................................................................28 Declining school roll .........................................................................................................28 School buildings of the future… ......................................................................................30 Information and communications technology (ICT) .......................................................33 Transport ...........................................................................................................................34 Food...................................................................................................................................35 Waste ................................................................................................................................36 Concluding remarks..........................................................................................................36 WP4: Collation of good practice guidance for carbon reduction in schools.....................37 Aim....................................................................................................................................37 The whole school approach .............................................................................................37 School buildings: technical guidance ..............................................................................38 Renewable energy ...........................................................................................................41 Waste ................................................................................................................................41 Travel to school ................................................................................................................42 Procurement .....................................................................................................................43 Food...................................................................................................................................44 Appendix 1: Supporting Information for WP2 ..................................................................46 Appendix 2: Supporting Information for WP3 ..................................................................57 Appendix 3: Supporting information for WP4 ..................................................................60 Appendix 4: School Questionnaire Survey ........................................................................69 -2- Table of Figures Figure 1: School Footprint broken down according to major consumption categories......5 Figure 2: Basic Components of Carbon Footprint of Schools..............................................17 Figure 4: CO2 Emissions of Schools put in perspective .......................................................20 Source: Project Estimations..................................................................................................20 Figure 5: Direct CO2 Emissions versus Full Carbon Footprint of the Education Sector.......21 Figure 6: Total CO2 Emissions of Schools broken down by sector of occurrence ..............22 Figure 8: Hybrid Approach for Estimating the Carbon Footprint of Schools......................25 Figure 9: Summary of schools questionnaire survey .........................................................26 Figure 10: Number of schools in England, 1978-2005.......................................................29 Figure 11: Schools and pupils in Scotland, 1975-2004 ......................................................29 Figure 12: Recommended net area for average school in England, 1996 and 2004.......32 Figure 13: The effect of extended hours of use on fuel costs. ..........................................32 Figure 14: Computers per school in England, 1998-2004..................................................34 Figure 15: Mode of travel to/from school by mode, 1989-2004......................................35 Appendix Figure 1.1: Basic Components of Carbon Footprint of Schools..........................46 Appendix Figure 1.2: The methodological structure of REAP ............................................47 Appendix Figure 1.3: General Structure of an Input-Output Table augmented with physical data.........................................................................................................................48 Appendix Figure 1.4: Participation of Schools in DfES Benchmark....................................53 Appendix Figure 1.5: UK commercial public sector energy consumption (right) and related emissions (left) by end-use for 2000.....................................................................54 Appendix Figure 1.6: The Percentage/Distance/Trips per child per year for trips to school ....................................................................................................................................55 Appendix Figure 1.7: Carbon Dioxide Emissions of School Travel .....................................56 Appendix Figure 2.1: BREEAM schools assessment: breakdown of categories and credits available................................................................................................................................57 Appendix Figure 2.2: Presentational technologies in schools in England.........................57 Appendix Figure 2.3: Drivers behind the extended schools agenda.................................58 Appendix Figure 2.4: ICT facilities available out of hours ..................................................58 Appendix Figure 2.5: Total pupil numbers in England .......................................................59 Appendix Figure 2.6: School CO2 emissions in England per pupil.....................................59 Appendix Figure 3.1: Summary of good practice guidance de-carbonisation process for schools ..................................................................................................................................60 Appendix Figure 3.2: Standard menu of good housekeeping actions ..............................62 Appendix Figure 3.3: Energy resources for schools............................................................63 Appendix Figure 3.4: Orientation of school rooms.............................................................64 Appendix Figure 3.5: Minimum school temperatures........................................................64 Appendix Figure 3.6: Water good practice: case study......................................................65 Appendix Figure 3.7: Variation of travel issues and response by school location ...........65 Appendix Figure 3.8: Sustainable travel measures ............................................................65 Appendix Figure 3.9: Sustainable procurement .................................................................67 Appendix Figure 3.10: Sample of sustainable food initiatives ..........................................68 -3- Summary and Recommendations Report Summary This study has scoped the evidence base for carbon footprinting of the UK schools estate. We conclude that: • A future project that will propose a strategy for reducing carbon emissions from the schools estate is needed and would be a relevant piece of work; • No one else has undertaken this work to date; • That both the data and an appropriate methodology are available for assessing carbon emissions; • Combining multiple data sources will lead to appropriate quality. Therefore, we have established that there is good potential for carrying out a future project that will propose a strategy for reducing carbon emissions from the schools estate. Context review for studying carbon footprinting There is a growing political and scientific consensus on the need to achieve significant cuts in carbon emissions. The school sector is recognised as potentially playing a significant role in cutting carbon emissions but this recognition is not currently translated into tangible policies. There are no clear targets for cutting carbon emissions from direct energy use, transport or procurement. Education for Sustainable Development is a policy area in development, there is currently little articulation as to how this policy interlinks with carbon footprinting. A wider carbon footprinting project should seriously consider how it will impinge on the quality of education provided by schools, seeking where possible to support and strengthen existing service delivery. There is potential for government policies on greening procurement and the drive towards higher nutritional standards within schools to be inter-linked with carbon footprinting. The lack of clear tangible policies means that carbon footprinting is not on the agenda at a school level. Carbon emissions associated with schools To-date studies that aim to assess the carbon emissions from schools have focussed on the direct carbon emissions using bottom-up data collected from school surveys. This approach neglects a considerable share of the carbon footprint arising from transport and procurement, which is important if the government wants to achieve a 60% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050. These emissions can be accounted for by using a top down approach. Based on an input-output methodology UK schools are estimated to produce 9.245 million tonnes of -4- carbon dioxide per annum.1 This is 1.32% of total UK emissions. Of this amount secondary schools produce 4.374 million tonnes, primary schools 3.681 million tonnes and other schools 1.190 million tonnes. However, this still does not factor in the 1.164 million tonnes of carbon dioxide from the private use of cars for commuting to schools,2 which were derived in estimations using bottom-up data from the National Travel Survey as the input-output model does not allow account for these (see Appendix 1). Figure 1 shows that 26% of the resulting 10.5 million tonnes of CO2 are direct emissions from the school estates and 22% from electricity used in schools as well in the industrial supply chain (for the production of goods and services used procured by schools). Commuting to schools caused another 14% of the total emissions, while other transport activities in the industrial supply chain contributed 6%. Figure 1: School Footprint broken down according to major consumption categories 3% 2% Direct Emissions 14% Electricity 26% School Transport Other Transport 4% Chemicals 5% Furniture 5% Paper Other Manufacturing 6% 22% Mining and Quarying 14% Others The top-down approach is hampered by the aggregation level of the input-output tables. Most importantly schools are immingled in the larger education sector and school- specific estimations are therefore not easily facilitated. Further, the requirement to provide a database that accounts for differences across schools cannot be fully met by standard input-output approaches. Therefore, a hybrid methodology is proposed that allows for a comprehensive measurement of the carbon footprint of individual schools by integrating top-down and bottom-up data. In particular, such an estimation framework combines level of detail typical for bottom-up approaches like a breakdown of emissions from energy use in schools according to use categories (lighting, heating, hot water etc.; see also Appendix Figure 1.5) with the all-inclusiveness and consistency of top-down approaches. It 1 Carbon dioxide emissions have been used as an indicator in this scoping study to allow for better comparison with other studies, It should therefore be noted that the same estimates would be readily available in tons of carbon, CO2 equivalent taking into account all greenhouse gases or even as an energy footprint in terms of land area. A wide range of other environmental indicators like different fuel types provided in the National Environmental Accounts would be also obtainable from the model. 2 Private Transport (mainly car use) of households in the UK contributed 62 million tonnes of CO2 to the UK’s total emissions according to the Environmental Account Data used in our model (for sources see Appendix 1). Commuting activities made up for approximately 1.9% of these according to the project estimations derived from the National Travel Survey (see Appendix 1) -5- therefore can account for direct, transport and embodied emissions (see also Appendix Figure 1.1) and is recommended for the development of a reliable database on carbon emissions of schools. There are two general types of data sources that could provide the required bottom-up data – new data collection efforts and existing databases. Both options were investigated. A pilot survey was undertaken in this study to get an idea of data availability in schools. The schools involved in survey could provide most of the data, which was asked for in the questionnaire. However this survey was based on a small sample size and it is questionable whether all schools will have the required information readily available if they have the time or capacity to complete such questionnaires without support. This survey data can be complemented with data from existing databases. Three relevant sources include the DfES energy and water benchmarks for schools3, the results from a recent BRE study4 and the National Travel Survey5. The study concludes that the proposed hybrid methodology is the best way for calculating the carbon footprint of schools and should be used, if a project is commissioned. However, the data availability in schools should be further explored before more substantial survey work is initiated. Trends which might influence carbon emissions from the school estate There are a declining number of pupils and schools in the UK. In England, the number of pupils has declined by almost 10% since 1978 with a 3% drop in Scotland since 1990. Secondary and special schools have declined in number by 28% since 1978. Pupil numbers are expected to continue to decline until at least 2021. In England 6 out of every 7 schools were built over 25 years ago and most are reaching the end of their functional lives. New build should be more energy efficient due to the Building Regulations, the EU Directive of Energy Performance in Buildings and BREEAM assessments. New schools will have a larger average floor area due to changes in education practice, extended school services, more mainstream education of Special Education Needs (SEN)6 pupils and provision for ICT. The move to use the school as an ‘extended’ community asset will increase energy demand by up to 40 per cent in some schools. The fastest growth in emissions may come from electricity consumption by ICT, particularly interactive technologies such as whiteboards and digital projectors. Energy consumption by computers in schools has already doubled in the last five years. There may be a continuation of the trend towards private cars as the preferred mode of travel to school. Between 1992 and 2004 the number of journeys made by car rose by 3 DfES (2004) Energy and Water Benchmarks for Maintained Schools in England, DfES Publication, London. 4 BRE (2002) CO2 Emissions from Energy Use in Non-Domestic Buildings in 2000 and Beyond, BRE Press, London. 5 Office for National Statistics (ONS), 2004, Transport Statistics Bulletin: National Travel Survey: 2003 Results, ONS Publications, London. 6 If a child has a learning difficulty or disability that makes it harder for them to learn than most children of the same age they may have special educational needs (SEN). This means that they may need extra or different help from that given to other children of the same age. -6- 31%. Average journey lengths also increased. These trends could potentially be exacerbated by school closures and increased parental choice. The requirement of schools to produce school travel plans by 2010 could make more ‘bottom-up’ data available’. Higher nutritional standards introduced from 2006/07 could result in more locally sourced fresh food which could significantly reduce food miles. Collation of good practice The ‘whole-school’ approaches to carbon reduction involving democratic and deliberative decision-making have achieved energy savings of 10% or more. There are a wide range of examples of this type of approach in both energy and waste. There have been a limited number of whole school initiatives looking at the carbon impact of food. Where they do exist there is an indication that they could both reduce carbon emissions and help promote higher nutritional standards. There is less persuasive evidence of the success of web-site or off-school initiatives where recruitment of schools and collection of data has proved challenging. A perceived barrier to more sustainable procurement is the government’s Value for Money policy framework and EU legislation on competitive tendering. The bench-mark for good practice in the energy efficient design of school buildings is BREEAM which has much wider scope than building regulations. There is some degree of confusion over what support schools can receive to promote good practice. There is particular confusion over the respective support provided by the Carbon Trust and the Energy Savings Trust. Key Recommendations 1. As with other sectors, specific and clear targets should be set for achieving measurable carbon reductions from the schools estate. These targets need to explicitly explain to school management teams and local authorities how they inter-link with other policy objectives such as ESD, procurement, higher nutritional standards and crucially higher educational standards. 2. It is not sufficient to solely focus on tackling the direct carbon emissions from school estates as embodied from schools’ procurement and transport emissions account for approximately 70 per cent of the total carbon footprint of schools. A holistic approach that aims for a significant reduction of the carbon emissions from schools needs to include these emissions as well. 3. Due to the incapability of the top-down model used for the estimations in this scoping study to provide the required detail for developing school specific carbon reduction strategies, a hybrid estimation framework is recommended that produces all-inclusive estimates like top-down approaches and detailed school-specific information like bottom-up approaches. -7- 4. For producing a comprehensive carbon emission inventory of schools based on a hybrid estimation methodology, bottom-up data sources need to be fed into the top-down database. Therefore, available data from existing surveys should be complemented with data from an additional school survey. While the data availability in schools for such a survey is encouraging as found in a pilot survey carried out in the context of this scoping study, it is recommended to commission a larger trial before a full survey is initiated due to the small sample size of the pilot. 5. More work is required on the impact of future trends on carbon emissions from the schools estate. It is currently uncertain whether the trends will be down due to more efficient buildings and lower school and pupil numbers or up due to more ICT use, extended school use and higher private car use. These trends should include financial impacts and should factor in the increasing costs of gas and electricity. 6. A more thorough trial of the impact of the whole school approach on carbon emissions should be tested. This trial should look at all forms of carbon emissions and should include food miles. The refined questionnaire should be used as the way of collecting both before and after data. The outcomes of this project should be used to encourage schools, local authorities, RDA’s and the devolved administrations to implement similar initiatives in their areas as part of their carbon reduction strategies (e.g. the Nottingham Declaration). 7. More work has been done to review effectiveness of web-based or off-site school support 8. There should be clarification as to the respective support provided to schools by the Carbon Trust and the Energy Savings Trust. -8- WP1: Reviewing the context for studying the carbon footprint of the UK schools estate Climate Change Policy The overall political context is providing an increasingly favourable backdrop for carbon foot-printing within schools. There are a series of broad policy ambitions to cut carbon emissions, but currently no articulation as to how these overall ambitions are specifically translated into the school sector. UK Energy Policy In the Energy White Paper – ‘Our Energy Future’, the Government accepts the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution’s recommendation that the UK should put itself on a path towards a 60% reduction in carbon emissions from current levels by 2050 (with the Devolved Administrations making an equitable contribution towards this target). It also sets targets to deliver a 20% reduction over 1990 levels by 2010. In order to do this a portfolio of measures is needed including energy efficiency, which is described as the cheapest and safest way of addressing our concerns. Furthermore, the public sector is identified as a key area for emissions reductions including a “huge opportunity to deliver improvements through our public investment in schools”7. The Government is currently consulting on its Energy Review ‘Our Energy Challenge’ 2006. Securing the Future ‘Securing the Future’ highlights the importance of the public sector in playing a leadership role and driving change in other sectors in relation to emissions reductions and energy use. Furthermore, the Strategy emphasizes the crucial role that schools can play as they have the opportunity to both inform young people about climate change as well as tackling the significant contribution that they themselves make to carbon emissions8. The Strategy states that all new school buildings, in particular those created as a result of the Building Schools for the Future programme, will have to be rated ‘very good’ according to the BREEAM Schools model, developed by the Building Research Establishment (BRE) for DfES. DfES targets Under the framework for sustainable development on the Government estate, DfES, as with all other Government Departments, is obliged to reduce carbon emissions from energy use in central government buildings by 1% per year against a 1999 baseline, to an absolute target of 12.5% by 20119. There is also a target to reduce carbon emissions from schools by 10% of 2000 levels by 2010 (or 20% of 1990 levels by 2010)10 to reflect Kyoto targets. This target is referred to in correspondence between the Minister for Environmental Affairs and the 7 DTI (2003) Our Energy Future – Creating a low carbon economy, p36 8 HM Government (2005) Securing the Future, p90 9 http://www.dfes.gov.uk/aboutus/sd/sdanddfes.shtml 10 HECFE (2003) The UK Value for Money Steering Group: Energy management in higher education, p27 (http://www.hefce.ac.uk/Pubs/hefce/2003/03_30.htm) -9- Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education. Nevertheless, this is not frequently cited and we have not found reference to the target in DfES strategies. Devolved Administrations In ‘One Future – different paths’, the devolved administrations set out their ambition to work towards the common goals identified in ‘Securing the Future’, making an equitable contribution to these goals where their devolved powers permit. ‘Choosing our Future’, the Scottish SD strategy restates the UK objective of a 60% reduction in carbon emissions by 205011. The Welsh Sustainable Development Action Plan12 2004- 2007, published prior to ‘Securing the Future’, also commits to this objective. Nottingham Declaration The Nottingham Declaration on Climate Change requires local authorities to work with the community to develop an action plan to tackle climate change at a local level. To- date over 100 local authorities have signed the Declaration. As part of the Declaration, Councils commit to encouraging all sectors of the community to reduce their own greenhouse gas emissions and to make public their commitment to action. While this does not mention schools specifically, this will provide a positive backdrop to carbon footprint activities in individual schools. However it is unlikely to have a significant direct impact on schools. Education for Sustainable Development As with policies connected with cutting carbon emissions, education for sustainable development is still a policy area in development. As a result, broad policy statements are still being defined and articulated. To-date there is little indication that these statements are driving decisions at a school level, particularly in England. There is potential confusion at a school level as to how carbon foot-printing and ESD interlinks. The compelling scientific evidence is likely to mean that policies around carbon emissions will be driven through quicker than the slightly more esoteric and abstract ESD. In the Devolved Administrations, they have sought to address this issue through the use of ecological footprint tools and this may be a way forward. At a policy level, an ESD strategy should create the overall framework within which carbon foot-printing should fit. Sustainable Development Action Plan for Education and Skills The first Sustainable Development Action Plan for Education and Skills was launched in September 2003. This Action Plan identifies short term goals that can be achieved in the next few years. The Department’s next Sustainable Development Action Plan will be published in March 2006. The Action Plan sets out four key objectives: (1) education for sustainable development (ESD); (2) environmental impact of the Department and its partner bodies; (3) the environmental impact of the education estate; (4) local and global partnership activity. 11 Scottish Executive (2005) Choosing Our Future: Scotland's Sustainable Development Strategy 12 http://www.wales.gov.uk/themessustainabledev/content/action-plan-e.pdf - 10 - Within these objectives, Key Objective 3 is of particular relevance to a carbon footprint of the UK Schools Estate13. This appears to be one of the first attempts to drive the broad principles of the Action Plan down into the school level. Key elements14 include: 1. Greater accessibility to sustainability assessment in schools through a new SEAM web-based application. 2. A ‘whole school’ approach to sustainability and environmental performance rather than completion by school management staff. 3. Exploring the contribution to be made by OFSTED inspections. 4. A broader and more comprehensive assessment of the sustainability of schools, in particular in new school buildings and major retrofits. 5. The creation of an Energy Efficiency Certification awards scheme for good energy management in schools. The objectives around the environmental impact of the education estate set out broad objectives, but do not contain specific targets. If the next Sustainable Development Action Plan is produced in 2006, it will have to set clearer targets and have a clear delivery strategy if it is to be effective in reducing carbon emissions. Securing the Future The importance of education for sustainable development is reinforced through Securing the Future. The strategy states that the formal education sector will play a crucial role in raising awareness and to promote the formation of good habits from an early age. It is recognized that sustainable development must be linked to issues of direct concern for young people such as their personal quality of life, the well-being of their communities and the environment around them. ‘Securing the Future’ highlights that young people are frequently the most concerned group in relation to sustainable development, yet the ones least likely to act15. Effectively, the strategy reinforces the idea of a ‘whole school’ approach to ESD with a particular focus on engaging young people. United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005-14) The overall goal of this decade is to integrate the principles, values and practices of sustainable development into all aspects of education and learning. To achieve this goal the decade will aim to clarify the vision of education for sustainable development, build closer links between ESD stakeholders and increase the profile of ESD. The UN Decade will provide a positive backdrop to ESD activities, but is unlikely to have a significantly direct impact on schools. Devolved Administrations 13 DfES (2003) Sustainable development action plan for Education and Skills 14 DfES (2003) Sustainable development action plan for Education and Skills, p14 15 HM Government (2005) Securing the Future, p37 - 11 - Within their respective strategies and action plans, the Devolved Administrations have mirrored DfES’s policy to promote ESD through school-based education. Significantly, both the Scottish and Welsh administrations have taken forward the idea of ecological footprint as a tool for increasing understanding of unsustainable consumption and learning how to make more sustainable choices16. The Scottish Executive will continue to support the work of WWF and partner organisations to roll out their footprint approach to local authorities and schools across Scotland17. In Wales, a project involving a ‘Whole School Ecological Footprint Toolkit’ developed by the Field Studies Council18 has received funding from the Welsh Assembly’s Education for Sustainable Development & Global Citizenship19 (ESD & GC) grant scheme. This ‘website’ toolkit will allow schools to calculate their ‘whole school’ footprint. Education Policy Cutting carbon emissions and ESD provide a broad backdrop which will increasingly influence policy and decision-making within schools. The predominant policy driver will, however, be the quality of education provided. It is important, therefore, for carbon foot-printing to acknowledge this by: • linking with the curriculum; • using a ‘whole school’ approach; • tying into existing (and future) services within schools; • being sensitive to different local needs. Every Child Matters Every Child Matters is the central policy driver for schools and other school strategies and initiative fall under its banner. A central tenet of the strategy is that pupil performance and well-being go hand in hand. Within the strategy, Extended Schools and the ten year strategy for childcare are of particular relevance to a carbon footprint of the UK schools estate: Full-Service Extended Schools (FSES) Many schools already offer a range of extended services20 including on-site support services for families, community improvement and lifelong-learning schemes as well as breakfast and after-school clubs. These services have been shown to improve children’s motivation and engagement21 as well as increasing trust and support between families and schools22. As a result, the Government is looking to all schools to offer a core of 16 See www.scotlands-footprint.com 17 Scottish Executive (2005) Choosing Our Future: Scotland's Sustainable Development Strategy, p57 18 http://www.field-studies-council.org/fscee/newsletter/September%202005.pdf 19 Welsh Assembly (2004) Welsh Sustainable Development Action Plan: 2004-2007; Welsh Assembly (2005) Welsh Sustainable Development Annual Report: 2005 20 For case studies see: http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/wholeschool/extendedschools/practicalknowhow/2002_detailedguidance/cases tudies/themedcasestudies/childcare/ http://www.continyou.org.uk/cs.php?SearchSubmit=1&ActivityCategories=8 http://www.remodelling.org/resources/case_studies.php 21 OFSTED (2005) Extended schools: a report on early developments, p1 22 Cummings et al. (2005) Evaluation of the Full Service Extended Schools Project: End of First Year Report, DfES - 12 - extended services by 2010 either on site or across a cluster of local school and providers. Within primary schools, this will be orientated around family learning and parental support opportunities. In the Secondary sector, schools will be required to open up their facilities for extracurricular activities such as sport, art and IT23. This initiative will provide additional opportunities to carry out a carbon footprint of the UK Schools Estate. Through the Extended Schools initiative, the Government (as outlined in ‘Securing the Future’) will explore ways in which schools can actively support sustainable development in their local communities, leading to practical improvements in local quality of life24. A bottom-up carbon footprint of individual schools and their impact on the local carbon emissions could be used to promote further action at school and in the wider community. Ten Year Strategy for Childcare The recently announced Government’s ten year strategy for childcare sets out the ambition that by 2008 half of parents of children aged 5–11 will be able to access childcare at their child’s primary school, or at a nearby school or provider with supervised transfer arrangements, at least between 8am–6pm, all year round. Childcare will not necessarily be on the school site but could be provided locally in collaboration with other providers. All parents will have this opportunity by 2010. By 2008, at least a third of secondary schools will be open on the same basis offering a broad range of things for young people to do. It is envisaged that by 2010 all secondary schools will provide this offer25. Summary Essentially, these initiatives mean that schools will increasingly become a hub for community activity and young people will spend longer at school, participating in a wider range of activities. As a result, there is likely to be greater scope for young people to participate in programmes that improve the environmental performance of their schools26. A ‘carbon footprint’ programme would be a useful focal point for existing (and future) activities in relation to the environment and broader sustainability issues. The New Education White Paper While there are areas of uncertainty surrounding the fate of the New Education White Paper, it will doubtless have a significant impact on a carbon footprint of the UK Schools Estate. ‘Higher Standards, Better Schools For All’ emphasises greater autonomy for schools and more choice for parents. In addition, it promises to tailor education to the needs of the individual. In relation to the practical implementation of this research project, self-governing Trust schools will be given freedom to work with new partners to help develop their ethos and raise there standards. As a result, there will be greater opportunity for more out- 23 DfES (2004) Every Child Matters: Change for Children in Schools, p3 24 HM Government (2005) Securing the Future, p37 25 DfES (2004) Every Child Matters: Change for Children in Schools, p4 26 See Delaware County Primary School as an extended school that has taken this forward. http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/wholeschool/extendedschools/practicalknowhow/2002_detailedguidance/casestu dies/themedcasestudies/childcare/ - 13 - sourcing and INSET teaching27. Issues such as the environment and sustainable development - although a statutory part of the curriculum - may require external educators to teach these elements. This is likely to support a programme that links the carbon footprint of each school estate to the sustainable development curriculum. The carbon footprint could then be used as a focal point for action within the school and the wider community. In addition, the New Education White Paper states that there will be a greater availability of ICT for young people. Improved access to ICT and newer technologies could support an interactive web-based carbon footprint tool. However, such a tool is unlikely to be used sufficiently unless embedded in existing curricular materials or linked to other bottom-up emissions reductions programmes28. Building Schools for the Future The ‘Building Schools for the Future’ strategy - mirrored by a similar strategy in Scotland - seeks to replace or modernise all of the building stock in secondary schools over the next fifteen years. Building programmes such as these will influence the subtleties of different school estates - for instance the difference between primary and secondary schools – and therefore will have an impact on how a carbon footprint study could be conducted. Sustainable Schools Self-Assessment DfES are currently developing a ‘Sustainable Schools Self-Assessment’ (s3). This is currently undergoing preliminary consultation. It will be offered to help schools self- assess their efforts in a way that allows them to use their work as evidence of school improvement in the OFSTED self-evaluation form. Finally, it is important to note that the SSSA - like other self-assessments for sustainability - is voluntary and is likely to remain so. This may encourage schools to compile environmental information to demonstrate school improvement. A bottom-up carbon footprint of individual schools could be promoted in terms of providing environmental information for the SSSA. 27 Inset Teaching involves external educators come into teach a particular part of the curriculum 28 This is based on the low uptake of the EST’s Energy Efficiency Certificate for Schools (only 3 out of the 800 registered schools have achieved certification). This programme provides support through a standalone website with additional materials. - 14 - WP2: Identifying carbon emissions associated with schools Summary The purpose of this work programme is to identify a methodology for calculating the carbon emissions associated with schools, provide some initial estimates and assess the quality and availability of data that could help in compiling a more comprehensive carbon emission data base for schools. To-date studies have focussed on the direct carbon emissions by using bottom-up data collected from school surveys. This approach neglects a considerable share of the carbon footprint arising from transport and procurement, which is important if the government wants to achieve a 60% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050. These emissions can be accounted for by using a top down approach. Based on an input-output methodology UK schools are estimated to produce 9.245 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per annum.29 This is 1.32% of total UK emissions. Of this amount secondary schools produce 4.374 million tonnes, primary schools 3.681 million tonnes and other schools 1.190 million tonnes. However, this still does not factor in the 1.164 million tonnes of carbon dioxide from the private use of cars for commuting to schools,30 which were derived in estimations using bottom-up data from the National Travel Survey as the input-output model does not allow account for these (see Appendix 1). With this included, 26% of the resulting 10.5 million tonnes of CO2 are direct emissions from the school estates and 22% from electricity used in schools as well in the industrial supply chain (for the production of goods and services used procured by schools). Commuting to schools caused another 14% of the total emissions, while other transport activities in the industrial supply chain contributed 6%. However, the top-down approach is hampered by the aggregation level of the input- output tables. Most importantly schools are immingled in the larger education sector and school-specific estimations are therefore not easily facilitated. Further, the requirement to provide a database that accounts for differences across schools cannot be fully met by standard input-output approaches. Therefore, a hybrid methodology is outlined that allows for a comprehensive measurement of the carbon footprint of individual schools by integrating top-down and bottom-up data. In particular, such an estimation framework combines the level of detail typical for bottom-up approaches like a breakdown of emissions from energy use in schools according to use categories (lightning, heating, hot water etc.) with the all- inclusiveness and consistency of top-down approaches. It therefore can account for direct, transport and embodied emissions and is recommended for the development of a reliable database on carbon emissions of schools (see also Appendix Figure 1.1). 29 Carbon dioxide emissions have been used as an indicator in this scoping study to allow for better comparison with other studies, It should therefore we noted that the same estimates would be readily available in tons of carbon, CO2 equivalent taking into account all greenhouse gases or even as an energy footprint in terms of land area. A wide range of other environmental indicators like different fuel types provided in the National Environmental Accounts would be also obtainable from the model. 30 Private Transport (mainly car use) of households in the UK contributed 62 million tonnes of CO2 to the UK’s total emissions according to the Environmental Account Data used in our model (for sources see Appendix 1). Commuting activities made up for approximately 1.9% of these according to the project estimations derived from the National Travel Survey (see Appendix 1) - 15 - There are two general types of data sources that could provide the required bottom-up data – new data collection efforts and existing databases. Both options were investigated. A pilot survey was undertaken in this study to get an idea of data availability in schools. The schools involved in the survey could provide most of the data asked for in the questionnaire. However this survey was based on a small sample size and it is questionable whether all schools will have the required information readily available if they have the time or capacity to complete such questionnaires without support. This survey data can be complemented with data from existing databases. Three relevant sources include the DfES energy and water benchmarks for schools31, the results from a recent BRE study32 and the National Travel Survey33. The WP concludes that the proposed hybrid methodology is the best way for calculating the carbon footprint of schools and should be used if a project is commissioned. However, the data availability in schools should be further explored before more substantial survey work is initiated. Introduction With the rise of climate change on the political agenda, the term carbon footprint has been increasingly used in current sustainable development discussion. In this course studies have provided various quantitative measures of Carbon Footprints. These different carbon footprint estimates all share the fundamental intention to provide a comprehensive, all-inclusive account of all or a particular set of greenhouse gases. They take a consumption perspective (see, SEI et al., 200634), which seeks to include all carbon emissions associated with the consumption of a particular good or service in the UK, wherever they occur geographically. Within the economy this means that all carbon emitted in the various industrial sectors throughout the supply chain needs to be factored in. Further, the emissions occurring abroad in the production of goods associated with this consumption activity in the UK need to be reflected in a carbon footprint estimate as well. While the unit of measurement of carbon footprints varies across studies ranging from tons of carbon to tons of carbon dioxide (equivalent) or hectares of land,35 it important to understand that these measures can be easily converted into each other, i.e. they express the same thing in different ways. The objectives of this work programme are to outline a methodology for estimating a carbon footprint of schools in the UK, to provide some initial estimates, and to assess the quality and availability of data that could help in the collation of a comprehensive carbon emission database for school estates. To-date, studies have mainly focussed on the direct emissions from school estates.36 These emissions are usually calculated in bottom-up models using data collected in school surveys. However, these studies do not take into account the transport emissions arising from the travel of pupils and staff to schools as well as the embodied emissions that arise in the economic supply chain 31 DfES (2004) Energy and Water Benchmarks for Maintained Schools in England, DfES Publication, London. 32 BRE (2002) CO2 Emissions from Energy Use in Non-Domestic Buildings in 2000 and Beyond, BRE Press, London. 33 Office for National Statistics (ONS), 2004, Transport Statistics Bulletin: National Travel Survey: 2003 Results, ONS Publications, London. 34 SEI, WWF and CURE, 2006, Counting Consumption. CO2 Emissions, Material Flows and Ecological Footprint of the UK by Region and Devolved Country, WWF UK, Surrey. 35 These are estimates of the amount of land that would be required to absorb the emitted greenhouse gases. 36 The only other component that is conventionally included are the carbon emissions from electricity use, which are not part of the direct emission estimate (see Appendix 1). - 16 - during production and delivery of goods and services abroad and at home demanded in the course of schools’ procurement activities. They therefore cannot satisfy the comprehensive nature of the carbon footprint concept. The three different types of emissions that need to be included in a carbon footprint estimate for schools are shown below in the Figure 2. Further details can be found in Appendix 1 (including a breakdown of emissions within these categories). In the next section an alternative top-down approach is introduced, which allows us to derive a full carbon footprint of schools. Figure 2: Basic Components of Carbon Footprint of Schools Top-Down Carbon Footprint of Schools In this Section a top-down approach is used to provide a full carbon footprint of schools. After a brief introduction of the methodological framework, it is shown in the result discussion that a large amount of carbon emission associated with school services is neglected, if transport and embodied emissions are excluded from the analysis. Insights from the discussion of the approach’s limitations are used in the next Section for the recommendation of a more appropriate and flexible methodology for the establishment of a comprehensive data base of the carbon emissions from schools. Methodology For calculating the carbon footprint of schools the Resource and Energy Analysis Programme (REAP) developed by Stockholm Environment Institute York was used (see Wiedmann and Barrett, 2005)37. The relevant part of the REAP model for the estimations in this scoping study is based on an environmental input-output methodology as proposed by Nobel Prize laureate Vasily Leontief (1970) 38. It is the main strength of environmental input-output models that they allow the assignment of all carbon emissions occurring in the industrial supply chain abroad and at home to the 37 Wiedmann, T. and Barrett, J., 2005, The Use of Input-Output Analysis in REAP to Allocate Footprints and Material Flows to Final Consumption Activities, REAP Report NO. 2, Stockholm Environment Institute, York. See also, www.sei.se/reap 38 Leontief, V., 1970, Environmental Repercussions and the Economic Structure, Review of Economic Statistics 52: 262-277. - 17 - various final goods and services delivered to domestic final demand categories (mainly household consumption, government consumption and capital investment). For calculating the carbon footprint of schools, the model combines monetary input- output tables with sectoral CO2 and fuel use data from the environmental accounts available from the Office of National Statistics. Based on the assumption that each unit of a sector’s product or service delivered to other production sectors or final consumers produces the same amount of pollution (e.g. CO2, all greenhouse gases etc.) per unit of sectoral output,39 sectoral CO2 intensities (expressed in tons of CO2 per unit of sectoral output) can be calculated and used for the estimation of all carbon emissions triggered throughout the supply chain by the final expenses for school education as recorded in the input-output tables. Because school education is immingled in the larger education sector, final expenses (mainly by households and governments) on school education needed to be separated out based on additional ONS (2005b; 2003)40 sources (see Figure 3). For more accurate estimations of embodied emissions of imports caused by the demand for school education services publicly available OECD trade data as well as sector and world-region specific CO2 intensities of production processes was used. This carbon footprint estimate then comprises not only the direct, but also the transport and embodied emissions. While the limitations of such an approach will be discussed later, the reader is referred to Appendix 1 for a more detailed model outline. Figure 3: Proportional Government Final Expenditure on Education by Type in 2001 5% 9% Schools 12% Higher Education Funding Council Further Education Funding 61% Council 13% Other education expenditure Capital Expenditure Source: ONS (2005b) Results The results presented in this scoping study give an indication of what can be achieved by using a top-down approach to estimate the carbon footprint of schools. For reasons of comparability with previous studies only the CO2 emissions measured in kilo tonnes 39 Alternatively it can be assumed that each unit of a sector’s output requires the same amount of resource inputs like for example different fuel types per unit of sectoral output. This allows calculating the total amount of fuels required to provide education services. These can then be converted into greenhouse gas emissions. These results were obtained from the REAP model as well, but are not presented here. 40 Office for National Statistics (ONS), 2005b, Annual Abstract of Statistics, 2005 Edition, No. 141, ONS Publications, London.: Office for National Statistics (ONS, 2003), Family Spending – A Report on the 2001- 2002 Expenditure and Food Survey, ONS Publications London. - 18 - of carbon dioxide (kT) are included in the result section here. This will sometimes be referred to as carbon emissions in the course of the results discussion. REAP further readily produces the results in terms of fuel use and for all other greenhouse gas emissions, which were not included in this scoping study in order to keep the results section concise. Because schools are immingled in the larger education sector and could only be isolated based on simple disaggregation of final expenditures on schools in the scope of this scoping study, some results will be provided for the whole education sector for matters of robustness of the estimates. As shown in Figure 4, UK consumption of goods and services in 2001 caused a total of 698.7 million tonnes of CO2 world-wide.41 Of this, government consumption is responsible for about 9 per cent. The education sector constitutes 26 per cent of government emissions, amounting to a total of 16.5 million tonnes of CO2 (see Figure 4). This is approximately 2.4 per cent of the national total. In the education sector, schools are the largest contributors emitting 9.2 of these 16.5 million tonnes. Therefore, UK schools contribute approximately 1.32 per cent of the total CO2 emissions associated with UK consumption patterns. These results compare well with a recent study by the carbon trust taking into account the slight differences in data sources and methodology.42 41 A complete carbon footprint requires the CO2 in other countries caused by the production of imports to the UK to be taken into account and excludes CO2 from UK exports. Overall, consumption patterns in the UK resulted in a total of 699 million tons of CO2 or 11.81 tons per capita in 2001. A key driver was the household demand for goods and services with 6.22 tons of CO2 per capita. Embodied import related emissions are subsumed in these various final demand categories amounting to a total of 306 million tons. Government consumption contributed to a total of 64 million tonnes or 1.08 tons per capita. 42 The production of all goods and services produced in the UK economy required a total of 176.4 million tons of carbon according to the Carbon Trust study (CST). Converted into CO2 emission this is about 646.8 million tons of CO2. SEI estimate is 698.65 million tons. The difference stems from a variety of sources: 1) REAP CO2 emission data is from 2001, while the CST data used is from 2002; 2) The CS estimates only comprise CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use, REAP also includes non-fossil fuel based CO2; 3) REAP is based on more recent IO tables (2000 vs. 1995); 4) REAP uses world-region specific fuel-use and CO2 coefficients to estimate import related emissions, while they impute import related emissions purely from UK data. Due to SEI’s experience in this field DEFRA has recently commissioned SEI to devise a standard UK indicator for import related CO2. - 19 - Figure 4: CO2 Emissions of Schools put in perspective kT t/cap % % UK 698,652 11.81 100 - Government consumption 64,022 1.08 9.16 100 Education 16,528 0.28 2.37 25.82 Schools - Total 9,245 0.16 1.32 14.44 Primary Schools 3,681 0.06 0.53 5.75 Secondary Schools 4,374 0.07 0.63 6.83 Others 1,190 0.02 0.17 1.86 Source: Project Estimations The above emission estimates account not only for direct emissions, but also other emissions associated with the provision of a particular good or service such as school education. The importance of including transport and embodied emissions is particularly relevant for service industries such as education/schools, which are often heavily reliant on products from primary and secondary production sectors in their service provision. In the course of the production of these goods further emissions are caused higher up in the supply chain and need to be assigned to the consuming sector. This is highlighted in Figure 5 for the education sector as a whole. While the education sector only emits about 5.7 million tonnes of CO2 directly through the operation of school buildings and equipment (ONS, 2005c)43, another 10 million tonnes of CO2 is created elsewhere in the economy through other economic activities that contribute to the provision of education services in its current form. Hence, a substantial amount of the carbon footprint of schools is neglected, if the focus is only on direct emissions. 43 Office for National Statistics, 2005, Environmental Accounts, Autumn 2005 Edition, ONS Publications, London. Note that emissions from driving schools could be excluded based on more detailed data provided by ONS after a personal communication. - 20 - Figure 5: Direct CO2 Emissions versus Full Carbon Footprint of the Education Sector Source: Project Estimations 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 kt of CO2 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 - Direct Emissions Total Emissions Even though direct CO2 emissions might be easier to target, Figure 5 shows the relevance of the governments green procurement and green transport agenda for the education sector in general and schools in particular44. A significant reduction in the carbon footprint of schools may be achieved once all emissions associated with their services are considered. Figure 6 breaks down the carbon footprint of schools as calculated with environmental input-output model according to the sector where the emissions occur. The first important thing to notice is that the estimate presented in Figure 4 is still incomplete, because it does not include the CO2 from private transport activities of households in the course of commuting to schools. These were estimated from bottom-up data outside the input-output model to be 1.3 million tonnes. This is 1.9% of the 63 million tonnes of CO2 from all private transport activities of households in the UK (see ONS, 2005).45 Overall the footprint of schools therefore increases to 10.5 million tonnes of CO2. 44 HM Government, 2005, Securing the Future. Delivering UK Sustainable Development Strategy, TSO Stationary Office, Norwich. 45 Office for National Statistics, 2005, Environmental Accounts, Autumn 2005 Edition, ONS Publications, London. - 21 - Figure 6: Total CO2 Emissions of Schools broken down by sector of occurrence Source: Project Estimations SIC 123 Sector CO2 (kt) % 1-2 Agriculture, hunting and forestry 59 0.56 3 Fishing 10 0.10 4-5 Mining and quarrying of energy producing materials 183 1.73 6-7 Mining and quarrying except energy producing materials 8 0.08 8-20 Manufacture of food products; beverages and tobacco 106 1.00 21-28 Manufacture of textiles and textile products 37 0.35 29-30 Manufacture of leather and leather products 11 0.10 31 Manufacture of wood and wood products 83 0.79 32-34 Manufacture of pulp, paper and paper products 379 3.60 35 Manufacture of coke, petroleum products and nuclear fuel 237 2.25 36-46 Manufacture of chemicals, chemical products and man-made fibres 513 4.86 47-48 Manufacture of rubber and plastic products 159 1.50 49-53 Manufacture of other non-metal mineral products 465 4.41 54-61 Manufacture of basic metals and fabricated metal products 239 2.27 62-68 Manufacture of machinery and equipment not elsewhere classified 66 0.62 69-76 Manufacture of electrical and optical equipment 150 1.42 77-80 Manufacture of transport equipment 60 0.57 81-84 Manufacturing not elsewhere classified (mainly furniture) 508 4.82 85-87 Electricity, gas and water supply 2,266 21.50 88 Construction 15 0.14 89-91 Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles etc. 43 0.41 92 Hotels and restaurants 1 0.01 93-97 Transport 715 6.78 98-99 Storage and communication 17 0.16 100-102 Financial intermediation 5 0.05 103-114 Real estate, renting and business activities 85 0.81 115 Public administration and defence; compulsory social security 3 0.03 116 Education 2,768 26.26 117-118 Health and social work 6 0.06 119-122 Other community, social and personal service activities 46 0.44 123 Private households with employed persons 0 - Total IO Model 9,245 87.70 Private Transport of households (outside scope IO model) 1,296 12.30 Total Carbon Footprint of Schools 10,541 100.00 26% of the total carbon footprint attributable to the provision of school education is represented by the 2.7 million tonnes of direct CO2 emissions from schools (represented by the education sector in the table). These are mainly the direct emissions from the on-site burning of fuels. Another 2.3 million tonnes are generated from electricity, gas and energy throughout the supply chain. This will, for example, capture the emissions from the electricity use of schools, which occur elsewhere in the economy, as well as from all other industrial sectors involved in the supply chain of school education service provision. Together both make almost 50 per cent of the total carbon footprint of schools. All transport activities taken together contribute another 20%. These comprise the 1.3 million tonnes associated with private transport of household and another 0.7 million from public transport services as well as other transport occurring in the schools’ supply chain. These different transport emissions are juxtaposed in Figure 7. The remaining 33% occur elsewhere in the supply-chain as shown in Figure 6. - 22 - Figure 7: Transport related Emissions juxtaposed Source: Project Estimations 1400 1200 1000 kt of CO2 800 600 400 200 0 School Transport - School Transport - Other Transport in Public Private Supply Chain Activities Limitations The most obvious limitation to the current approach is the aggregation level. No specific information about schools is readily available from the national input-output tables. Therefore providing reliable carbon emission estimates for individual schools, which pick up differences in the operation of schools as well the associated transport and procurement efforts, cannot be easily achieved in the current framework. A less obvious limitation imposed by the aggregation level is associated with the calculation of the embodied emissions of schools. To estimate the total CO2 emissions associated with consumption of a certain product or service, input-output models assume that each unit of service provided by a sector causes the same amount of pollution per unit of sectoral output. Hence, they approximate the flows of carbon in the economy based on the monetary flows associated with the buying and selling of goods and services throughout the economy. This assumption might not be a large problem, if the sectoral output is very homogenous46. However, most of the 76 sectors sell a broad range of products. This makes the approximation of carbon emissions through average sectoral CO2 intensities more problematic. While this limitation cannot easily be resolved, it needs to be put into perspective: 1. Due to their accounting nature input-output methods provide emission estimates consistent with the national total. This means, if error occurs it is only associated with the distribution of the emissions across sectors. 2. There is a wide range of literature on aggregation error, which suggests that the aggregation level used is sufficient to derive reasonable estimates. 46 In the best case a sector would only produce one homogenous product. - 23 - 3. Input-Output methodologies are the best available method to estimate the carbon emissions embodied in goods and services. They are therefore used by Statistical Offices throughout the world for similar kind of estimations (e.g. ONS, 2004b)47. Hence, the top-down approach has identified the substantial contribution of transport and embodied emissions to the overall carbon footprint of UK schools. It is, therefore, of great importance to take these emissions into account. The limitations of this top- down approach however implies that modifications in the methodology need to be undertaken, if more detailed estimates are to be provided in the future. Hybrid Approach for Estimating the Carbon Footprint of Schools In this section a methodology for estimating the carbon footprint of schools will be provided which allows the integration of bottom-up and top-down data in a hybrid model. In the first part of this section, some of its fundamental capabilities are briefly outlined. In the remaining parts, the available bottom-up data will be reviewed and their applicability to the hybrid approach will be discussed. Proposed Hybrid Methodology Existing hybrid approaches provide methods on how to integrate and reconcile detailed bottom-up data with consistent top-down data. By doing so these approaches allow detailed, school-specific data to be considered in input-output frameworks48. Such a hybrid estimation methodology is recommended for building-up a comprehensive database of carbon emissions from schools in Phase 2 of the project. In this course, the education sector will need to be disaggregated, first into school and non-school. The school sector will then be further broken-down into groups of schools as well as individual schools. Moreover, school-related transport activities will need to be isolated from other public transport. The top-down data will ensure that these disaggregation efforts are consistent and the combination of top-down and bottom-up data will help to identify and close data gaps (via statistical optimisation methods). The results will be comprehensive like ones derived from a top down methodology and as detailed as ones from a bottom-up approach (e.g. see Appendix Figure 1.5). This will allow the model to obtain complete and consistent estimates of CO2 accounts for individual or groups of schools. The proposed methodological approach is summarised in Figure 8. The major benefits of using a hybrid approach for the establishment of a comprehensive database for the carbon emissions of schools are: completeness; consistency; reliability and flexibility. None of these benefits can be provided by only using a bottom-up or top-down approach. Especially the issue of flexibility was seen of great importance for this recommendation as the hybrid 47 Office for National Statistics (ONS), 2004b, The Impact of UK Households on the Environment through Direct and Indirect Generation of Greenhouse Gases, Report by the Office for National Statistics, London. 48 Joshi, S., 2000. Product Environmental Life-Cycle Assessment Using Input-Output Techniques. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 3:95-100 pp. Lenzen, M., 2002, A guide for Compiling Inventories in Hybrid Life-Cycle Assessments: some Australian Results. Journal of Cleaner Production 10: 545-572. Suh, S., Lenzen, M., Treloar, G. J., Hondo, H., Horvath, A., Huppes, G., Jolliet, O., Klann, U., Krewitt, W., Moriguchi, Y., Munksgaard, J., and Norris, G., 2004, System boundary selection in life-cycle inventories using hybrid approaches. Environmental Science & Technology 38: 657-664. - 24 - framework works with relatively sparse, as well as of large amounts of, school specific bottom-up data. Figure 8: Hybrid Approach for Estimating the Carbon Footprint of Schools The final component for a successful implementation of the proposed framework for calculating the carbon footprint of (individual) schools is to provide an overview of the bottom up data already available and the type of data that could be collected in additional survey efforts. This will be discussed below. Three potential data sources were assessed in the course of this scoping study and are explored below: • Survey Data collected by GAP and SEI from schools directly • Direct Fuel-use and Emission Data from previous studies • Private and Public Transport Data from the National Travel Survey. Survey Data Collected from Schools A questionnaire was devised by SEI and GAP that would provide an understanding of the available data within schools to calculate a carbon footprint (See Appendix 4 – Schools Questionnaire Survey). This questionnaire was tailored towards the needs of the hybrid model. Schools were not asked to provide the data required but were questioned about its availability. The questionnaire was divided into five consumption categories: • Travel (Business, Commuting and Air Travel) • Food - 25 - • Goods and Services • Waste49 • Energy Consumption Six schools were approached to participate in the survey. However we only received feedback from four schools. A summary of the available data from the different schools is presented in Figure 9 (see Appendix 1 for more detailed feedback from schools questionnaire survey): Figure 9: Summary of schools questionnaire survey Consumption Category Schools and LEA Feedback Response Travel Majority of schools could Include “school travel” and provide data for all “commuting”. Shift air components except air travel to expenditure travel Food Most schools had real Simplify considerably. difficulties with the data Reduce to four questions on food related to expenditure, organic and local food Goods and Services No data issues meaning As it relies on expenditure they have full data available this data was freely available. No changes required Waste A mixed response Tonnes of waste to be included but not composition. Need to work closely with local authority to understand disposal method Energy No data issues No changes required The feedback from the schools questionnaire was encouraging. The schools were able to provide the majority of the data in a considerable number of the consumption categories. If all schools could provide data at this level then a reasonably accurate carbon footprint could be provided for each school50. 49 Waste data should be collected to estimate: (1) the potential carbon savings from waste minimisation efforts; (2) the carbon savings from recycling; (3) the carbon creation potential from waste incineration. These issues are important for a comprehensive carbon management. 50 The carbon footprint results would have some simplifications as it would not cover specific variations in practice between schools. For example, it is difficult to see how schools could identify the origin of the all the food consumed. However, differences in the level of food consumption would still acknowledged by the model. - 26 - While the feedback was encouraging, it is likely to be unrepresentative and skewed as: 1. The sample size for the questionnaire was very small. While providing an initial insight, this survey should be extended. 2. All four schools that provided feedback had previously participated in environmental projects. Therefore, these schools had a higher level of staff awareness and concern than in other schools. 3. Although GAP approached two inner city secondary schools with the questionnaire, due to a lack of staff time they were unable to participate. Finally, the initial survey highlighted a number of areas where the data burden could be made easier (see Appendix 1 – Recommended changes to Schools Questionnaire) but further work is required to ensure that all schools would be in a position to complete the questionnaire. It was concluded that another pilot study with a larger sample size should be undertaken before a full survey is carried out. Direct Fuel-use and Emission Data from previous studies There are a number of specific reports that have attempted to understand the carbon emissions or other environmental impacts of the education sector in general and schools in particular. Data and results can be used as data inputs or serve as benchmark figures. The existing evidence base (reviewed in Appendix 1 - Review of Direct Fuel-use and Emission Data from previous studies) on direct CO2 emissions of schools has revealed two important sources of information that should be of great value as a benchmark and data input for estimating a comprehensive carbon footprint of schools. These are: • DfES Energy and Water Benchmark • BRE Review of opportunities for improved carbon savings from spend on education buildings. They provide a good starting point to which new data can be added. A hybrid approach will ensure that the aggregate energy use and CO2 data will be consistent with national figures (or help to revise those) and might help to uncover data gaps. Moreover, the BRE study will serve as a good complement that might assist government in general and schools in particular to reduce their direct energy consumption in the most efficient way. Using the National Travel Survey for Estimating Transport CO2 Emissions School specific bottom-up travel data needs to be added for the provision of reliable carbon footprint estimates. While some data on travel will be provided by the schools themselves, this data can be augmented with detailed information on personal travel of pupils and teachers from the National Travel Survey (NTS). First estimates of the CO2 from personal travel of pupils to schools have already been provided earlier and are summarised in the Appendix (see Appendix 1 – Review of National Travel Survey for Estimating Transport CO2 Emissions). - 27 - WP3: Trends which might influence carbon emissions from the school estate Introduction The purpose of this work programme is to present information on trends that are likely to influence school carbon emissions over the next five to ten years. Overall, emissions from the school estate will be driven by: • Declining numbers of schools and pupils. • Tighter building regulations and higher environmental standards for new school buildings and extensions, achieving carbon reductions over the long-term. • Growing average floor area of school buildings, due to changes in education practice, extended school services, more mainstream education of SEN pupils and provision for ICT. The move to use the school as an ‘extended’ community asset will increase energy demand by up to 40 per cent in some schools.51 • The fastest growth in emissions is likely to come from electricity consumption by ICT, particularly interactive technologies such as whiteboards and digital projectors. Energy consumption by computers in schools has already doubled in the last five years.52 • Continuation of the trend towards private car as the preferred mode of travel to school, potentially exacerbated by school closures and increased parental choice. Declining school roll The number of pupils and schools is falling across the UK. In England, the number of pupils has declined by almost 10 per cent since 1978, with a 3 per cent drop in Scotland since 1990 (see Figure 10 & 11). The trend is most pronounced for secondary and special schools in England, which have declined in number by around 28 per cent since 1978, whilst schools in the independent sector declined by only 4 per cent over the same period. Pupil numbers are expected to continue to decline; from 2004-2021 the number of children aged 5-15 is expected to fall from 8.3 to 7.8 million.53 This is due to a reducing UK population. 51 Energy Efficiency Best Practice Programme (1996) Savings Energy in Schools: a guide for head teachers, governors, premises managers and school energy managers. Energy Consumption Guide 73. 52 Carbon Trust (2005) Information communication and technology equipment in schools. GIL 116 Fact Sheet. 53 ONS (2005) Population Trends 122. ONS: Winter 2005. - 28 - Figure 10: Number of schools in England, 1978-2005 Number of schools in England, 1978-2005 35,000 30,000 Independent Schools 25,000 Special number of schools Schools 20,000 Nursery Schools 15,000 Secondary Schools Primary 10,000 Schools 5,000 0 1978 1986 1994 2002 Source: DfES/ONS (2005) Number of schools in England in January each year. Figure 11: Schools and pupils in Scotland, 1975-2004 Schools and pupils in Scotland 3,400 1,200,000 3,300 1,000,000 3,200 3,100 800,000 no. schools no. pupils 3,000 600,000 2,900 2,800 400,000 2,700 200,000 2,600 Scho ols 2,500 0 Pupil 1975 1982 1989 1996 2003 s Source: Scottish Executive (2005) Pupils and teachers in Scotland 2004. - 29 - Many grant-maintained schools in England and Scotland are already operating at less than their pupil capacity. In Scotland 68 per cent of secondary schools and 88 per cent of primaries are operating at or below 90 per cent capacity.54 In Liverpool, for example, surplus places in primary schools are 14 per cent above the national average; primary schools in Rochdale have surplus places 25 per cent above the average.55 Where school buildings are under-used, they are more energy-intensive per pupil. School buildings of the future… The design and construction of school buildings is changing. Nationally-led investment in new school buildings has been erratic since the major Victorian school building campaign, with overall decline punctuated by bouts of substantial investment every thirty or forty years.56 In England, six in every seven schools were built more than 25 years ago – most are now reaching the end of their functional lives.57 In Scotland a recent survey found that 36 per cent of school buildings were showing major defects and operating inadequately and 8 per cent were rated ‘bad’.58 It is increasingly obvious that old, draughty and inefficient school buildings are out of step with contemporary educational aspirations. School buildings of the future are likely to be more energy efficient, to occupy a larger area and will be used more extensively. … will be more energy efficient The energy efficiency of new school buildings will increase over the next decade. In the immediate future this will be driven by implementation of the EU Directive on Energy Performance in Buildings (2002/91/EC) by the UK in 2006, through revision to Part L of the Building Regulations in 2006 for England and Wales (Part J in Scotland, Technical Booklet F in Northern Ireland). The revised Part L (recently published) will require:59 • improvements of 25 per cent on current energy efficiency standards; • energy performance certificates to be issued to prospective purchasers and tenants on public buildings greater than 1000m2 floor area; • energy efficiency improvements to be made to a building being extended or worked on. It should be noted, however, that there is considerable inertia in the built environment (with turnover of non-domestic stock at 1-2 per cent per year), and carbon savings from Building Regulations will take 10-15 years to realise fully.60 A renewed bout of capital investment in school fabric is occurring at the moment in England and Scotland. By 2006 Scotland aims to have built or substantially renovated 300 schools.61 DfES aims to:62 54 Scottish Executive (2005) School estate statistics. Experimental statistics, Education Series. 55 DfES (2005) Tackling falling primary school rolls annex one: case studies. 56 CABE / RIBA (2004) 21st century schools: learning environments of the future. Building Futures. 57 DfES (2003) Building schools for the future: consultation document. 58 Scottish Executive (2005) School estate statistics. Experimental statistics, Education Series. 59 ODPM (2006) Building Regulations 2000: Conservation of Fuel and Power Part L2A Buildings other than dwellings. Draft Approved Document 2006. 60 Carbon Trust (2005) The UK Climate Change Programme: potential evolution for business and the public sector. - 30 - • Build 200 ‘academies’ (publicly funded independent schools with private sector or voluntary-aided sponsors intended to replace existing secondary schools) by 2010. • Build over 500 Secondary schools by 2008 through the Building Schools Future programme (BSF). • Refurbish or rebuild every secondary school to a modern standard over the next 10 to 15 years through BSF. • Enact proposed Primary capital programme63 with a start date of 2008. This programme will involve a wide-ranging, strategic programme of rebuilding, refurbishing and upgrading covering at least 50 per cent of primary schools in England. Traditionally, new schools have been built by local authorities borrowing from the Treasury by applying for DfES credit approvals without any environmental obligations above the Building Regulations. New capital projects, however, are placing greater emphasis on sustainable design. Primary school projects costing £500,000 or more, secondary school projects costing over £2m and all refurbishments to more than 10 per cent of school area will be required to achieve a BREEAM Schools assessment ‘Very Good’ rating (a score of at least 45 per cent). BREEAM awards points for design above the minimum specified in the Building Regulations (18kg CO2/m2) and accounts for a much broader range of issues, and is updated yearly (see Appendix Figure 2.1). … but will be larger The ethos of school building design is changing: [from] specialised teaching spaces and classrooms, with a set school day and curriculum accommodated at a school site … towards multi-purpose spaces, with flexible timetables and individual learning plans accommodated at multiple locations across the neighbourhood.64 This is reflected in a growing average floor area in schools. The recommended gross area of secondary school buildings is already an average of 18 per cent above the maximum in 1996. DfES has recently revised area guidelines for schools.65 In 2004 Building Bulletin 82 ‘Area Guidelines for Schools’ was superseded by two new publications. The overall effect of these new minimum recommendations will be to 66 raise the overall used area of future primary school buildings by 17 per cent and a secondary school by 7 per cent (see Figure 12). Group spaces such as classrooms, halls and seminar rooms will be larger than before. Sports halls, assembly areas and outside areas such as playing fields are unlikely to increase in overall area.67 61 Scottish Executive (1999) Making it work together: a programme for government. 62 DfES (2004) Five year strategy for children and learners. 63 http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/_doc/9606/Primary%20Capital%20Programme%20-%20Final.pdf 64 CABE / RIBA (2004:4) 21st century schools: learning environments of the future. Building Futures. 65 DfES. Building Bulletin 88: briefing framework for secondary school projects. 66 DfES (2004) Building Bulletin 98: Briefing Framework for Secondary School Projects: DfES (2004) Building Bulletin 99: Briefing Framework for Primary School Projects. 67 Education (School Premises) Regulations (1999) set area requirements for playing fields. There is an increasing provision of all-weather pitches and running tracks, matched by increasing electricity consumption by floodlighting. - 31 - Figure 12: Recommended net area for average school in England, 1996 and 2004 Recommended net area for average school in England, 1996 and 2004 6000 5000 area (m2) 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 1996+ 2004+ 1996+ 2004+ Primary (220 Secondary (975 pupils) pupils) Source: Based on sample schedules from BB98 and BB99. 68 69 Figure 13: The effect of extended hours of use on fuel costs. The effect of extended hours of use on fuel costs 12 hour day 8.5 hour gas day electricity 7.5 hour day 0 50 100 150 % fuel cost above 7.5 hour day Source: Energy Efficiency Best Practice Programme (1996) Saving Energy in Schools: a guide for head teachers, governors, premises managers and school energy managers. Energy Consumption Guide 73. … and be used more extensively Schools are increasingly seen as a community asset and a location for a broad range of community services, from adult learning to health and child care. This is driven not only by the extended schools strategy,70 but also by local authorities seeking to make better use of their assets in response to the growing cost of maintaining old schools and the rising value of land (other drivers are elaborated in appendix two).71 68 DfES (2004) Building Bulletin 98: briefing framework for secondary school projects. 69 DfES (2004) Building Bulletin 99: Briefing Framework for Primary School Projects 70 DfES (2002) Extended schools: providing opportunities and services for all. 71 DfES (2005) Tackling falling primary school rolls. Annex 1: case studies. - 32 - By 2010, schools in England will be required to provide access to a core of extended services, including:72 • A varied menu of study support to be on offer, such as homework clubs, breakfast clubs, sport, music tuition, dance and drama, arts and crafts, volunteering and enterprise activities. This will include as a minimum study support from at 8am to 6pm. • Providing wider community access to ICT, sports and arts facilities. • Childcare outside normal school hours from 8am to 6pm for 48 weeks of the year (with at least 1000 schools offering this service by 2008). Extension of the school day will have two main effects on energy consumption. Firstly, demand for lighting, heating and electricity will increase by up to 40 per cent through extended hours of use (see Figure 13). Secondly, given a wider range of users, there will be less control over heating and lighting. Many will be less familiar with housekeeping practices or school energy policy and lighting and heating may be operated less efficiently. New school buildings will therefore increasingly incorporate sub-metering to pass on the full costs of any out-of-hours use of school premises. Information and communications technology (ICT) The use of ICT and interactive technologies has increased dramatically over the last five years, fuelling greater consumption of electricity in schools (Figure 14). Recent trends in ICT for schools in England are as follows (Figures are set out in appendix two): • An average primary school will have 37.5 computers; secondary schools have on average 262.6 computers each.73 The amount of energy used by computers within schools has doubled in the last 5 years.74 • The uptake of digital projection technology has been rapid, particularly in the primary and special school sectors which are now approaching rates of coverage comparable to secondary schools.75 • The average number of electronic whiteboards in schools rose quickly, from 4.3 in 2003 to 7.5 in 2004 (a typical whiteboard will have a power consumption of 300W76). • From 2003-2004 regular internet-based lessons increased from 5 to 10 per cent and use of whiteboards from 5 per cent to 11 per cent in secondary schools.77 • Coverage of peripherals such as digital cameras, video-conferencing facilities and digital boxes has remained fairly constant over the last few years, with an overall increase in the average number of units per school. 72 DfES (2002) Extended schools: providing opportunities and services for all. 73 Prior, Gillian and Louise Hall (2004) ICT in Schools Survey 2004. ICT in Schools Research and Evaluation Series No. 22, Becta/DfES. 74 Carbon Trust (2005) Information communication and technology equipment in schools. GIL 116 Fact Sheet. 75 A typical digital projector may have a power consumption of about 220W (e.g. Panasonic projector PT- LB20S) 76 e.g. a Mimio Xi Sahara 3618 E, recommended by Becta. 77 BECTA (2005) Becta Review 2005: evidence on the progress of ICT in education. - 33 - • In terms of procurement, energy efficiency remains a relatively low priority (see WP4 on procurement), although the government will be encouraging improved compliance with good practice guidance from OGC.78 Figure 14: Computers per school in England, 1998-2004 Computers per school in England, 1998-2004 250 number of computers per school 200 150 Primary Second ary 100 Special 50 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Source: DfES (2005) Information and communications technology in schools in England: 2004 (provisional) At the moment, levels of whole-class display technologies are relatively low compared to the overall number of classrooms. Strong growth in energy consumption will therefore continue as more classrooms are equipped with digital projectors and electronic whiteboards. For example, DfES has funded an additional 20,000 whiteboards in primary schools over the next year, although future detailed targets for provision of specific technologies are devolved to education providers.79 ICT is now seen as an integral part of educational reform, and so growth in electricity consumption is set to continue.80 Transport The last fifteen years have seen a decisive shift in patterns of travel to school. Between 1992/1994 and 2004 the proportion of pupils walking to school fell by 10 per cent and the number of journeys made by car rose to 31 per cent.81 The shift away from walking has been most pronounced in primary school pupils. The average length of journeys to 78 OGC (2005) 2005 Minimum Environmental Standards: the ‘quick-win’ specification list. 79 DfES (2005) Harnessing technology: transforming learning and children’s services. 80 DfES (2004) Five year strategy for children and learners; HM Treasury (2005) PSA targets for DfES 2005- 08, Objective II, Transforming Secondary Education: by 2004 75% of 14 year olds achieve level 5 or above in English, maths and ICT. 81 DfT (2005) National Travel Survey 2004. Transport Statistics Bulletin. - 34 - school has also increased. Primary pupils travelled on average one mile to school in 1985/86. The average is now 1.7 miles. The average journey length for secondary pupils grew from two to three miles.82 Growing numbers of multi-site secondary schools and shared facilities can be expected to increase the level of travel during the school day, although there is no hard data to confirm this trend (and such data are not captured by the national travel survey). School closures and greater parental choice will put upwards pressure on the average length of journey to school, though there is again a lack of data to confirm this. As discussed in WP4 (Travel to school), there are no central government targets specifically to reduce emissions from school travel. Figure 15: Mode of travel to/from school by mode, 1989-2004 Mode of travel to/from school by mode 1989-2004 100% 90% 80% Other 70% Rail 60% Local bus 50% Private bus 40% Car 30% Bicycle 20% Walk 10% 0% 1989/91 1992/94 1996/98 1999/01 2003/04 Source: DfT (2005) National Travel Survey 2004. Transport Statistics Bulletin. Food Whilst the school food debate is largely concerned with health and nutrition, there is potential for carbon reduction. Firstly, higher nutritional standards introduced from 2006/0783 may require more fresh food. This would encourage more local sourcing and a consequent reduction in food miles. For example, by switching to more local suppliers eleven schools in East Ayrshire, Scotland, reduced the average distance traveled per menu item from 330 to 99 miles.84 Secondly, healthy food advocates recommend increasing the proportion of organic food in school meals. The Soil Association recommends that 30 per cent of ingredients should be organic, for instance. Organically grown crops require around half the energy input than conventional crops, although the majority of organic produce consumed in the UK is imported.85 Overall, however, future trends in food procurement remain unclear. The lack of any historical or baseline information on the carbon footprint of school food, or indeed any ongoing time series data, means that more detailed primary research would be required to make any accurate predictions of future trends. 82 DfT (2003) Travel to school in Britain. Personal Travel Factsheet 2. 83 DfES (2005) Turning the Tables: Transforming School Food - Recommendations for the Development and Implementation of Revised School Lunch Standards. 84 Rodway, Pam (2003) Food for Life: healthy, local, organic school meals in Scotland. Soil Association. In the 11 schools using the menu, 12 out of 15 products are being sourced within 40 miles, compared to only 3 products on the standard menu. 85 MAFF (2000) Energy use in organic farming systems. Ministry of agriculture, fisheries and food. - 35 - Waste Waste has a greenhouse gas impact which should be considered in a wider study, but does not significantly contribute to the carbon dioxide estimates presented earlier. There is no detailed time series data available for trends in waste disposed of by schools, in marked contrast to detailed benchmark data available for energy and water consumption. Instead, there are several studies that offer a snapshot of schools waste management, the most recent being a Biffaward Mass Balance study of the education sector undertaken by Waste Watch.86 Looking to the future, drivers of waste arisings on the school estate include: • EU Landfill Directive. The UK has a target to reduce the amount of biodegradable waste it produces by 25 per cent by 2010. WRAP is leading on achieving this target. • Landfill tax. This reached £18 per tonne in 2005, the majority of which is channelled into environmental initiatives through the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme. • The Waste Watch study found that waste arisings are closely correlated with pupil and staff numbers. Given declining pupil numbers, increased use of ICT and an overall improvement in school recycling rates inferred from local authority BVPIs,87 emissions from school organic waste would be expected to fall. Concluding remarks Data for a detailed forecast of the likely carbon impacts of these trends exist in only a few areas. It would be feasible to calculate future projections for the energy efficiency of the overall school estate, for water and for energy use. The national travel survey represents the major data set for transport, but with the requirement that every school in England produce a School Travel Plan by 2010, the availability of bottom-up data will increase. Although regular surveys provide good data for ICT uptake,88 there is considerable lack of knowledge about the uptake of energy efficient technologies. 86 Waste Watch (2005) Resource management in the education sector: key findings from a study. See also Southampton Environment Centre (2001) Greening Britain’s Schools. 87 Although increases in domestic recycling rates will obviously not correlate directly to school recycling rates, and the picture is further confused by the fact that 37% of schools in England and Wales have their waste treated as ‘business’ waste by their waste collection authority (Esvelt et al. 2005 An Overview of Council Interpretation of Waste Regulations for Schools in England. Oxford Brookes: Environmental Information Exchange. 88 Prior, Gillian and Louise Hall (2004) ICT in Schools Survey 2004. ICT in Schools Research and Evaluation Series No. 22, Becta/DfES. - 36 - WP4: Collation of good practice guidance for carbon reduction in schools Aim The aim of this work programme is to provide an overview of existing good practice guidance for carbon reduction in schools. Good practice guidance has been defined as a code of practice, recommendations, or materials provided to schools by an external agency. The whole school approach The ‘whole-school’ approach to carbon reduction in schools emphasises good housekeeping, low-, no-, or marginal-cost efficiency measures and involves pupils, teachers, governors, site-management staff and parents in energy management. Emphasis is placed on democratic and deliberative decision-making processes rather than on technical or design-led solutions. One distinctive advantage of the whole- school approach is that involving pupils in decision-making and linking projects to the curriculum can change attitudes and behaviour.89 Government guidance suggests that energy savings of 10-20% are attainable through whole-school projects,90 whilst case studies and NGO guidance suggest considerably higher savings have been made by some schools.9192 There is broad agreement between good practice providers on the content and process of whole-school projects. This has been presented as a standardised flow chart in appendix three. The chart collates guidance from CREATE, Global Action Plan, the Centre for Sustainable Energy, the Carbon Trust, the EST and EcoSchools. A standard menu of energy-saving tips and a list of guidance targeted at schools are also included in appendix three. A comprehensive range of government best practice publications are provided by the Carbon Trust, focused largely on financially-driven environmental improvement. The Energy Saving Trust launched an Energy Certification Scheme for schools in 2003, which aimed to complement the Carbon Trust’s guidance with a whole-school framework. 800 schools have signed up although very few have achieved certification so far. One barrier is that the benchmarks to achieve initial accreditation are set too high. The EST has also experienced some difficulty in securing carbon-saving data from projects. It is not always easy to identify the respective roles of the two main government agencies responsible for school-based carbon reduction (Energy Saving Trust and Carbon Trust). There is inevitably an overlap of policy and activities, which can result in confusion as to which agency or person has responsibility. It is also noticeable that national and regional Government support for energy education is predominantly 89 CREATE (2005) Analysis of Home Energy Education within the formal and informal education sector. CREATE / Environment and Education Sub-group report, EST Partnership. 90 Carbon Trust. Saving Energy – a Whole School approach. Good Practice Guide 343. Energy Saving Trust, Energy Certification Scheme for Schools www.est.org.uk. 91 Environmental Audit Committee (2003) Learning the sustainability lesson 92 Global Action Plan (2004) Consultation Response - taking it on: developing UK sustainable development strategy together. - 37 - through web sites and off-school support.93 There is plenty of evidence to suggest that such web-based and distance support is insufficient in itself to achieve shifts in energy consumption patterns.94 Information provision and web-based resources need to be supported by legislation, economic instruments and structured support, particularly given that staff time, awareness and funding are the largest barriers to whole-school environmental projects in schools.95 School buildings: technical guidance To achieve deep cuts in carbon emissions the whole-school approach needs to be complemented by energy efficient design of school buildings. Good practice guidance for this comes from a number of sources: • Minimum standards for school energy efficiency set by the Building Regulations (Part F: Ventilation and Part L2: Conservation of Fuel and Power, 2002) and in Scotland the Building (Scotland) Regulations 2004, which have applied to all schools since 2000.96 • Carbon Trust good practice publications. • Government statutory guidance on school design, revised by DfES in 2003 to bring it into line with the Building Regulations.97 • Building Schools for the Future publications.98 The benchmark for good practice in England is the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) for schools. BREEAM is much wider in scope than the Building Regulations, incorporating not only energy efficiency but issues such as land use, materials and management (see Appendix Figure 2.1). It is also updated more frequently, and a ‘good’ rating will be significantly above minimum environmental standards.99 Guidance for good practice to meet and exceed technical standards is outlined in the following sub-sections. Lighting The first stage in efficient lighting (and heating) is to ensure that the orientation of the school building makes best use of incoming heat and light. In a normal school building, 10-20% of (heating) energy demand may be met by solar radiation; with proper 93 CREATE (2005) Analysis of Home Energy Education within the formal and informal education sector. CREATE / Environment and Education Sub-group report, EST Partnership. 94 DEMOS / Green Alliance (2003) Carrots, sticks and sermons: influencing public behaviour for environmental goals. Jackson, Tim and Laurie Michaelis (2003) Policies for Sustainable Consumption. Sustainable Development Commission. HM Government (2005) Securing the Future: the UK sustainable development strategy. 95 Waste Watch (2005) Resource management in the education sector. 96 The Building Regulations will be updated in 2006 to implement the EU Energy Performance of Buildings Directive. ODPM (2006) Building Regulations 2000: Conservation of Fuel and Power Part L2A Buildings other than dwellings. Draft Approved Document 2006. 97 DfES, School Building and Design Unit (2003) Guidelines for Environmental Design in Schools. Building Bulletin 87, 2nd Edition Version 1 98 DfES (2004) Schools for the Future: exemplar designs, concepts and ideas; DfES (2005) Schools for the Future: transforming schools an inspirational guide. 99 Building Research Establishment (2005/2006) BREEAM Schools Assessors’ manual. - 38 - passive solar design this can be increased to 40% (see Appendix Figure 3.4).100 Lighting efficiency can be improved in two main ways:101 • Better control. Ensuring that lighting that only operates when it is required through control switches, automatic timers and good housekeeping. Controls should be accessible, well labelled and appropriately zoned. Occupancy sensors are recommended for areas such as washrooms, storage rooms and circulation areas. • Efficient bulbs. The preferred bulb type for classroom lighting is high-frequency fluorescent lamps T8 or T5 which have replaced fluorescent T12 lamps. CFLs are appropriate for circulation spaces and toilets and offer large energy savings over traditional tungsten bulbs. Incandescent lamps have a high running cost and are considered too inefficient for school lighting. High-pressure sodium lamps are a good option for outside spaces.102 Heating Good practice guidance revolves around three ways to reduce energy use: • Efficient boilers. Two small boilers may be preferable to one, so that one may be switched off out of the heating season (thus reducing the overall base load).103 Condensing boilers are an efficient option, as they have a second heat- exchanger to extract more heat from the exhaust gases. Where in place, condensing boilers should always be the lead boiler in schools where multiple boilers are used. Decentralised boilers are an option for areas with different heat demands and for water heating (see Appendix Figure 3.5). Heat pumps are also an option, particularly for rural schools off the gas network. Finally, simply re-commissioning heating systems can increase the efficiency of older boilers.104 • Timing control. An optimal start/stop time for heating should ensure that the required temperature is maintained only when the area is in use. If the lead-in time can be reduced according to special requirements (e.g. during a short spell of unexpectedly hot weather), this will lead to greater efficiency. Similarly, heating can be turned off earlier in a well-insulated room. Thermostatic radiator valves, whilst not suitable on all systems, can automatically adjust the output of radiators to produce constant temperature. Finally, well-positioned sensors are critical. Where temperature sensors are placed in a zone that encompasses areas with different heat gain (e.g. differential heating from sunlight on one side of a room), unrepresentative temperatures will be recorded. • Appropriate zoning. Appendix Figure 3.5 sets out minimum temperatures for different areas of the school premises. 100 DfES Building Bulletin 90, Lighting Design for Schools 101 Even in a well-designed school there will be some seasonal variation in electricity consumption for lighting, but the base load should be no more than 20% of highest demand. This rule of thumb should enable schools to ascertain the relative efficiency of their lighting regime. 102 Carbon Trust (1999) Saving electrical energy in schools – good housekeeping for lighting, IT, and other curriculum-based equipment. Good Practice Guide 259. 103 DfEE. Energy efficient design of new buildings and extensions. Good practice guide 173 104 DfES. Building Bulletin 73. - 39 - To reduce the burden on staff, increase efficiency and gather more meter data, building energy management systems (BEMS) are increasingly popular. BEMS can produce a relatively quick pay-back, and zone control of buildings can help with lettings, out of hours use and catering contracts.105 Water Good practice guidance on water consumption is provided by the Environment Agency and water companies and recommends a water management plan to: measure ongoing consumption; benchmark the school’s performance against DfES data, and; implement and monitor appropriate reduction measures. Good practice water management will also involve pupils and link to the curriculum, for example on the water cycle, or the role of water in ecosystems at key stages one and two.106 Through good practice, a typical school’s annual water consumption can easily be reduced from 4m³/pupil/ year to less than 2.85 m³/pupil/ year.107 Good practice guidance for reducing general water consumption involves: 108 • Ensuring the size of water meter is small as possible: typically it should be possible to down-size existing older type meters to one size smaller than the diameter of the supply pipe to the premises. • Central hot water storage is very inefficient, so a decentralised hot water system (a separate boiler, hot water generator or point of use water heater) is preferred. • Appropriate sub-metering for independent facilities such as kitchens run by outside caterers, swimming pools, sports facilities or nurseries. • Proper maintenance schedules to fix leaking taps and pipes promptly. • Evaluating the potential for water buts or grey-water collection systems to reduce reliance on mains water for outside use. • Controls to save water at point of use: including push-button taps and showers, reducing cistern size to <6-litres, setting the timing on urinal flushes to the minimum and installing waterless urinals. Good practice guidance from the Carbon Trust for swimming pools recommends that the air temperature should be kept within +/-1oC of the water temperature (which should be a maximum temperature of 28oC). Ventilation should aim to keep the relative humidity around 65%.109 When not in use, swimming pools should be covered to reduce evaporation and the need for ventilation. Swimming pool heat pumps and a cover should repay their capital cost within two years by reducing evaporation and so both the need to heat and ventilate.110 Given their large energy and water demands,111 105 Energy Efficiency Best Practice Programme. Saving Energy in Schools: a guide for head teachers, governors, premises managers and school energy managers. Energy Consumption Guide 73. 106 www.wateraid.org.uk 107 DfES (2002) Energy and Water Management: a guide for schools 108 Environment Agency. Water Demand Management. www.environment-agency.gov.uk. 109 Carbon Trust. Good housekeeping in school swimming pools – a guide for school staff. Good Practice Guide 55. 110 Carbon Trust (2004) Energy saving fact sheet – schools. 111 DfES (2003) Energy and water benchmarks for maintained schools in England 2003-03 - 40 - it is surprising that swimming pools are not a more explicit focus in good practice guidance. Renewable energy The most popular renewable technologies for schools are: • Solar thermal: costs vary widely but heating water for general purposes is cost- effective. • Wind: a school will realistically only be able to fund a turbine from 6kW to around 20kW. Feasibility will depend on average wind speed and quality, the size of the available site and any planning considerations. • Solar PV: is not cost-effective without funding, but is a popular technology for demonstration/education purposes and relative ease of installation. • Biomass: wood pellet fuel is being used in British schools, but only in a few locations. A wood fuel system is more suitable for new build and also boiler conversions from solid fuel such as coal. School projects have drawn on a number of funding sources, the most common being a combination of local authority, Clear Skies / Scottish Community and Householder Renewables Initiative, energy company and charitable funding, often to install a range of technologies.112 Many renewable energy programmes are regional: the CSE programme Plan-it Cool, in partnership with Global Action Plan and BP, operated in the South West and London, whilst the EST’s pilot ‘sustainable energy centres’ (advice provision attached to EACs) only operate in the Black Country, Bristol, Somerset, South Gloucestershire, Mid- and south-west Wales, South West London, South West Scotland, Surrey and East Sussex. One of the distinctive advantages of incorporating a renewable energy system in a school building is as an educational resource (it is important therefore to ensure that both the installation itself and the meter are placed in visible locations). There are a 113 wide range of educational resources available to support classroom learning at all stages. The Centre for Alternative Energy hold a particularly comprehensive set of teaching and practical resources, whilst the DTI and renewable energy trade bodies such as the BWEA also offer a variety of classroom resources. Waste Three largest waste programmes operating are Waste Watch’s Schools Waste Action Club (SWAC), Global Action Plan’s Action at School and EcoSchools. SWAC is a structured education programme for primary and secondary schools. On average, a 47% reduction in waste to landfill is achieved. Since 1998 over 1000 schools have participated. Coverage has been regional, with projects in Stockport, York, Essex, Bexley, North 112 Beaumont Primary School, for example, drew on Clear Skies and funding from Suffolk County Council’s education department to include wind and solar as part of the school design. A 6kW wind turbine and a small 1kW PV array provide enough on average to power the school’s ICT suite for one day. The heating system is augmented by solar water heating for heating and hot water. In addition, underfloor heating circulates water at a lower temperature than in conventional radiators thus able to make best use of the water heated by the solar collectors. www.clear-skies.gov.uk. 113 Energy Saving Trust (2004) Installing small wind-powered electricity generating systems. - 41 - Yorkshire, Cheshire, Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire and Rotherham. Action at School, run by Global Action Plan has involved over 150 schools and reached 143,360 pupils. The programme provides ongoing support through a dedicated programme manager and focuses on measurement of waste and savings. Pupils are encouraged to devise their own action plan through a ‘whole-school approach’. EcoSchools concentrates on waste surveys and simple reduction measure as schools progress through the award stages. Waste guidance is well-developed although there is scope for more detailed measurement of carbon savings from reduced organic waste sent to landfill and increased rates of recycling. Travel to school The policy framework to support more sustainable school travel has recently been renewed by DfT and DfES114 to bring England into line with Welsh and Scottish priorities. The School Travel Plan (STP) is the preferred framework for sustainable transport projects in schools and a pre-requisite for funding. Guidance from Sustrans, the DfT and the Scottish Executive outlines an accepted STP process and has been refined over the last ten years.115 In addition, many local authorities throughout the UK have tailored such broad guidance to suit local circumstances. A good practice STP will be a written document with the following features: • Background: including location, size and type of school and age range and numbers of pupils. • Travel Survey: to identify the mode, direction and number of children currently travelling to/from school and how they would like to travel. • Description: of the travel patterns and problems faced by the school, incorporating after-hours and associated travel.116 • Objectives, targets and measures with a detailed timetable for implementation. These actions will be a combination of hard measures, such as engineering works or new facilities, and soft measures, such as timetable changes or pedestrian schemes (a full list is given in Appendix Figure 3.8). • Monitoring and review. The minimum recommended monitoring is to re-survey travel patterns once a year. Good practice guidance on school travel is well-developed but largely focused on safety and health. Environmental outcomes are generally seen as a welcome by-product 114 The School Travel Action Plan (DfT / DfES. 2004. Travelling to school – an action plan) aims to support every school in England to produce a School Travel Plan (STP) by 2010 (from a baseline of around 10% of schools in 2003). This aim brings England into line with the Welsh Assembly’s stipulation that all schools should have a travel plan, and the Scottish Executive aim that all schools develop safe routes to school (SRTS) plan with long-term targets. In addition, DfES and DfT have made capital grants available to schools with STPs in England that meet minimum criteria. Quality assurance guidance was revised in 2005, becoming more prescriptive and raising the overall quality of the STP process by, for example, encouraging greater uniformity in survey methods (DfT / DfES. 2005. School Travel Plan quality assurance – advice note). 115 Scottish Executive (1999) Guidance: how to run a successful Safer Routes to School; Sustrans, Developing a School Travel Plan; Sustrans, How to develop a school travel plan; DETR / Transport 2000 (1999) A safer journey to school: a guide to school travel plans; DfT (2003) Traveling to School: a good practice guide. 116 DfES (2002) Extended schools: providing opportunities and services for all. - 42 - rather than an explicit aim. Local Transport Plans contain targets for modal shift in journeys to school and this will become a mandatory indicator for the second LTP period (from 2006/07)117. However, neither the Scottish nor English national school travel strategies have set any overall targets for reduction of carbon emissions.118 Procurement The aim of sustainable procurement is to source the most appropriate goods at the best value, whilst maximising social and environmental benefit. Such benefits could include minimising packaging, waste to landfill or energy consumption, or fostering local employment opportunities. As funding has been devolved from LEAs (beginning with the 1988 Education Reform Act and accelerated by the School Standards and Framework Act 1998), schools have found they have bigger budgets and a wider range of procurement to undertake.119 Recently, in order to reduce costs schools have increasingly moved away from procurement through LEA-brokered services towards buying consortia. Such aggregated procurement mechanisms offer both challenges (e.g. reduced flexibility for individual schools) and opportunities (e.g. to reduce energy use on a large scale by increasing the relative importance of energy efficiency in ICT purchasing criteria120) for sustainable procurement. One of the largest perceived barriers to more sustainable procurement is the government’s Value for Money policy framework and EU legislation on competitive tendering. This legislation means that the decision of any public body to award a contract must be based on ‘the most economically advantageous tender’ and must not discriminate on grounds of national origin.121 Good practice guidance stresses, however, that ‘value for money’ is defined by the government as the ‘optimum combination of whole-life costs and quality to meet the user’s requirement,’ and therefore does not equate to lowest price, and can include environmental criteria such as energy or disposal costs as well as requirements such as school’s environmental policies.122 A basic list of recommended criteria for sustainable products is set by the government’s sustainable procurement group.123 Appendix Figure 3.9 outlines guidance on incorporating sustainability criteria into procurement. 117 DfT (2005) How to monitor indicators in local transport plans and annual progress reports 2005 update. 118 For instance, Scottish Executive policy aims for Safe Routes to School do not include carbon reduction, although guidance does list improved local air quality and more efficient transport as desirable outcomes (Scottish Executive. 1999. Guidance: how to run Safer Routes to School). 119 DfES (2001) Purchasing guide for schools. 120 Energy efficiency takes a peripheral place in guidance on ICT procurement. BECTA, the government agency responsible for ICT promotion in schools in England, defines sustainability as ‘effective financial and service planning to ensure long-term continuity’ and energy consumption is a minor component of IT whole- 120 life costs, which are dominated (50%+) by ongoing technical support. (British Educational Communications and Technology Agency. 2005. Delivering the national digital infrastructure: enabling improvement through ICT). BECTA has a range of centrally-negotiated framework agreements with approved suppliers, which aim to give greater price visibility and competition. These agreements specify standard technical specifications and offer school quality-assured suppliers. Best value is achieved through aggregated purchasing by groups of schools or local authorities. However, such agreements leave little scope for specifying ICT on energy efficiency criteria and BECTA’s guidance and resources contain relatively little information on the energy efficiency of different systems (www.becta.gov.uk). 121 Macfarlane & Cook (2002) Achieving community benefits through contracts. 122 OGC/DEFRA (2003) Joint note on environmental issues in purchasing. 123 OGC (2005) 2005 Minimum Environmental Standards. - 43 - Food Healthier food procurement offers the potential for carbon savings, mainly through reduced emissions from transport when food is sourced locally.124 Organically grown crops require around half the energy input than conventional crops125, and eating less, but better quality meat, will also reduce carbon inputs.126 There is a lively diversity of government, NGO and local food initiatives (outlined in appendix three). The Soil Association is the largest national provider of good practice guidance to schools and complements a wide variety of local schemes. Guidance suggests that: • Local food does not have to be more expensive.127 Direct sourcing from local suppliers cuts overheads such as minimum orders or transport costs, and offers further opportunities to negotiate price. • Simplified or seasonal menus, buying fruit and vegetables that do not meet high street cosmetic criteria will cut costs. • Higher quality meals lead to greater uptake and so increased income. Profits can be ploughed back into the catering service.128 • Within the ‘Value for money’ procurement regime it is perfectly permissible to set criteria such as delivery frequency, freshness, seasonality or production method.129 Such stipulations would be more likely to attract local suppliers or producers. • Taking a ‘whole-school’ based on: establishing a working group of committed individuals; involving the whole school with clear roles for all; developing an action plan that combines small and long-term targets, and; setting indicators (e.g. number items fruit eaten per day per pupil) and measuring any changes.130 • Targets for schools in the Soil Association’s Food for Life scheme include 75% unprocessed, 50% locally sourced and 30% organic food each week, by weight of ingredients. • Where schools remain tied into central food procurement structures opportunities to increase local or organic food at low cost are negligible.131 124 DEFRA estimates that food production, retailing and transport represent 8% of the UK’s total energy consumption - of which half is transport (Watkiss et al, 2005. The Validity of Food Miles as an Indicator of Sustainable Development. AEA Technology) 125 MAFF (2000) Energy use in organic farming systems. Ministry of agriculture, fisheries and food. 126 Pearce et al. (2005) Double dividend? Promoting good nutrition and sustainable consumption through healthy school meals. Sustainable Consumption Roundtable / Soil Association. Crawley (2005) Eating well at school. Nutritional and practical guidelines. Caroline Walker Trust and National Heart Forum. 127 ADAS (2005) Food and drink in Yorkshire and the Humber: regional supply chains mapping study. 128 Pearce et al. (2005) Double dividend? Promoting good nutrition and sustainable consumption through healthy school meals. Sustainable Consumption Roundtable / Soil Association. 129 DEFRA (2005) Unlocking opportunities: lifting the lid on public sector procurement. 130 Soil Association (2005) Food for Life: the Soil Association school meals action pack. 131 In Wales, for instance, where the overwhelming majority of school food is purchased centrally, schools follow set menus and receive ingredients provided by central purchasing organisations under contracts awarded on the basis of the cheapest price (Soil Association. 2003. Food for life in Wales). The report also points to evidence from school meals monitoring across the UK by the Consumers’ Association (Which, March 2003) which shows that food quality is ‘persistently poor’ in any school supplied through a centralised procurement system by a large contractor or local authority catering operation. - 44 - Conversely, schools with an in-house catering service have more flexibility and freedom to offer healthier, more sustainable meals.132 Overall, however, carbon reduction ‘remains peripheral to the current thrust of school meal reform.’133 The Welsh Assembly’s approach is based on nutritional standards alone,134 whilst Scotland, which has gone further than any other nation in its commitment to funding and meeting targets,135 makes little mention of organic or local food.136 There are also potential tensions between health/well-being and sustainability policy goals: for example, new nutritional guidelines recommend oily fish in the place of meat at least once a week, when sustainability criteria would dictate oily fish only once every three weeks.137 Integrating these objectives will be a key task for future good practice guidance. 132 A major factor is that it is much easier for local suppliers to engage with a school directly than through a local authority catering supply company. East Anglia Food Link (2004) Providing meals in Essex primary schools. DEFRA (2004) Providing meals in primary schools. Food Procurement Unit. 133 Pearce et al, (2005) Double dividend? Promoting good nutrition and sustainable consumption through healthy school meals. Sustainable Consumption Roundtable / Soil Association. 134 Welsh Assembly (2003) Food and Well Being- reducing inequalities through a nutrition strategy for Wales 135 Rodway, Pam (2003) Food for Life: healthy, local, organic school meals in Scotland. Soil Association. 136 Scottish Executive (2002) Hungry for Success – A whole school approach to school meals in Scotland. This sets 24 targets for improved nutritional and educational characteristics of school meal provision but not for explicit environmental goals. 137 Pearce et al. (2005) Double dividend? Promoting good nutrition and sustainable consumption through healthy school meals. Sustainable Consumption Roundtable / Soil Association cf. Crawley H (2005) Eating well at school. Nutritional and practical guidelines. Caroline Walker Trust - 45 - Appendix 1: Supporting Information for WP2 Different forms of carbon emissions from schools The three general types of CO2 emissions from schools are briefly described below: • Direct CO2 emissions from schools comprise all the emissions released from schools. They arise from fuel use of school-owned buildings and equipment. In line with the conventions applied by the Office for National Statistics’ CO2 account, the direct CO2 emissions from electricity use are not part of the direct emissions from schools as they are emitted from electricity generating plants elsewhere in the economy. In stead they are accounted for as part of the embodied emissions.138 • Transport CO2 emissions comprises all the emissions from operating transport equipment for the commuting to schools. These include emissions from private vehicles as well as from public transport.1 • Embodied CO2 emissions comprise all emissions from the procurement of goods and services consumed in schools arising in the industrial supply chain. For example, all CO2 from the production of the food items or the paper occurring in the UK and the rest of the world. In the figure below the total carbon footprint of 10.5 million tonnes of CO2 is broken down into these three categories. Appendix Figure 1.1: Basic Components of Carbon Footprint of Schools 138 Alternatively direct emissions could be defined based on the direct energy use of schools. This would treat the carbon emissions of schools as part of the direct rather than embodied emissions. Both definitions are equally applicable and can be readily estimated from public available data sources. Moreover, note that the 2.8 million tonnes of CO2 reported in Appendix Figure 1.1 should be seen as a lower-bound estimate. In the absence of information on the direct emissions from schools in the environmental accounts this was assumed to be equal to the estimate derived from the input-output model. However, as this does not take into account the direct CO2 from school education attributable to other final demand categories, this must be seen as a lower-bound estimate. Alternative the direct emissions from the education sector could be broken down according to government spending on different types of education. This would give a higher bound estimate of 3.5 million tonnes. - 46 - The Resource and Energy Analysis Programme (REAP) and the Education Sector The SEI REAP model is a comprehensive, integrated modelling system for the UK. It was used to provide a comprehensive assessment of the carbon footprint of schools139. REAP’s input-output structure allows a complete assessment of energy use in the production activities of various industrial sectors and by final consumers throughout the economy and how this contributes to CO2 emissions (see Figure 1.2). It also covers the goods and services imported from the rest of the world. Similar models have been developed by the University of Surrey and Cambridge Econometrics140. Appendix Figure 1.2: The methodological structure of REAP For each economic activity such as school education REAP assesses the energy use and CO2 emissions occurring e.g. through the operation of school buildings and school owned equipment. It also covers emissions in other industrial sectors required to provide education services. These include CO2 from private and public transport required for pupils to attend their school lessons and all the embodied emissions in goods and services used in schools. Examples include books, papers, pens, food items and energy required to provide the catering services or the school bus. For services such as school 139 Wiedmann, T. and Barrett, J. (2005) The Use of Input-Output Analysis in REAP to allocate Ecological Footprints and Material Flows to Final Consumption Categories, Ecological Budget Report No. 2. Stockholm Environment Institute, York 140 As it will be explained later the major advantage of REAP compared to the other methods is that its integration with other modelling approaches – in the course of this project in particular lifecycle analysis - has been much further developed. - 47 - education these emissions are often more important than the ones directly emitted by schools (see SEI et al., 2006)141. REAP therefore provides a detailed supply chain perspective of the economic activity, energy use and CO2 emissions used through the provision of school services. This approach provides an estimate of the complete carbon footprint of schools and determines where it occurs in the complex economic supply chain. In addition, it provides important information to decision-makers on the different options for CO2 reduction policies. Data Description The input-output tables in the REAP model give a comprehensive picture of the interaction between producers and their deliveries to final consumers such as households or government in a matrix format (see Figure 1.3). For the analysis of the schools sector, 76 industrial sectors and 5 categories of final demand were identified. The latter includes household and government expenditure as well as capital investment. The available data used covers the reporting period 2001142. Even though more recent data could be used in later stages of the projects, it should be sufficient to give an indication of the type of results that can be obtained from the top-down approach for the purpose of this scoping study. Appendix Figure 1.3: General Structure of an Input-Output Table augmented with physical data School related expenditures enter in input-output tables in two distinct ways: ► government and private households expenditures on schools are recorded in input-output tables as a final expenditure. This also comprises the capital investment for new school buildings or refurbishment of old school building for a given reporting period. 141 SEI, WWF and CURE, 2006, Counting Consumption, CO2 Material Flows and Ecological Footprint of the UK by Region and Devolved Country, WWF-UK, London. 142 For the UK input-output tables are only readily available for the year 1995. However, to avoid the use of such antiquated data more recent tables were estimated with support from Cambridge Econometrics, which a key strength of the model. To avoid technical details the interested reader is referred to Wiedmann et al. (2006) for a detailed description of the estimation procedure. - 48 - ► consumption expenditures or procurement efforts of schools for products and services from other industrial sectors such as food, paper or books are recorded as an intermediate monetary flow between sectors. School education is not treated as an individual sector within the UK’s input-output publication but is included with other education services in the larger education sector. To provide school specific estimates, additional data are required for the input-output framework. For the purposes of this scoping study, these efforts were restricted to separating the expenditures on schools by government, private households and capital investment. To do so data from the family expenditure and food surveys in 2001/02 and 2004/05143 was used. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) data on government expenditures on education was used for government consumption and capital investment144. It was assumed that capital investment on school education and other education services is proportional to the government expenditure on both. To estimate the full carbon footprint of schools input-output tables need to be augmented with sectoral information on fuel use and CO2. These were taken from the environmental accounts published by the ONS145. Similar to input-output tables all environmental account data is provided at a 76 (industrial) sector aggregation level. CO2 emission data is recorded in thousands of tons of CO2 equivalent. CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use can also be derived from energy data. The environmental accounts distinguish eight different types of fuels for the economy’s energy provision recorded in million tonnes of oil equivalent (natural gas, coal, petrol, derivatives, fuel oil, gas oil, aviation fuel and other carbon based fuels). Fuel-type specific conversion factors provided by the Environmental Agency can then be used to impute the fuel-use related CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions. These emissions are recorded in thousands of tonnes of CO2 equivalent. Driving schools are also part of the education sector. For the sake of conciseness we concentrate in the results presentation on the total CO2 emissions from all (fossil fuel and non-fossil fuel) sources in the course of this scoping study. Based on more detailed fuel use data provided by ONS, their emissions could be excluded. For the calculations the conversion factors provided by the Global Footprint Network were used146. However, for a full account of the carbon footprint of schools imports from other countries need to be considered as the UK interacts with the rest of world through trade – exchanging resources, services, cultures and ideas. In terms of resources for the UK, this means importing over 230 million tonnes of materials and products and exporting 193 million tonnes, exchanging resources with most countries in the world. CO2 is emitted when most of these materials and products are produced and schools use imported goods and services in their supply-chain to provide its services. The need to appropriately account for emissions caused by UK consumption patterns in other countries patterns has been recognised by the Department of Environment, Food 143 See: Office for National Statistics (ONS), 2005a, Family Spending – A Report on the 2004-2005 Expenditure and Food Survey, ONS Publications, London. Office for National Statistics (ONS), 2003, Family Spending – A Report on the 2001-2002 Expenditure and Food Survey, ONS Publications, London. 144 Office for National Statistics (ONS), 2005b, Annual Abstract of Statistics, 2005 Edition, No. 141, ONS Publications, London. 145 Office for National Statistics (ONS), 2005c, Environmental Accounts, Autumn 2005 Edition, ONS Publications, London. 146 Global Footprint Network (GFN), 2005, Global Footprint Accounts - UK edition, Oakland - 49 - and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). SEI is currently working with DEFRA to identify the most appropriate and practicable way of calculating these emissions. At present, there is no commonly accepted method for calculating embodied CO2 emissions of imports. Most frequently, these embedded emissions estimates are based on the assumption that imports are produced with the same economic structure and the same resource efficiency as in the UK. Considering that many goods and services come from regions of the world where resource efficiency is lower and therefore emission intensities are higher than in the UK, there is a wide consensus that ignoring different production technologies results in an under-estimation of the overseas impact of UK consumption. Therefore, some authors147 have proposed models that use specific information about production processes and efficiencies in other countries. Recognising that it is insufficient to use only national data to calculate CO2 emissions embodied in imports and the current absence of a standard procedure for doing this, a careful estimation approach for estimating the embodied carbon of schools was taken. This was done by taking an average of a lower and a higher bound estimate of models that use specific information of the different world regions. The lower bound estimate accounts for specific fuel use efficiencies of twelve economic sectors in eight world regions148 derived from OECD trade data and fuel use data. The higher bound estimate of import related emissions is taken from the National Footprint Accounts149. Based on the outlined top-down model the aggregate carbon footprint of schools has been estimated. Detailed feedback from schools questionnaire survey Travel Travel is broken down into three components: business, commuting and air travel. Business includes all land travel undertaken by the school for educational purposes as well as school vehicles. Commuting includes the staff and pupils’ travel to school. Air travel has been separated as that this data could be difficult to obtain. The detailed feedback is summarised below: ► Business Travel All the respondents believed that this data would be readily available within the school. Similar feedback was provided by the school that took part in the “Scotland Footprint Study”. 147 See: Harris, R., 2000. Methodologies for estimating the levels of atmospheric emissions arising from the production of goods imported into the UK. ONS. Eurostat contract No.: 97/09/57/013 Part 1. London, Office for National Statistics. Lenzen, M., Pade, L.-L., and Munksgaard, J., 2004. CO2 Multipliers in Multi-region Input-Output Models. Economic Systems Research, 16:391-412 pp. 148 See: Wiedmann, T., Moro, M., Hammer, M., Barrett, J. (2005) "National and Regional Physical Accounts (Material Flows) for the United Kingdom". REAP Report No. 4, Resources and Energy Analysis Programme, Stockholm Environment Institute, York, November 2005 http://www.ecologicalbudget.org.uk 149 Wiedmann T, Minx J, Barrett J, Wackernagel M. (2006) Allocating Ecological Footprints to Final Consumption Categories with Input-Output Analysis, Ecological Economics 56 (2006) 28 -48 - 50 - ► Commuting All the respondents believed that this data would be readily available within the school. The data would be available in the annual travel survey and one school highlighted that the “Student Travel Plan Working Party” would be able to provide such data. ► Air Travel Only one of the schools could provide information on distance travelled by air. The other questionnaire mentioned that they would need to conduct a survey to obtain the data. Food The questionnaire asked for reasonably detailed data on food consumption in the school. One of the reasons for this is that to see a variation in the carbon footprint of food it is important to gain an understanding of organic food consumption and location. The other important factor is the balance of the diet (i.e. consumption of meat and vegetables). All the questionnaires returns highlighted that it would be difficult to provide such detailed information. In some cases the food contractor would need to be involved in providing the data and this was seen as a challenging task. One school did have a “Healthy Food Group” that was working towards obtaining this data. The “Scottish Schools” experienced similar difficulty with the data suggesting that the Food audits that they had undertaken were not detailed enough to distinguish between organic and local food. However, one school that had been involved in “Eco-School” campaign did think that they could provide some of the available data, especially if the number of food categories was reduced. It is important to recognise that this only considers food purchased by the schools and not “pack lunches”. It was felt that the data requested would be difficult enough without extended the survey to include food brought into the school by pupils and teachers. Goods and Services As this consumption category exclusively asked for expenditure data, all the schools believed that it would be available. It was pointed out that it would be easier to report the data in terms of annual expenditure instead of monthly. In some cases it was pointed out that the categories were not always clear. Detailed guidelines on data input would be required to ensure consistency and ease the burden. Waste Data was requested on tonnages of waste produced, composition of the waste and disposal method. All the schools that had worked with GAP were able to provide the data. This was not the case for schools that had not been involved with GAP or Eco- Schools. Energy Consumption - 51 - All the schools were able to provide information on the energy consumption of the school. With the BRE database on energy consumption to support this, there are no concerns about data availability. Recommended Changes to Schools Questionnaire Suggested changes to schools questionnaire based on feedback: • Include air travel under expenditure and do not ask for distance travelled. The added assumption is that for every pound sterling spent, the traveller has travelled the same distance. • Include food within expenditure and simplify the classification system used. At present the questionnaire uses the National Food Survey categories. This proved too complex for nearly all the schools. It is suggested that three categories are used (meat, vegetables and other). Data on tonnages would also be left out meaning that only data on expenditure would be included. Finally, a simple question related to percentage of organic food and percentage of local food could still be included to provide a basic understanding. • For goods and services the only change would be a more detailed description of the expenditure categories. • Waste data is not a necessity to calculate a carbon footprint of a school. The reason for this data being included is that carbon saved through recycling and composted could be credited to the school’s carbon budget. Therefore, it is suggest that this is excluded from the initial survey of schools. Review of Direct Fuel-use and Emission Data from previous studies Below four major studies will be briefly reviewed and their consistency with an ONS benchmark figure on the direct emission of the education sector will be provided where possible: Energy and water benchmarks for maintained schools in England This study initiated and carried out by the Department for Education and Skills (DfES, 2004) provides energy and CO2 (as well as water) figures for different schools in England. Data has been compiled for five consecutive years. As the data was collected on a voluntary basis from Local Education Authorities, the resulting data set does not cover all schools. For example in 2000/01 more than 68 per cent of all schools in England have been covered (see Table 1.1). Due to this good cross-sectional and longitudinal coverage the collected data will serve as an important input for a bottom- up database. For this study no comparison with the ONS benchmark was possible. - 52 - Appendix Figure 1.4: Participation of Schools in DfES Benchmark Participated in Survey Total Percentage Nursery 276 506 54.5 Primary 12416 18069 68.7 Secondary 2415 3481 69.4 Total 22056 15017 68.5 Source: DFES, 2004 Resource management in the education sector Waste Watch150 environmental consultancy undertook a study on resource management in the education sector within the Biffaward Mass Balance Programme co-funded by the Rufford Maurice Laing Foundation. The report provides fuel use and CO2 estimates for different school types. These are based on a very small sample of 96 organisations divided into primary and secondary schools as well as universities and colleges. The study provides a good source of data. The overall estimate of the direct CO2 from the education sector closely corresponds with the ONS benchmark figure of 5.7 million tonnes indicating a reasonable study approach. Review of opportunities for improved carbon savings from spend on education buildings and CO2 Recently the Sustainable Development Commission initiated another study undertaken by the Building Research Establishment (BRE) with the aim to gather the evidence base on how DfES expenditure on new buildings and refurbishments could achieve whole- life costs through energy efficiency, reduce schools’ carbon footprint, and reduce the likelihood of complications in planning approvals. This study is complementary to this scoping study and will help to identify the most cost and resource efficient CO2 reduction strategies for school buildings. Moreover, the (existing) energy data gathered could directly feed into the bottom-up database designed to provide a carbon footprint of schools. However, as the final report is not available for the purposes of this scoping study, no indication can be made yet about the quality of the data compiled. Emissions from energy use in non-domestic buildings in the UK In another study carried out on behalf of the DEFRA, BRE151 provides estimates of energy-use and CO2 emissions in non-domestic buildings. These include the building related portion of industrial energy use plus commercial and public sector buildings. In this context fuel use and emission estimates for the education sector in general and schools in particular are provided. However, estimates vary significantly from the benchmark ONS figure of the education sector. For the year 2000 BRE estimated CO2 150 Waste Watch, 2005, Resource Management in the Education Sector – Key Findings from a Study, Waste Watch, London. 151 Building Research Establishment (BRE), 2002, CO2 Emissions from Energy Use in Non-Domestic Buildings in 2000 and Beyond, BRE Press, London. - 53 - emissions from energy consumption of buildings of 2.3 million tons compared to 5.7 million tonnes reported in the national accounts. Due to this significant difference, further consultation with BRE should be sought in the future to understand this divergence. As a data input the study results are only of very limited use for a schools carbon footprint project due to their aggregation level. However, they might help to further break-down fuel-use and CO2 emission estimates according to purpose. An example for public and commercial buildings is provided in the figure below. Furthermore, the study might provide general advice for the design of cost-efficient CO2 reduction strategies within school buildings. Appendix Figure 1.5: UK commercial public sector energy consumption (right) and related emissions (left) by end-use for 2000 7% 3% 9% 5% Heating 2% 4% Lighting 10% Other 41% 12% Process 2% Catering 56% 3% 3% Computing 5% Cooling & Ventilation 15% Hot Water 23% Source: BRE (2005) - 54 - Review of the National Travel Survey for Estimating Transport CO2 Emissions NTS is collected on behalf of the Department for Transport which uses the data to answer a variety of policy and transport research questions. The table below provides an understanding of the type of data provided by the National Travel Survey. Appendix Figure 1.6: The Percentage/Distance/Trips per child per year for trips to school Age 5-10 Age 11-16 Age 5-16 1992/ 1992/ 1992/ 2002 2003 2004 2002 2003 2004 2002 2003 2004 1994 1994 1994 Walk 2 61 51 53 50 44 38 41 44 53 45 46 47 Bicycle 1 1 1 1 4 2 2 3 2 2 1 2 Car/van 30 41 39 41 16 24 23 22 23 32 30 31 Private bus 4 4 3 3 8 8 9 7 6 6 6 5 Local bus 4 2 3 3 24 24 23 22 13 13 14 13 Rail - - - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Other 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 All modes 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Average length (miles) 1 1.2 1.5 1.4 1.7 3.0 3.4 3.2 2.9 2.1 2.5 2.4 2.3 % travelling to school alone (main stage) 14 11 8 9 44 40 40 44 28 25 25 28 Sample size: individuals 2,060 1,337 1,572 1,572 1,859 1,291 1,629 1,611 3,919 2,628 3,201 3,183 trips 12,709 7,885 9,738 9,960 11,825 7,822 10,569 10,516 24,534 15,707 20,307 20,476 SS Source: National Travel Survey, ONS (2004) This data will be particularly relevant when the data collected within the project, provides no or insufficient information. School specific NTS data might be further disaggregated either according to region or local authority or in broader categories such us urban/rural or private school/public school. Information from the NTS can be directly fed into REAP to derive CO2 estimates of commuting to schools to provide the impacts of one kilometre of travel by different modes and occupancy rates. The figure below provides a demonstration how the NTS figures from the table above have been used to estimate CO2 emissions from school travel using the REAP model. - 55 - Appendix Figure 1.7: Carbon Dioxide Emissions of School Travel 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 CO2 (t/cap) 0.05 Age 5 - 10 0.04 Age 11 - 16 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 The graph demonstrates the analysis that can be undertaken from existing data and methods to provide an understanding of CO2 emissions from school travel. This data is updated annually and allows a time series analysis to be undertaken. The school commute adds a further 1.4 million tonnes of CO2 emissions to the schools’ carbon budget of which 1.3 million tonnes come from private vehicles.152 The advantages to using this data are: 1. This is a recognised government survey that will be continued into the foreseeable future; 2. The sample size is statistically significant; 3. Time series data is available from 1988 to the present day; 4. With the use of the Resources and Energy Analysis Programme this data can be easily converted into a carbon footprint. 152 This is about 2% of the 62 million tonnes of CO2 emissions from private transport. Even though this is only a very rough initial estimate, which needs to be refined in future estimations, it shows the importance of taking a comprehensive approach in the calculations of a carbon footprint. - 56 - Appendix 2: Supporting Information for WP3 Appendix Figure 2.1: BREEAM schools assessment: breakdown of categories and credits available. Category Credits Available Weighting Factor Management 20 0.15 Health and well-being 19 0.15 Energy 15 0.25 Transport 6 Water 7 0.05 Materials 17 0.10 Land use 3 0.15 Ecology 10 Pollution 12 0.15 Source: BREEAM (2004/05) BREEAM Schools Training Manual. BRE/DfES. Appendix Figure 2.2: Presentational technologies in schools in England. 2002 2003 2004 Primary Schools % with interactive whiteboards 28 48 63 mean number of units per school 0.4 1.0 2.0 % with digital projectors 30 43 80 Mean number of units per school 0.4 1.0 2.0 Secondary Schools % with interactive whiteboards 62 82 92 mean number of units per school 2.1 4.3 7.5 % with digital projectors 82 91 99 mean number of units per school 1.6 2.1 2.6 Special schools % with interactive whiteboards 35 53 71 mean number of units per school 0.6 1.3 2.6 % with digital projectors 35 50 82 Mean number of units per school 0.5 0.7 3.1 - 57 - Source: Prior, Gillian and Louise Hall (2004) ICT in Schools Survey 2004. ICT in Schools Research and Evaluation Series No. 22, Becta/DfES. Appendix Figure 2.3: Drivers behind the extended schools agenda • Curriculum changes: Links between schools and other learning places will increase, allowing schools to share specialised facilities. • New ways of learning: In the short term, an increase in computers could have an impact on area requirements. This is likely to stabilise as portable equipment becomes more common. Classrooms will need to suit a range of different users and activities, necessitating more flexible design. • Extended schools: Having more people using school facilities during the day and evening is likely to increase the area required. Accommodation for services such as health care or community services will be additional to the core school facility. • Inclusion: Making schools more inclusive affects the overall area and range of spaces required by, for example, larger circulation areas, support spaces or specialised toilet facilities. Appendix Figure 2.4: ICT facilities available out of hours ICT facilities available out of hours, schools in England 100 80 Pupils percentage 60 40 20 Local 0 community 2002 2003 2004 2002 2003 2004 Primary Secondary Source: Prior, G and Hall, L (2004) ICT in Schools Survey 2004. ICT in Schools Research and Evaluation Series No. 22, Becta/DfES. - 58 - Appendix Figure 2.5: Total pupil numbers in England Pupil numbers in the UK, 1978-2021 10 8 6 Millions 4 2 0 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2021 Source: DfES (2005) Time series data: Number of pupils in England in January each year. Appendix Figure 2.6: School CO2 emissions in England per pupil. School CO2 Benchmarks in England, 1999-2003 500 450 400 kg CO2 / pupil 350 nursery 300 250 primary 200 150 secondary 100 50 0 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 year Source: Based on median school from DfES Energy & Water Benchmark 2002/03 (N.B. this is direct energy use only) - 59 - Appendix 3: Supporting information for WP4 Appendix Figure 3.1: Summary of good practice guidance de-carbonisation process for schools Stage Recommended actions, distinctive approaches and comments. Commit Guidance presumes the motivations for energy saving are a combination of cost saving, environmental commitment and meeting stakeholder expectations. The rising cost of energy and media attention surrounding the current energy review has increased demand for some schemes. • Senior-level commitment to energy saving essential. • Formal commitment required to some projects, e.g. EST’s certification scheme. Form action An action team is central to the whole-school approach: team • Composition. The minimum recommendation is head teacher or deputy, caretaker and one pupil. The maximum recommendation is head teacher, co-ordinator, number of pupils, at least one governor, caretaker, parents, members of local community/business. The idea is to bring in a broad range of skills and spread the responsibility and workload. DfES guidance stresses the importance of a professional site manager: most NGOs are more pupil-led. NGOs, EST and CT all stress the need for broad representation on action team. • Set policy. A crucial first action is to develop, in consultation, an energy policy. There is no standard for a school energy policy, unlike those needed for a formal EMS, for instance. Benchmark / Identify current pattern of energy use: Energy audit • Meter readings. Monthly meter readings are the accepted minimum, though most guidance recommends more frequent readings for larger schools. • School energy check. Comparing the difference between the expected consumption from measuring the use of IT equipment, lighting, heating and so on and actual meter readings is a standard way of identifying any energy consumption hotspots. This requires collection of higher resolution meter data; the standard appears to be twice daily meter readings for a period of one week to ascertain daily - 60 - trends. This stage also offers opportunities to link to the curriculum or to core subjects like mathematics. • Analysis. Schools evaluate potential areas for savings. This should be done by benchmarking energy use against data derived from the DfES 2002/03 survey to compare the school’s performance in terms of annual energy use per square meter of floor area, or cost per pupil.153 This can be supplemented by listing all energy-consuming equipment, calculating running costs of heating, lighting and so on. Again, good practice is to devolve this task to pupils. There is no clear consensus on what level of historical data schools should collect. This is due to the variety of information schools have at their disposal; many will not have accurate meter readings. CT, EST and CSE provide online tools for entering meter readings. Action plan Design a plan based on the energy audit to reduce school emissions, usually at least for one year. • The emphasis of nearly all guidance is on low/no-cost housekeeping measures. Similar kinds of actions are repeated in nearly all guidance (these are summarised in figure 4.2) • All guidance points up the relative cost of electricity per kWh compared to direct fossil fuel use (electricity is often over 50% of costs). Electricity also results in twice the carbon emissions per unit of energy as gas. Lighting and IT are prioritised accordingly, where low-cost measures are available. The action plan will usually detail targets, but there is relatively little uniform guidance on appropriate targets. For example, the EST schools programme recommends certain actions derived from the energy audit results. Other programmes encourage action team to develop their own measures, usually from a presented menu of actions. Implementation ► Implement the action plan over the appropriate timescale. Monitoring & Schools are advised to continue meter readings to measure Communication success: • There is a lack of uniform monitoring standards. 153 DfES (2003) Energy and water benchmarks for maintained schools in England 2003-03 - 61 - • There is a lack of clear guidance on use of degree days to adjust savings: some savings may therefore be over/under- estimated according to the time of year. • The most common practical communication method is a dedicated energy notice board, detailing actions, results and publicising the project. • Curriculum links should be made to reinforce the programme. In science at Key Stage 3 pupils are taught about a variety of energy resources and about the distinction between renewable and non-renewable resources. At Key Stage 4, they are taught about the efficient use of energy, the need for economical energy use and the environmental implications of generating energy. There are further opportunities to tie in monitoring and analysis with mathematics or geography. Evaluation and It is important that schools are recognised and any successes recognition celebrated. The level of auditing varies between programme (for example, the EST requests dated photos, minutes etc as evidence). Recognition varies but most common is a certificate endorsed by a nationally or internationally recognisable organisation (e.g. UNEP). Sources: This table has been compiled from a number of sources, including: Carbon Trust. Saving Energy – a Whole School approach. Good Practice Guide 343; Carbon Trust. Conducting an energy walk round of a school. Good Practice Guide 057; DfES (2002) Energy and Water Management: a guide for schools; online materials from CREATE (www.create.org.uk), the Energy Saving Trust (est.org.uk/schools); Global Action Plan programme guides; EcoSchools workbook. Appendix Figure 3.2: Standard menu of good housekeeping actions • Heating. Most losses come from poor control, overheating and excessive ventilation. Actions include: ensuring boiler fuel/air mix set right; checking thermostat (minimum 18oC for normal school areas) and frostat; appropriate timings; reflective material behind radiators; ensuring equipment does not obstruct flow of heat from radiators; ensuring pupils do not have window open when heat is on; record weather data for degree day calculations; making pupils responsible for regular walk-arounds to spot any bad practices; regular prompt maintenance for broken windows • Lighting. There are two approaches; one to enhance user controls, the other to fit more efficient illumination. Control can be enhanced by: labelling switches; appointing pupil lighting monitors to switch off lights; fitting occupancy sensors in toilets, changing rooms, sports halls, corridors; ‘lighting checks’ in rooms. Efficiency can be improved by: rolling replacement of old tungsten bulbs with - 62 - CFLs (40-70% less electricity); replace old T12 fluorescent tubes with T8 26mm tubes (8-10% cost saving); regular cleaning; rapid replacement of old/finished bulbs; cleaning windows regularly. • Other. Activating energy-saving features on IT equipment; working out difference between expected and actual overnight electricity loads to identify equipment being left on; turning off equipment; reviewing purchasing procedures to prioritise equipment with an energy rating of A, or more efficient options (for example, LCD monitors will consume 20% of the energy of standard monitors). Appendix Figure 3.3: Energy resources for schools Overall guidance Teachernet is a portal site guiding teachers to resources on a range of whole-school issues related to the environment (www.teachernet.gov.uk). Carbon Trust schools pack: • Information communication and technology equipment in schools. Factsheet GIL116. • Curriculum-based electrical; equipment in schools. Fact sheet GIL117. • Saving energy – a Whole School Approach. Good Practice Guide GPG343. • Conducting an energy walk-round of a school. Good Practice Guide GOG057 On-line guidance for the Energy Certification Scheme for schools scheme. Resources from CREATE EcoSchools workbook On-line energy benchmarking for schools: www.energybenchmarking.co.uk Technical guidance DfES, School Building and Design Unit. 2003. Guidelines for Environmental Design in Schools. Building Bulletin 87, 2nd Edition Version 1 Carbon Trust. Good housekeeping in school swimming pools – a guide for school staff. Good Practice Guide 55. Energy Efficiency Best Practice Programme. Saving Energy in Schools: a guide for head teachers, governors, premises managers and school energy managers. Energy Consumption Guide 73 DfEE. Energy efficient design of new buildings and extensions: Good practice guide 173 Carbon Trust (1999) Saving electrical energy in schools – good housekeeping for lighting, IT, and other curriculum-based equipment. Good Practice Guide 259 BREEAM (2004/05) BREEAM Schools Training Manual. - 63 - Think Leadership: advice for school managers on improving the environmental performance of their schools. Supplied by HTI. www.thinkleadership.org.uk Curriculum resources Energy Chest: Information and activities to help pupils cut energy waste at school. www.energychest.net EnergyWatch: A free termly newsletter from CREATE to inform teachers on developments in all branches of energy education and school energy management. Energy Zone: Analyses of where energy appears in national curricula from CREATE. Travel, food and procurement Scottish Executive (1999) Guidance: how to run successful Safer Routes to School; Sustrans, Developing a School Travel Plan; Sustrans, How to develop a school travel plan; DfT (2003) Traveling to School: a good practice guide. OGC/Defra (2003) Joint note on environmental issues in purchasing Crawley (2005) Eating well at school. Nutritional and practical guidelines. Caroline Walker Trust and National Heart Forum. Soil Association (2005) Food for Life: the Soil Association school meals action pack. Sustain. 2003. The Manual for Sustainability in Public Sector Food and Catering. Appendix Figure 3.4: Orientation of school rooms Classrooms S, SE Medical room N Hall, gym, theatre N, NE Workshops N Toilets N, NE, NW IT N Staffrooms, offices S, SE Circulation Any Library, resources N, NE Changing rooms N Source: DfEE, Energy efficient design of new buildings and extensions: Good practice guide 173 Appendix Figure 3.5: Minimum school temperatures Minimum school temperatures (School Premises Regs., 1999) 18oC Normal activity - 64 - 21oC Where occupants are inactive or 15oC For halls, washrooms, corridors and other areas Appendix Figure 3.6: Water good practice: case study Beaumont Community Primary School, near Ipswich, was completed in August 2003 and has since been commended in the Environment Agency’s Water Efficiency awards. The in-house property design team at Suffolk County Council worked with private sector companies to meet the brief of a school building that was low maintenance and environmentally friendly. One aim was to use as little mains water as possible. The school has a built-in system to harvest rainwater: this collects water from the roof, which is stored and used to flush toilets and urinals. The building management system monitors the water, automatically collecting data on the use of mains water and rainwater. It also monitors any mains water top-up used during dry periods. In the first year, the school used a total of 170 m3 of water, of which 37% was harvested rainwater. This equates to an annual figure of 1.66 m3 per pupil, well below the average of DfES benchmark data. 154 Appendix Figure 3.7: Variation of travel issues and response by school location155 Suburban Inner City Rural • Congestion caused by cars • Congestion caused by cars • Local concerns over traffic drop-off; indiscriminate drop-off; indiscriminate safety; fewer appropriate parking causing hazards - parking causing hazards - footpaths or cycle ways tighter parking controls on tighter parking controls on parents drop-off parents drop-off • Harder to engage • Generally higher than average • Often high demand for cycle • Wide pupil catchment area rates of walking already - facilities; schools discourage means dedicated or engineering works to increase cycling where these are not commercial bus services are safety available not always appropriate and tends to lead to higher car use • Subsidised bus routes • Tighter pupil catchment areas means fewer free buses • Extra cycling facility provision • 20mph zones most popular required – most pupils <3m accompanied by training from school • Greater need for new bus • 20mph zones not always routes and subsidised fares; feasible LEAs expected to run additional buses on a route where there are insufficient commercial services • Independent schools generally more difficult to engage • Need for an enthusiastic champion for a successful project, and the difficulty for external agencies to identify such a person. Appendix Figure 3.8: Sustainable travel measures 154 Environment Agency. Water Demand Management. 155 Based on DETR (1999) School travel strategies and plans: case studies report; DfT (2003) Travelling to school: a good practice guide; and Sustrans and Local Authority data. - 65 - Relevant measures to reduce reliance on car travel can be categorised as hard or soft. Hard measures include: • Engineering works such as traffic calming and the creation of safer walking and cycling routes. Twenty mph traffic zones are increasingly popular around schools - Lancashire County Council has introduced over 100 such zones. Engineering projects work best when schools work in conjunction with local authorities, as and when the Local transport planning system provides opportunities for funding. • Planning applications: schools must submit a travel plan as part of any significant extension or renovation to the building fabric. Government Policy guidance on transport states that, ‘travel plans should be submitted alongside planning applications which are likely to have significant transport implications, including those for new and expanded school facilities’.156 Case studies show that new buildings or renovation of existing stock are ideal times to get infrastructure in place: Nottingham Emmanuel Secondary school, for example, which opened in 2002, dedicated car parking space to secure cycling parking for 50 bicycles and the local authority engineered a roundabout to be safer for cyclists and reduced the access road form two lanes to one. This reduced car use to less than 20%. • Surveys show a consistent desire amongst pupils to cycle to school.157 Many schools lack appropriate facilities, but with secure cycle parking, lockers, showers and changing areas cycling rates can be increased significantly. Kesgrave High School in Suffolk has one of the highest cycling rates in the UK (around 60%) as the result of sustained investment in facilities and safer cycle routes.158 Softer measures include: • Pedestrian schemes such as school crossing patrols and walking buses. These help overcome fears over child safety, a large obstacle to walking to school. • Training in cycling skills or for personal safety for children who walk to school. Cycle training for primary children under the RoSPA guidelines or by CTC guidance for teenagers would be expected to increase confidence and in conjunction with hard measures achieve modal shift away from car. • Schools are encouraged to review uniform: trainers are suitable for pupils walking to school, and cycling clothing may not meet uniform criteria but be safer or more comfortable. • More flexible timetabling can reduce car dependency. High rates of bus travel by pupils on the Isle of Wight, for example, are in part attributable to the staggering of school hours. 156 ODPM(2004) Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy. 157 DfT (2003) Travelling to school: a good practice guide 158 DETR (1999) School travel strategies and plans: case studies report - 66 - • Dedicated bus service provision where no commercial service is available: many LEAs and schools operate subsidised bus services, many supplemented by passing on varying proportions of the costs to parents. • Maximising the efficiency and coverage of bus services. Schools are encouraged to sell extra seats on buses to non-entitled pupils (>3 miles from school), double-tripping for buses and staggered start times for local schools. • Car sharing remains a niche, but very effective, solution. Appendix Figure 3.9: Sustainable procurement Tender process Sustainable procurement good practice Identifying need School should have a sustainable purchasing policy signed- off at a high level. Specification Greatest scope for sustainability criteria at this stage.159 Contracting authorities to specify the functional or performance requirements of any purchase. This could include, for example, low power consumption ICT, recycled paper or an eco-label standard of production (such as organic or FSC-equivalent). Eco-labels could only be included providing there is an ‘or equivalent’ proviso included to allow suppliers without certification but similar standards to respond to the tender.160 Selection Limited scope at this stage: selection must be based on the ability to meet the specifications. Tender Evaluation Limited scope at this stage: decision must be based on the ability to meet the specifications. 159 OGC/Defra (2003) Joint note on environmental issues in purchasing 160 Morgan, Kevin and Adrian Morley (2002) Relocalising the food chain: the role of creative public procurement. Regeneration Institute, Cardiff University. - 67 - Contract Ongoing dialogue with suppliers is necessary to monitor management performance and suggest any improvements. This is of particular importance where a school is already locked into a long-term contract and has no immediate prospect of introducing sustainability considerations into purchasing specifications. Source: Adapted from OGC/Defra (2003) Joint note on environmental issues in purchasing. Appendix Figure 3.10: Sample of sustainable food initiatives • A range of national healthy eating initiatives: National School Fruit Scheme, National Healthy School Standard, Growing Schools, Focus on Food and Sainsbury's Taste of Success. • Sustain offer substantive guidance relevant to school caterers and food procurers, applicable both to those who contract services out or run their own school service. The toolkit covers contract negotiation, local sourcing, seasonality and menu development.161 • The School Food Trust will give independent advice to schools and parents on improving meals to the new improved standards from 2006/07 • The Soil Association’s Food for Life programme has worked with over 300 schools, aiming to achieve targets of 75% unprocessed, 50% locally sourced and 30% organic food sourced in schools each week. • A vibrant range of Local Food Links, Farmers Markets and open farms • Public Sector Food Procurement Initiative (PSFPI) provides guidance on catering contracts and policies, and aims to increase local and organic supply of food • Local Healthy schools programme: a portal for local links to relevant contacts and organisations • Food in Schools. Joint DfH / DfES initiative that emphasises nutritional values of food and the value of a process producing a ‘Whole School Food Policy’ to engage staff and set the ethos, attitude and practical use of food in the school. • Over 70 local initiatives ongoing in Wales162 161 Sustain. 2003. The Manual for Sustainability in Public Sector Food and Catering. 162 Welsh Assembly (2003) Food and Well Being: reducing inequalities through a nutrition strategy for Wales. - 68 - Appendix 4: School Questionnaire Survey Carbon Footprint of Schools Questionnaire 1 Introduction to the Project Global Action Plan and the Stockholm Environment Institute have been commissioned by the Sustainable Development Commission to explore how a “carbon footprint” for schools could be derived. To achieve these goals we need your help. As well as understanding the total impact of the education sector, it is important that individual schools have an understanding of their carbon footprint in order to start thinking about ways in which they could reduce it. 2 Background Carbon dioxide emissions are emitted for every activity we do whether it be sitting in a classroom or having lunch. Carbon dioxide emissions not only result from the energy used by the school but also from the purchasing of paper, eating of food and going on school trips. This will provide a complete understanding of emissions. This questionnaire has been divided into key five categories: 1. Travel 2. Energy use 3. Food 4. Goods and services 5. Waste What we would to know from you is whether you can obtain the information that we would require to calculate the carbon footprint of your school. We are also looking for any suggestions that you might have to simplify the approach. For example, you might not know how far your pupils travelled on a school trip but you probably know where they went and how they got there. We are not asking you to fill in the “Required Data” but to respond to the questions in the shaded boxes. 3 What will happen with your input? Your input will be used to guide the Sustainable Development Commission in understanding how they are going to assess the carbon footprint of schools. Your input will influence the way in which the data could be collected in the future. This is an important role as it is difficult to manage and reduce carbon emissions if we cannot adequately measure them. 4 Travel Carbon dioxide emissions from travel are often among the most significant. However, there is an issue of boundary, i.e. what should be included in the calculations. For example, should we just include trips undertaken by the school, or should staff and student commuting be taken into account? Ideally, the data that we would need is an understanding of the total day-to-day mileage travelled in a typical week. Please note we have split mileage according to its purpose, in order - 69 - to monitor how much school activities and commuting contribute to the carbon footprint. It is hoped that if a Travel Plan for the school is in place then this data would be available. We would also like information on air travel as the carbon emissions can be very high. Different questions have been posed for this section. Part 1: Travel A – Land Travel 1. Please enter the average distance travelled per employee for the “commuting” column. For the “business travel” column, please enter the average distance travel per journey. I would like to give distances in (please tick one): Kilometres [ ] or Miles [ ] Mode of Transport ‘Commuting’ ‘School Travel’ Car (as the driver) Car (as a passenger) Train Local Bus Coach Bicycle Walking Taxi Motorcycle Please answer the following questions: 1. Does your school have a “Travel” Plan? B – Air travel 2. Could the data on “Commuting” be provided? 3. Could the data on “School Travel” be provided? 4. Do you have any other data on school travel that you collect/calculate? 5. If available, who holds this information in the school? B – Air Travel If you know, please enter the average distance per trip by the following categories: ‘School Travel’ Mode of Transport Air Travel – International Air Travel -Domestic - 70 - 2 What is the number of trips that were undertaken by: Air Travel – International Air Travel -Domestic If you do not know your mileage for flights, write below the Airport from which you are flying and your destination: Please answer the following questions: 1. Could you answer the question on distance travelled by air? 2. Could you answer the question on the number of trips by air? 3. Do you have any other data on air travel that you collect/calculate? 4. If available, who holds this information in the school? Part 2: Food Footprint The impact of food production in terms of carbon emissions can be substantial. Again, as with most categories, there is the issue of boundaries, i.e. what should be included in the analysis? For example, we could include food purchased by the school or include the food consumed by pupils while at school. Please enter the food provided by the school. If you wish to include personal lunches please copy the box below and repeat the exercise. Please highlight whether you are entering data for an average week, month or the year. - 71 - Food Type Price or Quantity of Food What percentage What percent is What percent is (please indicate either cost of the food is locally grown? grown in the UK? of food or weight) Organic? Cheese £ kg Milk and cream £ kg Other milks and dairy £ kg products Fruit £ kg Vegetables £ kg Pulses and Beans £ kg Fish £ kg Meat £ kg Rice £ kg Pasta £ kg Bread £ kg Potatoes £ kg Beer and lager £ kg Wine and spirits £ kg Sugary drinks £ kg Other £ kg Please answer the following questions: 1. Is it easier to provide the information on food by weight or money spent? 2. Do you know how much of your food is organic? 3. Do you know how much of your food is locally grown? 4. Do you know how much of your food came from the UK? 5. If available, who holds this information in the school? Part 3: Goods and Services Carbon emissions are emitted to produce all the products and provide the services to your school. Many studies in the past have missed out these impacts because they are hard to measure. However, the consumption of particular products can have a significant impact. For this reason we are trying to see whether they could be included in the analysis. The data we would need is “the amount of money you spent on each of the following items” in a typical month or year. - 72 - How much did you spend on Consumables these items in a typical month? Clothing £ Footwear £ Furniture, furnishings, carpets and other floor coverings £ Glassware, tableware and household utensils £ Goods and services for routine cleaning163 £ Medical products, appliances and equipment £ Audio-visual, photo and inf. processing equipment £ Other major durables164 £ Other recreational items & equipment 165 £ Newspapers, books and stationery £ Postal Services £ Telephone and telefax services £ Recreational and cultural services 166 £ Accommodation services £ Social protection 167 £ Insurance £ Financial services £ Personal effects 168 £ Please answer the following questions: 1. Would this data be available in school? 2. If no, do you have any other data that may be able to substitute this data? 3. If available, who holds this information in the school? 163 Non durable household goods such as washing powers, soaps, tea tools, candles, matches, nails, glues, dusters, knitting needles etc. Household services such as dry cleaning, window cleaners, house cleaners, baby sitters, hire of household equipment etc 164 Items for out door recreation e.g. caravans, horses for recreational riding, canoes, diving equipment etc Items for indoor recreation includes all music; instruments, games machines, snooker tables (excluding all toys) 165 Games, toys and hobbies, equipment for sport and camping, garden plants and flowers, pets and associated products and services for pets. 166 Recreational and sporting services e.g. swimming pools, fitness centres, recreational lessons, fair and amusement parks. Cultural services such as cinemas, music halls, historic monuments, zoos and national parks, television licensing, photography services. 167 Retirement homes, day care centres, play schools and child minders, counselling services 168 Jewellery, clocks, watches. - 73 - Part 4: Waste Footprint If your school has had a waste survey most of the data should be available from there. If no composition data is available please indicate the tonnes of waste produced and percentage recycled. Landfill waste Kg per year Paper and card Plastic Glass Metal Plastic Wood Other TOTAL Recycled or Composted Kg per year Paper and card Plastic Textile Metals Glass Food and other organic matter Waste electrical and electronic equipment TOTAL Please answer the following questions: 1. Do you have an understanding of the composition of waste your school produces? 2. Do you know how your school’s waste is disposed? 3. Do you have any other data on waste in the school that might be of use to us? 4. If available, who holds this information in the school? - 74 - Part 5: Energy consumption Here we need to find out information about the energy that you use. We need to know about how it is produced and how much of it is consumed. Energy Production Do you use electricity? If so, how is this electricity generated? Please tick the relevant box. If more than one option applies to you then place a percentage value in the box’s to represent the makeup of your energy consumption. Electricity source Tick box or enter % value National grid – standard National grid – bought through a renewable energy supplier Wind turbines Solar panels hydro Other Do you produce your own energy supply? If so please describe … Please answer the following questions: 1. Could you answer the question above? 2. If available, who holds this information in the school? Energy Consumption Please either enter the number of KWh hours that you use of the energy source that you use (will see on your bill) or the number of litres of oil, volume of gas or tonnes of wood. If this does not apply to you then please enter in any other information that may enable us to calculate the Ecological Footprint. For example the number of hours a day you use solar powered energy and the energy generating capacity of your solar unit. If you use any other energy sources please enter and specify in the blank boxes. Energy source Volume of consumption or number of hours of consumption per average month. Gas (m3 or KWh) Electricity (KWh) Oil (L) Wood (tonnes) Please answer the following questions: 1. Could you answer the question above? 2. If available, who holds this information in the school?