1

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Measurement and Reporting for
different land management techniques used by
the Broads Authority

By Elena Olloqui, MSc student in Environmental Impact Assessment, Auditing and
Management Systems at the University of East Anglia
August 2006

Abstract

CO2 emissions due to human activities contribute, together with other greenhouse gases, to an
increase  in  global  warming.  In  addition  to  initiatives  involving  CO2  reduction  targets  and
trading schemes, organisations and individuals are expressing an interest in understanding the
contribution  of  their  activities  to  this  problem.  In  this  way,  they  can  better  manage  their
emissions  and  aid  their  decision  making  process.  The  Broads  Authority  is  a  conservation
organisation which would like to understand the impact on greenhouse emissions of its land
management  activities.  A  review  of  tools  and  guidelines  for  measuring  and  reporting  on
greenhouse gas emissions is carried out in order to develop a carbon audit model suitable to
the  land  management  techniques  used  by  the  Broads  Authority  in  the  Norfolk  and  Suffolk
fens.  The  model  is  applied  to  four  techniques  and  carbon  audits  for  these  are  produced  to
allow  the  Broads  Authority  to  compare  their  emission  levels.  This  carbon  audit  model  and
application  could  also  provide  guidance  and  a  baseline  for  other  organisations  pursuing
similar conservation activities.

i

Glossary

AHGCC
Ad Hoc Group on Climate Change at the IOS
CER
Certified Emissions Reduction
CDM
Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol
CLA
Country Land and Business Association
DOE
Department of Energy
Defra
Department for Environment, food and Rural Affairs
GEMI
Global Environmental Management Initiative
GHG
Greenhouse Gases
ICC

International Chamber of Commerce
INC

Inter-governmental Negotiating Committee
IOS

International Organization for Standardization
IPCC
Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change
LULUCF
Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry
OECD
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
RMU
Removal Units
SDC
Sustainable Development Commision
UNEP
United Nations Environment Programme
UNFCCC
United Nations Convention on Climate Change
WBCSD
World Business Council for Sustainable Development
WRI
World Resources Institute

v

Introduction
1. Introduction

One  of  the  most  important  challenges  that  the  world  community  is  facing  in  the  context  of
sustainable  development  is  climate  change,  as  this  has  implications  for  natural,  human  and
economic  systems  (AHGCC,  2002).  Greenhouse  gases  accumulate  in  the  atmosphere  and
reduce  the  rate  at  which  heat  is  lost,  contributing  to  changes  in  the  earth‘s  climate  (Defra,
2001).  Greenhouse  gases  and  aerosol emissions  due  to  human  activities,  in  particular  those
involving  the  combustion  of  fossil  fuels  for  industrial  or  domestic  usage,  and  biomass
burning, continue to alter the composition of the atmosphere. The impact of human activities
on the environment has  been growing more significant since the beginning of the Industrial
Revolution,  and  now  extends  to  a  much  larger  scale,  at  a  continental  and  even  global  level
(IPCC Working Group  I, 2001).  It  is  estimated that  between 1850 and  1998, approximately
270 (+30) Gt C carbon dioxide has been released to the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning
and cement production activities, which represents an increase in atmospheric concentrations
of  about  28%  (IPCC,  2000),  whilst  since  1990,  global  temperatures  have  risen  by  0.2o  C.
2005  is  reported  to  have  been  the  second  warmest  year  on  record  according  to  the  World
Meteorological  Organization  (Gilardin,  2006).  It  is  estimated  that  global  average
temperatures could rise by up to 5.8 o C by the end of the 21st century (UK Climate Change
Programme, 2006).

There is an increasing interest by governments, the international community and industry to
manage  greenhouse  gas  (GHG)  emissions  as  an  acknowledgment  and  response  to  the  risks
posed by climate change, and in order to achieve agreed targets such as those set by the 1997
Kyoto Protocol and other international initiatives. This trend is likely to lead to the need for
businesses  and  organizations  to  account  and  report  on  their  GHG  emissions  (UNEP,  2000)
and  many  are  already  themselves  embarking  on  carbon  inventory  and  reporting  projects  in
order  to  meet  increasing  interest  and  demands  from  consumers  and  investors.  The
introduction of carbon reduction programmes is also being explored to assess their potential
for efficiency improvements and cost savings for businesses.

In  order  for  organisations  to  be  able  to  understand  and  manage  their  contributions  towards
GHG  emissions  and  introduce  effective  carbon  reduction  initiatives,  they  need  to  measure
and  monitor  these  emissions  in  an  accurate  manner  (ClimateBiz,  2006).  There  are  a  wide
range of tools and guidelines available for organizations to produce these measurements and

1

Introduction
report their findings, and many have developed their own specific models and frameworks to
do this and develop on-going emissions reduction programmes. In this way, stakeholders can
track the performance of companies and their progress towards reduction targets.

The UK Climate Change Programme reviewed in 2006 indicates that agriculture and forestry
activities contribute 7% of the total UK GHG emissions. 46% of methane and 66% of nitrous
oxide emissions were generated by this sector in 2004. Therefore, this sector is seen as key in
combating climate change as a potential source of alternative energy, by being able to absorb
or  minimize  some  of  its  adverse  impacts,  and  by  direct  mitigation  of  GHG  emissions  from
agricultural,  forestry  and  other  land  management  techniques.  In  this  context,  the  UK
government  is  investigating,  amongst  other  measures,  the  potential  for  market  based
mechanisms  to  allow  trading  of  GHG  reductions  from  agriculture,  forestry  and  other  land
management activities.

The  Norfolk  and  Suffolk  Broads  Authority  manages  the  Broads  National  Park,  Britain‘s
largest protected wetland habitat, located in the East Anglia region. The Broads includes sites
of  both  national  and  international  scientific  and  natural  interest,  and  is  renowned  for  many
species of birds including native and migratory species. Fen land is one of the habitats in the
Broads  and  constitutes  a  first  stage  in  the  change  from  open  water  to  woodland.  Fens  are
waterlogged  areas  of  land  where  reeds,  rushes  and  sedges  predominate  forming  a  complex
system of plant and animal communities. Within the 5000 hectares of undrained peatland in
the Broads about 1700 are open fen, whilst the rest is covered with scrub and carr woodland.
The Broads Authority uses different land management techniques to restore and conserve the
fens  which  include  scrub  clearance  and  reed  and  sedge  cutting.  Following  some  workshops
and  seminars  with  Defra  and  other  conservation  agencies,  the  issue  of  carbon  emissions  by
land  management  activities  has  been  raised  to  the  attention  of  the  Broads  Authority,  who
would like to understand the contribution it makes towards GHG emissions and the potential
differences arising from the use of different land management methods.

2

Climate Change and Emissions Measurement and Reporting
2. Climate Change and Emissions Measurement and Reporting

2.1. Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) defines climate
change  as  ―a  change  of  climate  which  is  attributed  directly  or  indirectly  to  human  activity
that  alters  the  composition  of  the  global  atmosphere  and  which  is  in  addition  to  natural
climate variability observed over comparable time periods‖ (UNFCCC, 1992, p. 3). There is
some argument over the narrow remit of this definition and in contrast, the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defines climate change as ―any change in climate over time
whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity‖ (Pielke, 2005, p. 549).

During  the  1980‘s,  concern  over  climate  change  increased  significantly  due  to  growing
scientific  evidence  of  the  effects  of  human  activity  on  the  atmosphere  and  climate  system,
and rising public  awareness  and interest  over  global  environmental  issues (AHGCC, 2002).
Climate  change  emerged  as  a  serious  concern  and  was  introduced  onto  the  international
political  agenda  via  the  establishment  of  the  Inter-governmental  Panel  on  Climate  Change
(IPCC) in 1998 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the UN Environment
Programme  (UNEP),  and  by  the  adoption  of  resolution  43/53  on  the  ―Protection  of  global
climate  for  present  and  future  generations  of  mankind‖  by  the  UN  General  Assembly.
Confirmation of climate change as a threat to humanity was provided in the First Assessment
Report by the IPCC in 1990, which also highlighted the need for a global treaty to deal with
this  issue  at  a  world-wide  level.  The  same  year,  the  UN  adopted  resolution  45/212  which
created an Inter-governmental Negotiating Committee (INC) to develop  the UN Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), adopted at the ―Earth Summit‖ in Rio de Janeiro
in 1992. Its ultimate objective is to achieve the stabilization of atmospheric concentrations of
greenhouse gases at safe levels within a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt,
ensuring  food  production  and  enabling  sustainable  economic  development.  Country
signatories  of  the  UNFCCC  therefore  committed  to  address  climate  change,  adapt  to  its
effects, and report on how they would implement the framework.

In 1995, the Berlin  Mandate was  agreed in  order to  introduce further specific commitments
towards  dealing  with  climate  change,  finally  culminating  with  the  adoption  of  the  Kyoto
Protocol  in  1997. This  Protocol introduced mandatory targets  to  limit  or reduce  greenhouse

3

Climate Change and Emissions Measurement and Reporting
emissions, such as a reduction of 8% during the period 2008 to 2012 shared between the 15
EU Member States at the time of the EU‘s ratification of the Protocol in May 2001. For the
UK, this means a commitment to a reduction target of 12.5% for that period (Europa, 2006).

These  commitments  to  reductions  of  emissions  include  the  six  main  greenhouse  gases
(GHG):  Carbon  Dioxide  (CO2),  Methane  (CH4),  Nitrous  Oxide  (N2O),  Hydrofluorocarbons
(HFCs), Perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and Sulphur Hexafluoride (SF6). Carbon dioxide is mainly
emitted by burning fossil  fuel  and accounts for about  80% of UK emissions, whilst the rest
are  emitted  as  by-products  of  some  industrial  processes,  from  waste  disposal,  and  from  air
conditioning  and  refrigeration  plants  (Defra,  2001).  The  Kyoto  Protocol™  Flexibility
Mechanisms  were  designed  and  developed  to  help  affected  countries  with  access  to  cost-
effective  opportunities  to  reduce  emissions  by  introducing  projects  which  would  remove  or
reduce  carbon  releases  from  the  atmosphere  in  other  countries  (UNFCCC,  1997;  Defra,
2001):
  Joint Implementation: via this project-based mechanism, countries in Annex I (which
contains an agreed list of more developed countries such as the UK) can implement
projects in other Annex I countries to reduce emissions there, which then can count
towards their own emissions reduction targets.
  Clean Development Mechanism (CDM): it allows signatory countries listed in Annex
I  to  implement  project  activities  to  reduce  emissions  in  non-Annex  I  countries  in
return for certified emission reductions (CERs) or removal unit (RMUs) credits. This
is also a project-based mechanism similar to Joint Implementation but where projects
are carried out in countries outside the Annex I list.
  Emissions Trading: this allows Annex I countries to acquire units from other Annex I
countries  and  use  them  towards  meeting  their  emissions  targets  under  the  Kyoto
Protocol. In this way, countries which have achieved emission reductions above their
target can sell this excess to other countries to help them achieve their commitments.
At  the  same  time,  the  treaty  also  introduced  stronger  reporting  obligations  and  a  tighter
compliance system. In particular, the implementation of the CDM mechanism means that the
validity  of  CER  and  RMU  calculations  require  independent  third  party  verification  at  both
project  validation  (project  design  in  accordance  with  eligibility,  baseline  and
monitoring/verification requirements) and project verification and certification (actual project
performance  against  design)  stages.  The  equivalence  of  GHG  units  is  essential  for  the
development of a successful emissions trading scheme at national and international level.

4

Climate Change and Emissions Measurement and Reporting
2.2. Emissions and sequestration from land use and management activities

Provisions  are  also  made  in  the  Kyoto  Protocol  for  land  use,  land-use  change  and  forestry
(LULUCF)  activities  such  as  afforestation,  deforestation  and  reforestation  to  be  taken  into
account for countries to meet their GHG reduction commitments. Countries can trade in their
carbon  storages  and  sequestration  levels  of  human  induced  land-use  changes  and  forestry
activities.

The  Joint  Implementation  mechanism  allows  for  sinks  and  removal  projects  with  limited
inclusion  within  the  Clean  Development  Mechanism.  This  is  a  complex  area  still  under
negotiation amongst signatory countries, as definitions and operational issues, which include
establishing  common  approaches  to  measuring,  reporting  and  verifying  carbon  stocks  for
trading, remain unresolved. The IPCC provides guidance on national carbon stock accounting
methods  but  no  widely  accepted  or  standard  methods  are  available  for  measuring  carbon
emissions for entity levels  such as  organizations, facilities, products  and  projects  (AHGCC,
2002).

Carbon  is  continuously  being  exchanged  between  terrestrial  ecological  systems  and  the
atmosphere  through  processes  such  as  photosynthesis,  respiration,  decomposition  and
combustion.  Human  activities  affect  this  exchange  through  land  use,  land-use  change  and
forestry amongst other activities, for example via forest clearings, which released substantial
amounts of carbon towards the end of the 20th century (IPCC, 2000). Carbon is also absorbed
and stored by soil and vegetation as shown in table 2.1.

Farming and agricultural practices may produce GHG emissions from livestock management
activities such as enteric fermentation and livestock waste, or from crop production activities
such as residue burning, rice and other wetland cultivation, and nutrient or lime applications.
Land management techniques for grazing and crop production can influence the rate of GHG
emissions, mainly via the oxidation of organic matter in the soil, and of carbon sequestration,
by  increasing  the  amount  of  organic  carbon  contained  in  the  soil  and  promoting  growth  of
long-lived perennial biomass such as trees and permanent grasses (DOE, 2006b).

5

Climate Change and Emissions Measurement and Reporting
Table 2. 1
Global carbon stocks in vegetation and soil carbon pools down to a depth of 1 m.

Global Carbon Stocks (Gt C)

Biome
Area
Vegetation
Soil
Total
(10 9 ha)

Tropical forests
1.76
212
216
428
Temperate forests
1.04
59
100
159
Boreal forests
1.37
88
471
559
Tropical savannas
2.25
66
264
330
Temperate grasslands
1.25
9
295
304
Deserts and semi-deserts
4.55
8
191
199
Tundra
0.95
6
121
127
Wetlands
0.35
15
225
240
Croplands
1.60
3
128
131
Total
15.12
466
2011
477

Note: There is considerable uncertainty in the numbers given, because of ambiguity of definitions of biomes, but the table
still provides an overview of the magnitude of carbon stocks in terrestrial systems.

Source: IPCC, 2000

In  the  UK,  GHG  emissions  from  agriculture,  forestry  and  land  management  amounted  to
18MtC in 1990, including net emissions and removals, representing about 9% of the UK total
for that year. Between then and 2004 it is estimated that emissions have fallen by 22%, with a
projection for a reduction of up to 32% by 2010 (UK Climate Change programme, 2006) as
shown in table 2.2.

Table 2. 2
Greenhouse gas emissions and projected emissions in the UK from agriculture, forestry and
land management, in MtC.

Note: the percentage changes and emission estimates may differ slightly due to rounding.

Source:UK Climate Change Programme, 2006

The  direct  contribution  of  agriculture  and  forestry  to  carbon  dioxide  emissions  is
produced  primarily  via  the  use  of  fossil  fuels  and  electricity  required  to  carry  out  land
management activities, but other greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide are

6

Climate Change and Emissions Measurement and Reporting
released  in  significant  quantities  through  processes  such  as  animal  waste,  animals‘
digestive processes and fertilizer use (UK Climate Change Programme, 2006).

Carbon  removals  from  the  atmosphere  can  be  increased  via  appropriate  land  management
techniques such as increasing forest coverage and organic matter in soil or ensuring these are
not  reduced  or  degraded.    In  addition,  wood  materials  and  other  non-food  crops  can
contribute towards the provision of alternatives to fossil fuels by producing renewable energy
(UK Climate Change Programme, 2006).

Carbon  sequestration  is  an  important  mechanism  for  reducing  atmospheric  carbon  dioxide
used  in  Joint  Implementation  land-use  projects  involving  activities  such  as  plantations,
improved forest management and natural forest preservation. These programmes suffer from
the  lack  of  accurate,  reliable  and  cost-effective  methods  to  calculate  and  monitor  carbon
storage, as these can be very complex, requiring a high degree of expertise and sophisticated
equipment. This poses a major barrier to the development and implementation of successful
forestry-based carbon offset schemes (Winrock International, 1997).

2.3. Drivers for measurement of emissions

In  addition  to  the  on-going  development  of  international  agreements  and  negotiations  on
climate  change,  governments  and  businesses  themselves  are  investigating,  designing,  and
implementing  voluntary  programmes  that  promote  environmental  integrity,  investor
confidence and transparency (AHGCC, 2002).

The Global  Environmental Management Initiative (GEMI) indicates that the introduction of
climate change issues as part of a business strategy formulation can allow the organization to
understand the magnitude of its risks and opportunities in the context of climate change, thus
enabling  it  to  allocate  more  appropriate  resource  levels  to  manage  them  and  focus  such
efforts  on  obtaining  maximum  benefits  and  value  (GEMI,  2000).  As  governments  are
increasingly developing GHG emissions inventories to achieve reduction targets at domestic,
regional  and  international  levels,  some  believe  that  businesses  will  inevitably  be  driven  to
measure and report their GHG emissions, as they need to prepare for future regulations and
potential participation in emission trading programmes. Also, businesses should benefit from

7

Climate Change and Emissions Measurement and Reporting
their efforts in reducing their emissions and to achieve this they need to measure and report
their efforts and achievements (GEMI, 2000).

The World Resources Institute (WRI) GHG Protocol Initiative suggests that a good corporate
GHG inventory can serve several business goals (WRI, 2001):
  Management of GHG risks and identification of reduction opportunities.
  Public reporting and participation in voluntary GHG programmes.
  Participation in mandatory reporting programmes.
  Participation in GHG markets.
  Recognition for early voluntary action.

The Ad Hoc Group on Climate Change (AHGCC, 2002) identified the following drivers for
organizations to measure, monitor and report GHG emissions:
  Management of GHG emissions makes business sense to organizations according to
internal risk calculations.
  The  information  obtained  could  be  used  in  GHG  emissions  trading  programmes  at
organizational levels;
  The potential benefits  (e.g.  credits) of taking voluntary actions to reduce or remove
GHG emissions.
   The measurements of GHG emissions obtained could be used as a baseline against
future potential compliance requirements.
  Organisational GHG calculations and reporting could help to improve the accuracy of
national level aggregated reporting.
  Domestic  emissions  trading  programmes  could  be  developed  using  the  information
from organisational GHG emissions measurements as their basis.

In the UK, measurement and reporting of GHG emissions and inventories is regulated as part
of national climate change programmes, and therefore entities‘ inventories provide support to
the implementation of national emissions trading schemes, industry-government covenants or
national  taxation  schemes.  Defra  (2001)  identifies  several  benefits  for  organizations
measuring  and  reporting  their  GHG  emissions.  These  include  lower  energy  and  transport

8

Climate Change and Emissions Measurement and Reporting
costs; better positioning for identifying and managing risks, which can lead to attracting more
investment; competitive advantage, which includes improved basis for decision making and
greater innovation; and the communication of all these advantages to stakeholders.

Environmental  reporting,  and  in  particular  measurement  of  GHG  emissions,  is  increasingly
being  included  in  business  accounting  practice,  but  there  is  not  yet  a  globally  accepted
standard  measurement  protocol  for  GHG  emissions.  In  many  cases,  businesses  and
organizations  have  developed  their  own  methodologies  for  accounting  and  reporting,  and
therefore produce results which have limited use for benchmarking purposes or for assessing
the  success  of  their  emission  management  strategies  in  relation  to  those  of  competitors
(UNEP, 2000).

2.4. The carbon audit framework

A carbon audit framework provides the structure required to carry out the measurement and
subsequent reporting on the GHG emissions generated by an organization, a specific project,
product  or  facility,  or  by  a  geographical  body  such  as  a  country,  state  or  region.  It  offers  a
systematic  approach  for  measuring,  evaluating,  and  reporting  emissions  and  could  include
verification  as  well  as  identification  of  carbon  reduction  opportunities  which  can  lead  to
potential cost savings or to enable benchmarking of performance (Welford, 1998).

Based on the work by Humphrey and Hadley (2000), ICC (1989), Ledgerwood et al. (1992)
and  Welford  (1998),  Lovell  (2003)  suggests  the  following  stages  and  activities  as  part  of  a
carbon audit framework

o  Within  the  pre-audit  stage,  the  context  of  the  audit  needs  to  be  defined,  which
includes  the  identification  of  the  objectives  for  the  audit  and  the  definition  of
boundaries  or  audit  scope.    The  audit  should  also  be  planned  and  include
organizational  considerations  such  as  sector  specific  requirements  and  minimum
requirements (for example, emissions from energy use and transportation) as well as
methodological issues like appropriate methods for data collection.

9

Climate Change and Emissions Measurement and Reporting
o  The  next  phase  involves  undertaking  the  audit,  carrying  out  data  collection  and
measurements,  and  applying  for  example,  any  relevant  conversion  factors  from
suitable tools or guidelines, as well as normalisation and aggregation.
o  At  the  post-auditing  stage,  findings  are  evaluated  and  presented,  in  relation  to  the
objectives  of  the  study,  and  ideally  results  should  also  be  conveyed  to  stakeholders.
One  way  of  aiding  the  understanding  of  the  magnitude  of  the  results  of  emissions
generated  by  the  organization  or  entity  is  to  present  these  in  terms  of  a  carbon
footprint.    Depending  on  the  objectives  of  the  audit,  an  action  plan  for  on-going
evaluation and reporting should be also produced, together with long term objectives
such  as  for  example,  reduction  of  carbon  emissions  by  a  specific  amount  or
achievement of specific targets.

The audit process is a cyclical process and should include an element of improvement within
itself, for example, by introducing monitoring programmes or ensuring accurate and relevant
data collection in future cycles which may not have been initially available.

2.5. Carbon footprinting

The ecological footprint concept, introduced in 1996 by Rees and Wackernagel, is based on
the  calculation  of  the  land  that  would  be  required  to  sustain  current  levels  of  resource
consumption,  support,  and  waste  discharge  by  a  given  population.  This  indicator  was
developed  as  a  practical  way  to  try  to  quantify  sustainability  and  assumes  that  all  human
activities  have  an  impact  on  the  environment  via  the  resources  they  use  and  the  waste
generated  from  them.  Land  was  chosen  as  the  unit  of  measure  for  the  ecological  footprint
because it is a concept which can be visualized and understood globally, as it clearly shows
that  natural  resources  are  not  unlimited,  and  due  to  the  limitations  posed  by  monetary
indicators (Knaus et al., 2006).

GHG emissions excluding carbon dioxide are normally measured and a conversion factor is
applied to each of the figures for each gas that relates them to their carbon dioxide equivalent.
―Carbon  dioxide  equivalent  is  a  measure  used  to  compare  the  emissions  from  various
greenhouse  gases  based  upon  their  global  warming  potential.  For  example,  the  global
warming potential for methane over 100 years is 21. This means that emissions of one million

10

Climate Change and Emissions Measurement and Reporting
metric  tons  of  methane  is  equivalent  to  emissions  of  21  million  metric  tons  of  carbon
dioxide‖ (OECD, 2001). This allows for the auditing of GHG emissions to be aggregated to
obtain a unique indicator of GHG emissions for  a specific body or entity, which allows  for
easier interpretations and comparative assessments.

Carbon  footprint  is  a  measure  of  the  impact  human  activities  have  on  the  environment  in
terms  of  the  amount  of  green  house  gases  produced,  measured  in  units  of  carbon  dioxide
(Carbonfootprint.com,  2006).  This  can  be  extended  to  a  similar  concept  as  the  ecological
footprint but specifically applied to GHG emissions impacts. For example  forests of rapidly
growing species, such as aspen, can sequester up to 4.5 Mg of carbon/hectare/year (BSCSP,
2005). This indicator can be applied to a carbon audit which would allow for the results to be
presented in a way which reflects, for example, the impact on tree planting required to offset
the resulting carbon emissions reported.

2.6.  Requirement  for  a  carbon  audit  model  for  different  land  management  activities
used by the Broads Authority

The  importance  of  the  agricultural,  forestry  and  land  management  sector  in  the  context  of
addressing  climate  change  has  been  highlighted  in  the  UK  Climate  Change  Programme
(2006). Emphasis is placed on these industries to ensure that climate change is regarded as a
high  priority  as  they  need  to  adapt  to  new  circumstances  created  by  rises  in  temperatures.
Changes involving introduction of new crops, different planting and harvesting regimes, and
management  of  new  pest  threats  are  some  of  the  measures  suggested  by  the  Programme.  It
also indicates that land managers need to change their behaviour to be able to contribute to a
reduction  on  their  emissions  which  could  lead  to  the  identification  of  improved  resource
efficiency  opportunities  for  their  organizations.  The  UK  government  is  currently  assessing
the  potential  for  the  introduction  of  market  based  mechanisms  compatible  with  the  EU  and
UK Emissions Trading Schemes to allow trading of GHG reductions from land management.
It  is  predicted  that  the  development  of  carbon  reduction  initiatives  by  private  companies,
NGOs  and  community  groups,  in  addition  to  public  sector  organizations,  is  set  to  increase
due to the drive provided by national policies and other market opportunities (SDC, 2002).

11

Climate Change and Emissions Measurement and Reporting
The Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Authority is a statutory body set up through a special Act of
Parliament in 1988 aiming to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the Broads, promote
the enjoyment of the Broads by the public and protect the interests of navigation. As defined
in the Act, the Broads Authority also has to take into consideration within its remit the needs
of agriculture and forestry, and the economic and social interests of those who live or work in
the Broads.

Within its work, the Broads Authority is responsible for activities of conservation, land and
water management, planning, recreation and visitor services, which need to be considered in
an integrated manner, working together with other organizations and individuals. As part of
its  land  management  activities,  the  Broads  Authority  is  responsible  for  a  variety  of  semi-
natural  habitats  surrounding  the  waterways  which  include  fens,  carr  woodland  and  grazing
marsh.

Wetland habitats and their global distribution, excluding salt marshes, play a significant role
on climate change because they are important sources of methane. With the predicted rises in
global  temperatures,  methane  emissions  from  wetlands  are  likely  to  increase  substantially
(Sanderson, 2001). There are different categories of wetlands. Aselmann and Crutzen (1989)
have divided wetlands into the following groups:
  Bogs, which are mainly present in wet areas and produce peat;
  Fens, which also produce peat and are characterized by flowing water which provides
their nutrients;
  Swamps, where no peat is formed as they consist of waterlogged or inundated soils;
  Marshes, which include areas of grasses, reeds and sedge and may be permanent or
seasonal;
  Floodplains, located mostly around rivers and lakes; and
  Shallow lakes, which are open bodies of water generating methane.

Lowland raised peat bogs are also important carbon sinks and therefore play a role in climate
change from this perspective as well. Whilst it is estimated that damaged peat bogs may emit
8 ton  of CO2 per hectare per  year, pristine bogs may accumulate up to 0.27 ton per hectare

12

Climate Change and Emissions Measurement and Reporting
per year1 (Meade, 2005), which provides an indication of the potential for preservation of bog
habitats to contribute towards improvements in climate change.

Within agricultural systems, carbon emissions are produced via different mechanisms. These
include direct use of fossil fuels as part of the farming activities, releases from indirect use of
embodied  energy  in  inputs  that  are  energy  intensive  to  manufacture,  and  the  cultivation  of
soils  which  results  in  loss  of  soil  organic  matter.  Land  management  activities  can  also
sequester carbon when organic matter accumulates in the soil or when above-ground woody
biomass  acts  as  a  permanent  sink  or  is  used  as  energy  source  substituting  fossil  fuels  (Ball
and Pretty, 2002). The UK Climate Change Programme (2006) also  indicates that non-food
crops  can  be  considered  carbon  neutral  or  even  offer  carbon  savings  by  the  replacement  of
fossil fuel based products with renewable raw materials.

For  the  Broads  Authority,  the  mechanisms  producing  carbon  emissions  and  sequestration
include emissions from the conversion of scrub to fen (as trees are felled thus contributing to
the reduction of carbon sinks), scrub clearance activities (such as cutting, shredding, digging,
burning,  composting,  etc…),  fen  harvesting  emissions  (from  the  use  of  machinery  and
disposal  of  cut  material),  emissions  from  the  fens,  especially  methane,  and  carbon
sequestration of vegetation.

The Broads Authority is interested in carrying out a carbon audit to study the GHG emissions
produced  by  the  different  land  management  techniques  it  uses  for  the  conservation  and
restoration  of  fen  areas.  These  include  mowing,  commercial  reed  and  sedge  cutting,  and
periodic scrub clearance. A comparative carbon audit should aid decision making regarding
wider  environmental  implications  of  local  conservation  management  options,  which  would
lead  to  a  better  informed  approach  to  funding  of  different  alternatives.  At  a  wider  level,  a
carbon audit model could become the basis upon which a more extensive carbon monitoring
and  reporting  programme  could  be  developed  which  could  in  time  help  address  future
requirements  for  carbon  reduction  or  allow  the  Broads  Authority  to  participate  in  potential
emissions trading schemes.


1 Unconfirmed figures from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research

13

Climate Change and Emissions Measurement and Reporting
This model focuses at this stage on the carbon emissions from the direct usage of fossil fuels
of  the  different  land  management  activities  studied  (mainly  from  the  machinery  used  for
digging,  cutting,  chopping  and  shredding,  and  for  transportation  of  the  machinery  and  cut
material)  and  indirect  energy  used  in  inputs  (such  as  energy  used  in  the  construction  of
machinery). Comparisons between different land management regimes are complex and time
consuming, as whole life cycle analyses are required, and attempts to reduce one greenhouse
gas may lead to increases in another (UK Climate Change Programme, 2006). Emissions and
sequestration of methane and nitrous oxide levels need to be measured but there are currently
no  reliable  global  estimates  for  these  (IPCC,  2000).  It  has  also  been  argued  that  CO2
generated by disposal of vegetation material, for example via burning or composting, is not
produced  by  anthropogenic  sources,  and  is  usually  absorbed  again  during  the  following
growing  season  (DOE,  2006b),  sustainable  biomass  in  particular  (World  Bank,  1998).  This
work  will  therefore  focus  on  the  emissions  derived  from  the  physical  activities  undertaken
through  energy  use  and  transportation,  which  excludes  the  emissions  and  potential  for
sequestration  of  carbon  by  the  soil  and  vegetation,  and  the  disposal  of  cut  material  (e.g.
burning or composting) as a result of such land-use change and management activities.

14

Objective and aims
3. Objective and aims

The  objective  of this  work  is  to  develop  a carbon audit model to  carry out  measurement  of
greenhouse gas emissions of different physical activities undertaken by the Broads Authority
within  its  land  conservation  and  restoration  strategy.  It  focuses  on  the  energy  usage  and
transportation activities required to carry out each different land management technique.

To achieve this objective, the following aims have been defined for this project:
o  A  review  of  the  current  generic  guidelines  and  tools  available  to  carry  out  GHG
emissions  measurement,  accounting  and  reporting,  is  carried  out  in  order  to  assess
which framework is most suitable for the application to conduct an audit on the GHG
emissions generated by the activities undertaken by the Broads Authority to manage
the fens areas in the Broads.
o  To provide a carbon audit model for the analysis of CO2 emissions based on the most
suitable tools or guidelines.
o  Application  of  audit  model  by  carrying  out  a  carbon  audit  of  different  land
management  activities  to  be  able  to  provide  a  comparison  of  emissions  across
management techniques.
o  Identification of main emission sources.
o  Recommendations  for  the  potential  expansion  of  this  model  are  to  be  provided  in
order  to  aid  the  Broads  Authority  to  widen  the  scope  of  its  carbon  auditing  and
reporting  in  future  to  incorporate  emissions  and  sequestration  of  carbon  by  soil  and
vegetation as a result of its conservation and restoration strategies.

3.1. Limitations

As  mentioned  above,  the  main  limitations  of  carrying  out  a  first  carbon  audit  are  usually
derived from the lack of available direct measurements for certain CO2 emission sources. In
such cases, indirect measurements or other related data were used. If no data were available
at  all  for  any  specific  emission  source,  estimates  were  produced  from  potential  relevant
research  deemed  suitable  or  transferable.  These  were  documented  and  specifically
acknowledged in the results as estimates, and their origins and application clearly stated.

15

Objective and aims
Another  limitation  to  take  into  consideration  is  the  exclusion  from  this  work  of  the  carbon
emissions  and  sequestration  by  the  soil  and  vegetation,  which  includes  disposal  of  cut
material,  and  by  the  land-use  changes  resulting  from  the  conservation  and  restoration
activities  undertaken  by  the  Broads  Authority.  Therefore,  the  conversion  of  scrub  land  into
fen and other activities such as burning or composting of cut vegetation were excluded from
the  scope  of  this  project  due  mainly  to  the  high  level  of  complexity  and  lack  of  time  for
producing a comprehensive audit at this level.

16

Selection of tools and guidelines for auditing greenhouse gas emissions
4. Development of a carbon audit model

4.1. Tools for estimating GHG emissions

Different  tools  and  guidelines  have  been  developed  for  the  measurement  and  reporting  of
GHG  emissions  in  answer  to  international  initiatives  and  national  or  regional  programmes
like the UK and EU Trading Emission schemes. The IPCC guidelines provide assistance on
the  calculation  of  GHG  emissions  at  national  levels,  but  there  are  not  globally  accepted
standards for measuring, reporting and verifying GHG emissions for organisations, facilities,
projects  or  products  (AHGCC,  2002).  The  ability  to  have  a  systematic  approach  to  GHG
emissions  measurement  and  reporting  is  essential  to  produce  comparative  analyses  across
organisations  and  be  able  to  aggregate  results  to  achieve  environmental  effectiveness  and
economic efficiency at corporate as well as national and international levels.

The Kyoto Protocol acknowledges that a net reduction of CO2 emissions can be achieved by
either reducing its release rate to the atmosphere and/or increasing its removal rate from the
atmosphere (AHGCC, 2002). In order to comply with their obligations, countries mainly use
a top-down approach analyzing national activity data overall and then calculating their levels
of  GHG  emissions  by  applying  emission  factors.  The  calculation  of  emissions  from
individual entities (organizations, facilities, products or processes) usually uses a bottom-up
approach looking at individual activities and calculating their emissions, and then aggregating
them to obtain a measure of the GHG emission levels for the entity.

In their Final Report to the Technical Management board in 2002, the ISO Ad Hoc Group on
Climate  Change  (AHGCC)  provided  a  listing  of  some  of  the  generic  tools  and  guidelines
available  for  measurement  of  GHG  emissions  and  Loreti  et  al.  (2000)  also  presented  a
comprehensive  catalogue  of  initiatives  which  have  been  included  for  consideration  and
review  here.  Lovell  (2003)  listed  other  tools  and  guidelines  designed  to  measure  entities‘
GHG  emissions.  Table  4.1  provides  a  combined  listing  of  those  tools  and  guidelines  which
may  be  used  for  application  to  entity  levels  (organizations,  facilities,  products  or  projects)
from these listings and others published more recently.

17

Selection of tools and guidelines for auditing greenhouse gas emissions
Table 4. 1
Tools and guidelines for estimating GHG emissions for application to entity levels including
those relevant provided by the AHGCC (2002) pages A28-29, Loreti et al. (2000)  page 16 and Lovell (2003)
page 9

TOOL OR GUIDELINE
DESCRIPTION
DEFRA (U.K.) - 2001
Manual on GHG emissions reporting.
Guidelines for Company Reporting of
GHG Emissions
DOE (U.S.) 1605b - 2006
Guidance for DOE 1605b participants in
Guidelines
for
the
Voluntary  estimating/reporting GHGs emissions and
Reporting
of
Greenhouse
Gases  emissions/reduction activities.
(1605(b)) Program
EPA (U.S.)  - 2006
State guidance on estimating GHG emissions.
Emission Inventory Improvement
Program
EPA  (U.S.)  Climate  Wise  program  -
Rules for estimating energy savings and GHG
1994
emissions reductions from industrial energy
Wise Rules for Industrial Efficiency
efficiency measures, based on a large number of
resources.
GEMI (U.S.) - 2000
Guidance  for  developing  strategies  to  address
Business and climate change web site
climate  change  risks  at  facility  and  corporate
levels
GRI Energy Protocol - 2002
Guidance for measurements of energy
Global Reporting Initiative
performance indicators in GRI Sustainability
Reporting Guidelines
International Organization for
Tools for assessing and supporting greenhouse
Standardization – 2006
gas reduction and emissions trading
ISO 14064 standards

IPCC – 2000
Guidelines for a carbon accounting system for
Land Use, Land Use Change and
LULUCF projects under the Kyoto Protocol
Forestry

UNEP – 2000
Guidelines for calculating emissions for

business and non-commercial organizations
WBCSD/WRI  - 2004
Corporate level GHG accounting/reporting
Greenhouse Gas Protocol (revised)
protocol.
Winrock International Institute for
Guidance on inventorying carbon in forestry and
Agricultural Development - 1997
agricultural projects.
World Bank Environment
A practical guidance document for the
Department– 1998
assessment of project level GHG emissions
Greenhouse Gas Assessment
Handbook

In addition to these, consultancies and companies around the world have developed their own
individual methodologies, techniques and software to  obtain measurements  of GHG or CO2
emissions  at  entity  levels  which  reflects  the  lack  of  availability  of  a  globally  accepted
methodology  or  tool  which  can  provide  verification  of  accuracy,  comparative  assessments
and aggregation.  There are many ―do it  yourself‖ tools, many  available directly on line, for
users  to  calculate  their  household  emissions,  emissions  from  planned  trips,  etc…  but  they
appear  to  be  mostly  directed  towards  informing  and  educating  the  general  public  and

18

Selection of tools and guidelines for auditing greenhouse gas emissions
providing  general  indicative figures  rather than accurate measurements.  Also, none of these
appear to explain in detail the source of their measurement models, nor the conversion factors
they  use,  thus  not  providing  a  rigorous  approach  to  emissions  measurement.  Some
organizations  use  Environmental  Management  Systems  to  measure  and  report  their  GHG
emissions which can provide certain benefits such as integration with existing reporting, and
cost savings (Brady, 2001).

The lack of a global standard for measuring and reporting GHG emissions leads to the need
for a review of the current generic methodologies in order to assess which one would be most
appropriate for conducting a carbon audit for specific activities or organizations. In this way,
an assessment can be made to utilize the best suited methodology to achieve the objectives of
each specific entity. Therefore, in order to assess which methodology will be most adequate
to successfully produce a carbon audit of different land management techniques used by the
Broads  Authority,  a  review  of  the  current  generic  tools  and  guidelines  has  been  produced.
The results of this review should help design the optimal audit model for these activities.

4.2.  Selection  of  relevant  tools  and  guidelines  for  the  development  of  a  model  for  the
Broads Authority carbon audit

A matrix has been developed listing all the tools and guidelines reviewed in the rows, whilst
the criteria components are listed in columns along side the matrix. The defined scale is then
applied and the scores aggregated on the final column as shown in table 4.2.

19

Selection of tools and guidelines for auditing greenhouse gas emissions
Table 4. 2
Assessment of suitability of tools and guidelines for measuring and reporting GHG emissions to develop an audit model for the Broads Authority

Suitability Criteria

Tools or guidelines
National vs
Energy Use
Transportation
Conversion
Land use
Evidence of
Compatibility/potential/
Total
Entity level
emissions
emissions
factors
emissions
application
relevance
Score
DEFRA (U.K.) - 2001
Guidelines for Company
√√√
√√√
√√√
√√√

√√√
√√√
18
Reporting of GHG
Emissions
DOE (U.S.) 1605b - 2006
Guidelines
for
the
Voluntary
Reporting
of
√√√
√√√
√√√

√√√
√√√
√
16
Greenhouse Gases (1605(b))
Program
EPA (U.S.)  - 2006
Emission Inventory
√
√√√
√√√

√√√
?
√√
12
Improvement Program
EPA  (U.S.)  Climate  Wise
program -1994
√√√
√

√√√

7
Wise  Rules  for  Industrial
Efficiency
GEMI (U.S.) - 2000
Business and climate
√√√
√√√
√√√

√

10
change web site
GRI Energy Protocol - 2002
√√√
√√√
√√√
√

?

10
Global Reporting Initiative
International Organization
for Standardization – 2006
√√√
?
?
?

√
4
ISO 14064 standards
IPCC – 2000
Land Use, Land Use

?
?
?
√√√
?
√√
5
Change and Forestry
UNEP – 2000
√√√
√√√
√√√
√√

?
√√
13

20

Selection of tools and guidelines for auditing greenhouse gas emissions

Table 4. 2 cont. Assessment of suitability of tools and guidelines for measuring and reporting GHG emissions to develop an audit framework for the Broads Authority

Suitability Criteria

Tools or guidelines
National vs
Energy Use
Transportation
Conversion
Land use
Evidence of
Compatibility/potential/
Total
Entity level
emissions
emissions
factors
emissions
application
relevance
Score
WBCSD/WRI - 2004
Greenhouse Gas Protocol
√√√
√√√
√√√
√√

?
√√√
14
(revised)
Winrock International
Institute for Agricultural
√√√

√√√
?
√
7
Development - 1997
World Bank Environment
Department– 1998
√√√
√√√
√√√
?
√√√

12
Greenhouse Gas
Assessment Handbook

21

Development of a carbon audit model
The results of this assessment indicate that the Defra Guidelines for Company Reporting on
Greenhouse Gas Emissions are the most suitable to form the basis for the development of a
carbon  audit  model  for  the  Broads  Authority,  within  the  parameters  and  focus  defined  on
different  fen  restoration  and  conservation  physical  activities  undertaken  generating  carbon
emissions mainly from energy usage and transportation sources.
The  Defra  Guidelines  for Company Reporting on Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Defra, 2001)
provide the following benefits for the development of a framework for the Broads Authority:
o  They  focus  on  studying  the  emissions  produced  by  energy  use,  industrial  processes
and transport which fit the BA‘s requirements to concentrate on the physical activities
taking place within each land management technique, with energy usage and transport
playing a major part.
o  They include references to the measures in the UK Climate Change Programme and
are consistent with other guidelines such as the Guidelines for Company Reporting on
Water and the Guidelines for Company Reporting on Waste.
o  They emphasize continuous improvement as a part of the framework thus introducing
flexibility  to  adapt  to  future  improvements  in,  for  example,  monitoring  and  data
collection.
o  They  are  very  much  ―activity  focused‖,  which  can  then  be  aggregated  at
organizational  level.  In  the  BA  case,  the  focus  is  on  the  emissions  per  activity  for
comparison purposes, therefore the guidelines match this fundamental requirement.
o  The conversion factors used originate from the IPCC guidelines with amendments to
adapt them more specifically to UK conditions.
o  They are recommended or used by reputable organizations and programmes such as
the CRed, UNEP and GEMI.
o  Any  potential  future  requirements  from  government  in  respect  of  GHG  emissions
reporting  would  likely  be  developed  in  line  with  these  guidelines  thus  no  major
changes may be required in such cases.

The major limitation of these guidelines is that they do not offer scope for wider development
of  the  framework  in  future  such  as  for  analysis  of  carbon  emissions  and  sequestration
potential of the actual land conversion process itself.

22

Development of a carbon audit model
4.4. Audit scope

This includes the preparation of detailed checklists to identify operational boundaries for the
audit,  data  requirements,  and  data  availability  for  each  land  management  technique.  This
included  direct  emissions,  such  as  those  produced  from  use  of  machinery,  and  indirect
emissions, such as those produced by transport of employees, volunteers and the machinery.
The audit  scope requires the identification of tasks and activities within each technique and
the determination of which of these produces GHG emissions within the context of the audit
framework. Discussion and completion of the checklist with auditees included site visits and
meetings  with  relevant  organisation  members  to  agree  the  audit  scope  and  identify  the  data
sources  (whether  via  direct  measurements  or  indirect  sources),  the  availability  and
completeness of data and the requirements and basis for estimates.

4.5. Identification of data requirements

The ultimate objective of the model is to provide the Broads Authority with a final figure for
the  amount  of  kilograms  of  carbon  dioxide  generated  by  each  land  management  technique
individually,  per  year  and  per  hectare,  so  that  they  can  be  compared.  This,  in  conjunction
with  the  guidelines,  allows  the  identification  of  the  data  requirements  to  achieve  this
objective.

4.6. Application of the carbon audit model

Once  the  model  was  developed,  a  carbon  audit  was  produced  for  the  four  selected  land
management  techniques.  A  database  was  developed  incorporating  the  audit  model  and
corresponding  conversion  factors  and  footprint  to  allow  for  data  entry  and  automatic
calculation of quantity of CO2 equivalent emissions for each activity.

4.6.1. Collection of data and documentation of content and sources
Spreadsheets  with  the  data  requirements  extracted  from  the  audit  framework  were  prepared
and  sent  to  the  Broads  Authority  for  them  to  provide  the  relevant  data  from  corresponding
data sources as identified during the development of the audit model.

23

Development of a carbon audit model

Data and measurements available already within the organisation were collected and collated.
The  nature  and  source  of  the  data  was  documented,  including  identification  of  direct
measurements  and  data  obtained  through  indirect  methods,  as  indicated  in  the  Defra
Guidelines (2001). At this stage any other gaps in data availability were identified.

4.6.2. Application of audit model and data analysis
The  data  collected  was  then  input  into  the  audit  model  obtaining  a  final  figure  for  the  total
CO2 equivalent of the GHG produced by each technique (Defra, 2001). This output provides
a  measure  of  the  amount  of  CO2  equivalent  emissions  in  terms  of  kg  per  year  per  hectare
produced  by  each  land  management  activity.  CO2  offsetting  is  considered  when  directly
applied  to  a  specific  emission  source  (e.g.  use  of  bio-fuels  on  machinery  or  green  tariff
electricity) but not those arising by other means (e.g. those generically arising from the actual
conservation activity such as carbon sequestration).
A carbon footprint was then also obtained. The following was chosen as discussed in section
2.5:  emissions  of  4500  kg  of  carbon  dioxide  equivalent  correspond  to  the  requirement  of  a
year of carbon sequestration of one hectare of forest of rapidly growing species such as aspen
(BSCSP, 2005).

4.6.3. Evaluation of findings
The results obtained in the previous stage  were evaluated and a comparative analysis of the
resulting  figures  for  each  method  is  provided.  These  are  also  expressed  by  converting  the
result figures into a carbon footprint measure.

Following the Defra guidelines (2001), a description and quantification of the most important
greenhouse gas emissions sources is provided, together with a clear identification of the data
sources, basis of estimates, and the time period covered by the audits.

24

Carbon Audit Model
5. Carbon audit model

The  carbon  audit  model  for  application  to  the  measurement  and  reporting  of  GHG
emissions of different land management techniques in use by the Broads Authority is
based on the Guidelines for Company Reporting on Greenhouse Emissions by Defra
as  these  have  been  found  to  provide  the  most  suitable  framework.  The  Guidelines
include evaluation of the six main greenhouse gas emissions: carbon dioxide, methane,
nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride.

Although  these  guidelines  focus  mostly  on  measurement  and  reporting  of  carbon
emissions by organisations, as opposed to activities or projects such as in the case of
the Broads Authority carbon audit, they are still applicable because in order to apply
the framework, an organization has to identify all activities which contribute to GHG
emissions  and  then  aggregate  them  to  obtain  an  overall  company  measurement.  In
addition,  the  Guidelines  focus  on  three  areas  of  GHG  emissions  for  measurement:
energy  used,  manufacturing  processes,  and  transportation.  The  activities  identified
producing GHG emissions directly relate to fuel consumption (e.g. machinery usage)
and  transportation  (e.g.  transport  of  material,  equipment  and  staff/volunteers  to  and
from sites where activities take place).

5.1. Identification of activities that contribute to greenhouse gas production.

According  to  the  Guidelines,  the  model  should  cover  all  activities  generating
significant GHG emissions and include outsourced operations. Although they do not
specifically  mention  audit  boundaries,  an  audit  scope  was  carried  out  at  this  stage
where decisions were made on what specific details and activities were to be included
or  excluded  from  the  audit.  A  copy  of  the  audit  scope  discussed  with  the  Broads
Authority  is  shown  in  Appendix  1.  This  also  included  a  preliminary  assessment  of
data requirements  versus data  availability based  on existing documentation provided
by  the  Broads  Authority  such  as  the  Fen  Management  Strategy  and  the  Fen  Audit.
The activities agreed for inclusion in the audit model were:

25

Carbon Audit Model

  Energy Use activities:
o  Direct  emissions  from  usage  of  machinery  for  clearing  vegetation  (cutting,
shredding, digging, etc.)
o  Indirect emissions from manufacturing of machinery
  Transportation activities:
o  Direct emissions from transportation of personnel and volunteers
o  Direct emissions from transportation of machinery and equipment
o  Direct emissions from transportation of cut material

Private  mileage  was  excluded  in  accordance  with  the  Guidelines,  as  was  short
distance  travel.  For  transportation  of  personnel  and  volunteers,  only  trips  above  10
miles were considered.

Initially,  an  allocation  of  administration  or  head  office  activities,  translating  into
corresponding  energy  use  emissions,  as  required  for  the  management  of  each  land
management  technique  was  to  be  included  in  this  audit,  but  finally  the  Broads
Authority considered that these would not be of a significant nature in the context of
the full audit, and therefore these activities were excluded from the model.

Also,  during  discussions  on  the  scope  of  the  audit  with  the  BA,  consideration  was
given to the inclusion of the travel emissions of machinery and vehicles from their site
of manufacturing to the Broads area and of parts and accessories required during their
lifetime. These are known to come from abroad in some instances. The measurement
of these emissions was considered to be too complex in relation to the significance of
emissions in the context of the main activities included and of the time available for
the completion of the study, and therefore were omitted from the audit model.

5.2. The carbon audit model

5.2.1. Model overview
An overview of the carbon audit model developed for the Broads Authority is shown
in figure 5.1.

26

Carbon Audit Model
Figure 5. 1
Carbon audit model

Land Management Technique

Audit Year

Section 1: Area

Area of vegetation cut during the audit year in hectares

Section 2: Energy Usage

Section 2.1: Energy usage of activities clearing vegetation
For each activity:

Machinery/equipment

Quantity

Purpose of machinery

Additional information about the machinery/equipment

Fuel Type

Litres of fuel used

Data Source

Section 2.2: Energy usage from manufacturing machinery/equipment:
For each machinery/equipment:
Machinery/equipment
Activity generating emissions
Energy/fuel type / Unit of measurement
Amount of energy/fuel used
Data Source

Section 3: Transportation
Section 3.1.a: Fuel Consumption of transport of machinery, personnel and
equipment in and out of sites:
For each transport activity:
Vehicle

Quantity
Purpose of activity

Additional information about the vehicle

Fuel Type

Litres of fuel used

Data Source

27

Carbon Audit Model

If Fuel Consumption is not know then,
Section 3.1.b: Mileage of transport of machinery, personnel and equipment in
and out of sites:
For each transport activity:
Vehicle

Quantity
Purpose of activity

Additional information about the vehicle

Vehicle Type

Mileage

Data Source

Section 3.2.a: Fuel Consumption of transport of cut material from sites.
For each transport activity:
Vehicle

Quantity
Purpose of activity

Additional information about the vehicle

Fuel Type

Litres of fuel used

Data Source

If Fuel Consumption is not know then,
Section 3.2.b: Mileage of transport of cut material from sites.
For each transport activity:
Vehicle

Quantity
Purpose of activity

Additional information about the vehicle

Vehicle Type

Mileage

Data Source

5.2.2. Identification of land management technique and year of audit
The  specific  land  management  technique  to  be  measured  and  the  year  of  reference
must be firstly identified.

28

Carbon Audit Model
5.2.3. Identification of area
The area in hectares cut  using the specified land management technique for the  year
of reference must be identified.

5.2.4. Energy use activities
The  fuel  consumption  of  clearing  vegetation  activities  using  energy  must  then  be
recorded  including  the  name  and  description  of  each  machinery  or  equipment;  their
quantity;  the  specific  purpose  of  each  machinery,  such  as  cutting,  extracting/loading
cut  material,  digging,  etc.;  any  additional  information  such  as  engine  type  or
manufacturer; fuel type, which includes petrol or diesel; litres of fuel used; and data
source,  which  should  record  the  source  of  the  data  (log  book,  invoice,  etc.)  and
whether the data correspond to actual figures or estimates. In the case of estimates, the
basis and assumptions used for each estimate should be recorded.

In a separate section, the fuel consumption of activities required for manufacturing of
the machinery of equipment used for clearing vegetation should also be recorded. For
each  machine  or  piece  of  equipment  the  specific  activity  using  energy  could  be
recorded (such as wielding, painting, etc.). Alternatively, a full figure for the amount
of  energy  used,  the  energy  type  (which  includes  a  wide  range  of  categories  such  as
grid  electricity,  coal,  diesel,  LPG,  etc.)  and  unit  of  measurement  (e.g.  kWh,  litres,
tonnes,  or  therms)  should  be  recorded.  Again  the  data  source  as  described  above
should also be indicated.

5.2.5. Transportation activities
The  fuel  consumption  of  transportation  activities  should  be  recorded  including  the
name and description of each vehicle, if known; their quantity; their specific purpose,
such as transport of personnel in and out of sites, transport of volunteers in and out of
sites  and  transport  of  machinery  or  equipment  in  and  out  or  between  sites;  any
additional  information  such  as  engine  type  or  the  manufacturer  of  the  vehicle;  fuel
type, which includes petrol or diesel; litres of fuel used; and data source, which should
record the source and type of data as described in section 5.2.3.

Alternatively,  when  the  fuel  consumption  of  vehicles  is  not  known  or  can  not  be
estimated, the type of vehicle (e.g. whether a small petrol or a large diesel car) and the

29

Carbon Audit Model
mileage related to the corresponding activity could be recorded as the Guidelines also
provide conversion factors for this data. Freight road mileage can also be recorded for
application of appropriate factors if applicable.

In a separate section, the same data should be recorded, either as fuel consumption or
mileage travelled, for transportation activities of cut material when this is disposed of
off-site,  such  as  in  the  case  of  commercial  reed  and  sedge,  which  is  sometimes
transported by boat away from the cutting sites.

5.2.6. Conversion factors
Fuel  consumption  or  mileage  travelled  amounts  are  then  converted  into  their
corresponding emitted amount of carbon dioxide equivalent.  The factors  in  Annex 1
of  the  Guidelines  are  used  to  convert  energy  use  into  carbon  dioxide  equivalent.
Annex 6 offers factors for conversion of transport fuel or mileage into carbon dioxide
equivalent. The factors provided by Defra and updated in 2005 are used (Defra, 2005).
These include both direct and indirect emissions as identified.

The application of the conversion factors to each activity‘s fuel consumption amount
or  number  of  miles  per  vehicle  type  results  in  the  calculation  of  the  number  of
kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent for each activity.

5.2.7. Aggregation
The  following  step  involves  the  aggregation  of  the  amounts  of  carbon  dioxide
equivalent for all activities per land management technique for each specific year for
which an audit is carried out. This provides the total amount (in kilograms) of carbon
dioxide equivalent generated by each land management technique.
.

5.2.8. Footprint
The  carbon  footprint  can  be  obtained  as  described  in  section  3.4.2.  by  dividing  the
total  kg  of  CO2  obtained  for  each  land  management  technique  by  4,500  to  calculate
the number of hectares of forest required to sequester those emissions in one year.

30

Carbon audit for different land management techniques
6. Carbon audit of different land management techniques

Using the carbon audit model, data was collected and applied to  it for four different
land management techniques and an audit of the carbon dioxide equivalent emissions
carried out for each.

6.1. Measurement of emissions of different land management techniques

6.1.1. Measurement of emissions from conservation cutting with volunteers

The application of the audit model to this audit is shown in table 6.1. This technique is
estimated  to  have  generated  around  3,034  kg  of  CO2  equivalent  during  2005.  This
represents about 489 kg of emissions per hectare, and 0.7 hectares of forest would be
required to sequester this amount of releases during a year.

The  major  source  of  emissions  was  identified  to  be  transportation,  with  about  2,057
kg  of  CO2  equivalent  emissions  generated  during  the  year.  Within  transportation
emissions, the collection and transport of volunteers and personnel for scrub clearance
was  the  specific  activity  contributing  the  most  with  an  estimated  972  kg  generated.
The  Land Rover Defender was  the vehicle/machinery  generating the highest  amount
of emissions, in the region of 1,481 kg.

Within the energy use activities, the cutting for scrub clearance was the main activity
generating emissions, with the chainsaw being the main source of emissions.

The  major  limitation  of  this  audit  was  the  lack  of  actual  figures  and  therefore  there
was a heavy reliance on estimates which may offer differing levels of accuracy for the
different activities.

31

Carbon audit for different land management techniques
Table 6. 1
Carbon audit of Conservation cutting with Volunteers

Land Management Technique
Conservation cutting with Volunteers

Year
2005

SECTION 1: AREA

Estimated by the Broads
Kg CO2
Area cut :
6.211
Hectares
Data Source:  Authority from area maps
SECTION 2: ENERGY USAGE

977.5
Section 2.1: Energy usage of activities clearing vegetation

977.5
Machinery
Quantity
Purpose of activity
Additional Info
Fuel Type
Litres used
Data Source

Chainsaw STIHL
1
Cutting for scrub clearance
2 stroke petrol
Petrol
286
Estimated as 1 gallon per day for
657.8
026
63 days @ 4.55 litres/gallon
Hydraulic pump
1
Fire prevention when cutting

Petrol
109
Estimated at 1 gallon per day for
250.7
and burning on peat sites
24 days @ 4.55 litres per gallon
Brushcutter
?
Used for 2 days for mowing  an  Stihl ES450
Petrol
1
Estimated as 0.5 gallon per day @
2.3
area of 0.125 hectares
2 days
Bukher
?
Used for 31 days for mowing

Petrol
29
Estimated as 8.51 l per h (source:
66.7
Reciprocating cutter
for an area of 3.384 hectares
commercial reed and sedge
cutting restoration reports 2004)
for 3.384 h
Section 2.2: Energy usage of machinery/equipment manufacturing:

Machinery
Activity
Energy Type
Amount Used
Data Source

No data available for energy usage of manufacturing of machinery

32

Carbon audit for different land management techniques
SECTION 3: TRANSPORTATION

2056.87
Section 3.1.a: Fuel Consumption of transport of machinery, personnel and equipment in and out of sites:
0
Vehicle
Quantity
Purpose of activity
Additional Info
Fuel Type
Litres
Data Source

No data available for fuel consumption

Section 3.1.b: Mileage of transport of machinery, personnel and equipment in and out of sites:
2056.87
Vehicle
Quantity
Purpose of activity
Additional Info
Vehicle Type
Mileage
Data Source

Land Rover
1
Collection and transport of
Turbo Diesel
Large diesel car -
1642
Estimate as avg 18161 m/year  (car
509.02
Defender TD5
volunteers  and personnel
over 2 l
reading) * 33 days (out of 96 total)
for mowing
divided by 365 days/yr
Various
?
Volunteers own transport

Medium petrol car
660
Assumptions: 1 person/day (33 days)
198
for mowing
- from 1.4 - 2.1 l
with avg return journey =20 miles and
med petrol car
Land Rover
1
Collection and transport of
Turbo Diesel
Large diesel car -
3135
Estimate as avg 18161 m/year  (car
971.85
Defender TD5
volunteers  and personnel
over 2 l
reading) * 63 days used divided by 365
for scrub clearance
days/yr
Various
?
Volunteers own transport

Medium petrol car
1260
Assumptions: 1 person/day (63 days)
378
for scrub clearance
- from 1.4 - 2.1 l
with avg return journey =20 miles and
med petrol car
Section 3.2: Fuel Consumption or Mileage of transport of cut material from sites.
0
The cut material is either burned or piled (composted) on site, therefore no transport activities are produced

TOTAL CO2 EMISSIONS IN 2005
3034.37
TOTAL CO2 EMISSIONS IN 2005 PER HECTARE
488.56
CARBON FOOTPRINT FOR 2005:  A 0.7 hectare of forest of rapidly growing species such as aspen would be required to sequester these emissions (during 1 year)

33

Carbon audit for different land management techniques
6.1.2. Measurement of emissions from Fen Harvester

The application of the audit model to this audit is shown in table 6.2. This technique
generated  about  13,157  kg  of  CO2  emissions  to  air  in  2005  which  translates  to  an
average of 1,088 kg per hectare. 2.9 hectares of forest would be required during a year
to absorb this level of emissions.

The major source of emissions was identified to  be energy use activities, with about
9,066 kg of CO2 emitted during the  year. The  activities clearing vegetation generate
most of these emissions, with the Blower being the machinery identified as the main
source of emissions (over half for the vegetation cutting activities) generating around
5,155 kg of CO2 equivalent.

Transportation  activities  were  responsible  for  an  estimated  31%  of  total  emissions.
The  transport  of  personnel  is  the  main  activity  within  transportation  generating
emissions  of  around  2,408  kg,  versus  the  estimated  1,683  kg  generated  by  the
transportation  of  cut  material.  It  needs  to  be  highlighted  that  the  JCB  tractor
responsible  for  these  emissions  is  also  used  for  transportation  of  equipment  and
machinery between sites, therefore the actual quantity emitted by this specific activity
is less than the 1,683 kg assigned to it (as it was too difficult to break down the fuel
consumption for specific usages for this vehicle).

Data  is  more  accurate  and  therefore  reliable  for  the  emissions  generated  by  the
vegetation  cutting  activities  with  the  Harvester  and  Blower,  as  they  have  been
collected from the log book, whilst for other activities, such as indirect  emissions of
manufacturing  machinery  and  most  transportation,  estimates  have  been  used.  The
exception  to  this  is  the  fuel  consumption  of  the  JCB  tractor,  which  reflects  actual
figures  from  the  fuel  record  book,  and  therefore  can  be  assumed  to  provide  higher
accuracy.

All machinery and equipment deemed essential for the audit has been included, also
incorporating  estimates  for  indirect  emissions  from  the  manufacturing  of  the  main
machinery, thus providing a better level of completeness for this audit.

34

Carbon audit for different land management techniques
Table 6. 2
Carbon audit of Fen Harvester

Land Management Technique
Fen Harvester

Year
2005

SECTION 1: AREA

Estimated by the Broads
Kg CO2
Area cut :
12.09
Hectares
Data Source:  Authority from area maps
SECTION 2: ENERGY USAGE

9066.32
Section 2.1: Energy usage of activities clearing vegetation

8981.40
Machinery
Quantity
Purpose of activity
Additional Info
Fuel Type
Litres used
Data Source

Harvester -  2776cc
1
Cutting fen vegetation
Made by
Diesel
1420
Logbook - 197.4 engine hours
3734.6
diesel engine
Loglogic
Blower -  2776cc
1
Blowing cut material into bulk
Made by
Diesel
1960
Logbook- 324.1 engine hours
5154.8
diesel engine
trailer
Loglogic
Pressure Washer
1
Wash out hydraulic & engine
By Kew/Honda
Petrol
40
Estimate
92
radiators of Harvester &
- 275cc petrol
Blower and keep radiators cool   engine
Section 2.2: Energy usage of machinery/equipment manufacturing:

84.92
Machinery
Activity
Energy Type
Amount Used
Data Source

Estimate by LogLogic. Includes manufacturing Harvester and
9.55
Harvester  and
Blower. 100 hrs @ 3 kWh=300. Then divide by 13.5 years of
Blower
Welding
Grid electricity kWh
22.22
life expectancy as per Fen Audit 2004.
Harvester and
Spraying
Grid electricity kWh
3
Estimate by LogLogic. Includes manufacturing Harvester and
1.29

35

Carbon audit for different land management techniques
Blower
Blower. 20 hrs @ 2kWh=40. Then divide by 13.5 years of life
expectancy (Fen Audit 2004).
Allocation estimate by LogLogic. Includes manufacturing
74.08
Harvester and
Building
Harvester and Blower. 200 hrs (5 weeks) @ 20kWh=4000. .
Blower
heating
Gas/Diesel oil kWh
296.3
Then divide by 13.5 years of life expectancy ( Fen Audit 2004).
SECTION 3: TRANSPORTATION

4090.95
Section 3.1.a: Fuel Consumption of transport of machinery, personnel and equipment in and out of sites:
2407.75
Vehicle
Quantity
Purpose of activity
Additional Info
Fuel Type
Litres
Data Source

Landrover
1
Transport of personnel,
2500cc diesel
Diesel
90
Estimate from work diary (500
236.7
Defender
equipment and fuel
miles @ 25 miles per gallon)
Rover 214
1
Private car used by Trevor
1396cc petrol
Petrol
275
Estimate from work diary (2000
632.5
Thorley
miles @ 33 miles per gallon)
VW Polo
1
Private car used by Colin
1900cc diesel
Diesel
585
Estimate from work diary (4500
1538.55
Simpson
miles @ 35 miles per gallon)
Section 3.2.a: Fuel Consumption of transport of cut material from sites.
1683.2
Vehicle
Quantity
Purpose of activity
Additional Info
Fuel Type
Litres
Data Source

JCB Fastrac 1115
1
Take cut material from site
5985cc engine
Diesel
640
Fuel record book
1683.2
Tractor
to compost outlet; move
size
machines between sites and
move equipment
TOTAL CO2 EMISSIONS IN 2005
13157.27
TOTAL CO2 EMISSIONS IN 2005 PER HECTARE
1088.28
CARBON FOOTPRINT FOR 2005:  A 2.9 hectare of forest of rapidly growing species such as aspen would be required to sequester these emissions (during 1 year)

36

Carbon audit for different land management techniques
6.1.3. Measurement of emissions of from commercial reed and sedge cutting

The  application  of  the  audit  model  to  this  audit  is  shown  in  table  6.3.  Emissions  of
CO2 to air in 2005 were generated which amounted to 3,172 kg, which corresponds to
an  average  of  40  kg  per  hectare.  To  absorb  these  emissions,  0.7  hectares  of  rapidly
growing forest would be required during a year.

Energy use activities were the main source of emissions, generating about 2,026 kg of
CO2  during  the  year  (64%  of  total).  The  BCS  Commander  was  the  machinery
generating  the  highest  amounts  of  emissions,  1,207  kg  of  CO2  equivalent,  just  over
half  of  the  total  for  these  activities.  The  BCS  has  a  performance  of  about  42  kg
emissions  per  hectare,  whilst  the  Olympia  appears  to  show  better  efficiency  with  an
estimated 16 kg of emissions per hectare. No data was available from manufacturers
on the energy usage required for the production of the machinery.

Transportation  activities  generated  about  36%  of  total  emissions,  which  mainly
corresponds  to  transportation  of  cut  material  from  sites.  The  transport  of  personnel
was deemed to be not significant, as mileage trips to sites were on average less than
10  miles,  and  therefore  were  excluded  from  the  analysis.  Boat  transport  generated
most of these emissions (67%) although transportation of cut material by the Argocat
is  not  known and therefore could  not  be included in  the study. The Quad appears to
show  better  performance  with  estimated  emissions  of  10  kg/  hectare  versus  39  kg
/hectare produced by the boat.

A  diverse  set  of  data  sources  and  estimates  are  used  to  produce  this  analysis  which
could affect the reliability and accuracy of results, due to the lack of complete actual
figures for this technique. Assumptions are made on the applications of averages and
estimates which could carry over errors towards the final results.

37

Carbon audit for different land management techniques
Table 6. 3
Carbon audit of Commercial Reed and Sedge cutting

Land Management Technique
Commercial Reed and sedge cutting

Year
2005

SECTION 1: AREA

Area cut :
79.22
Hectares
Data Source:  Estimated from area maps
Kg CO2
SECTION 2: ENERGY USAGE

2026.34
Section 2.1: Energy usage of activities clearing vegetation

2026.34
Machinery
Quantity
Purpose of activity
Additional Info
Fuel Type
Litres used
Data Source

BCS Commander
1
Cutting reed and sedge
Engine 11hp
Petrol
525
Estimated 21.38 h @ 14.86 l/h
1207.5
(reed) + 7.78 h @ 26.67 l/h
WS2
Honda GX340
(sedge) (source: R. Starling
records for Martham Broads
cutting in 2005).

Bukher
1
Cutting sedge

Petrol
61
Estimated 7.2 h @ 8.51 l/h
140.3
(source: Reed Restoration reports
for cutting in 2005).

Olympia
1
Cutting reed

Diesel
258
Estimated 42.85 h @ 6.02 l/h
678.54
(source: Reed Restoration reports
for cutting in 2005).

Section 2.2: Energy usage of machinery/equipment manufacturing:

0
Machinery
Activity
Energy Type
Amount Used
Data Source

No data available for energy usage of manufacturing of machinery

38

Carbon audit for different land management techniques
SECTION 3: TRANSPORTATION

1145.4
Section 3.1.a: Fuel Consumption of transport of machinery, personnel and equipment in and out of sites:
0
Vehicle
Quantity
Purpose of activity
Additional Info
Fuel Type
Litres
Data Source

Transportation trips of machinery, personnel and equipment are mostly of under 10 m and therefore this is not considered to contribute significantly to emissions
Section 3.2.a: Fuel Consumption of transport of cut material from sites.
1145.4
Vehicle
Quantity
Purpose of activity
Additional Info
Fuel Type
Litres
Data Source

Boat
1
Take cut material from site

Petrol
335
Estimated 19.51 h @ 17.19 l/h
770.5
(source: R Starling records for
cutting in 2005).
Argocat
1
Take cut material from site

Petrol

Unknown fuel consumption.

Estimated 17.16 h.
Quad and trailer
1
Take cut material from site

Petrol
163
Estimated 36.35 h @ 4.49 l/h
374.9
(source: Reed Restoration reports
for cutting in 2005).

TOTAL CO2 EMISSIONS IN 2005
3171.74
TOTAL CO2 EMISSIONS IN 2005 PER HECTARE
40.04
CARBON FOOTPRINT FOR 2005:  A 0.7 hectare of forest of rapidly growing species such as aspen would be required to sequester these emissions (during 1 year)

39

Carbon audit for different land management techniques
6.1.4. Measurement of emissions from rotating scrub clearance

The results of this audit are shown in table 6.4. In 2005, 51,860 kg of carbon dioxide
equivalent  emissions  were  generated,  corresponding  to  an  average  of  3,704  kg  per
hectare.  A  forest  of  11.5  hectares  of  rapidly  growing  species  would  take  a  year  to
absorb this level of emissions.

Energy use activities emitted 41,817 kg of CO2 during the year (81% of total). These
correspond  to  the  use  of  diggers  and  incinerators  for  clearing  scrub.  Information  on
total annual fuel consumption was available but no specific details of consumption per
machinery.  No  data  were  available  neither  on  the  energy  usage  required  for  the
production of the machinery.

Transportation  activities  generated  about  19%  of  total  emissions,  which  mainly
corresponds  to  transportation  of  personnel.  Machinery  transportation  consists  of  3
movements  via  articulated  lorries  from  Dorset.  Empty  trips  (lorries  returning  or
coming back for collecting machinery to  take it back) have not  been included in  the
audit.

40

Carbon audit for different land management techniques
Table 6. 4
Carbon audit of Rotating scrub clearance

Land Management Technique
Rotating scrub clearance

Year
2005*
* Season 2005 – not actual physical year
SECTION 1: AREA

Estimated by Tim Hanks (Alaska)
Kg CO2
from invoices and estimate from
Area cut :
14
Hectares
Data Source: overlapping year jobs
SECTION 2: ENERGY USAGE

41817
Section 2.1: Energy usage of activities clearing vegetation

41817
Machinery
Quantity
Purpose of activity
Additional Info
Fuel Type
Litres used
Data Source

Digger and
?
Scub clearance
21 ton digger
Diesel
15900
Alaska Company Accounts
41817
incinerators
Section 2.2: Energy usage of machinery/equipment manufacturing:

Machinery
Activity
Energy Type
Amount Used
Data Source

No data available for energy usage of manufacturing of machinery

SECTION 3: TRANSPORTATION

10043.63
Section 3.1.a: Fuel Consumption of transport of machinery, personnel and equipment in and out of sites:
10043.63
Vehicle
Quantity
Purpose of activity
Additional Info
Fuel Type
Litres used
Data Source

Unknown
?
Transport of personnel

Diesel
3100
Alaska Company Accounts
8153
Boat
?
Transport of machinery

Diesel
400
Alaska Company Accounts
1052

41

Carbon audit for different land management techniques
Articulated lorry
3
Transport of digger and
Artic lorry diesel – 90%
1931
Alaska Company Accounts –
838.63
loads
incinerators
carrying capacity
estimated as 200 miles from
Dorset x 2 (return trips) x 1.609
km  x 3 loads for 90% load (34
t=21 t digger + 13 t incinerator) in
a (assumption) 38 t artic
Section 3.2: Fuel Consumption or Mileage of transport of cut material from sites.
0
The cut material is either burned or piled (composted) on site, therefore no transport activities are produced

TOTAL CO2 EMISSIONS IN 2005
51860.63
TOTAL CO2 EMISSIONS IN 2005 PER HECTARE
3704.33
CARBON FOOTPRINT FOR 2005:  A 11.5 hectare of forest of rapidly growing species such as aspen would be required to sequester these emissions (during 1 year)

42

Carbon audit for different land management techniques
6.2. Results of comparative analysis

6.2.1. Data Sources
The lack of recorded data and heavy reliance on estimates of very different nature and
from diverse sources and periods presented a major challenge to the application of the
carbon audit model to analyze the emissions from these land management techniques.

In general, the areas of land cut in 2005 were estimated by the Broads Authority using
maps and GIS tools. In the case of the commercial reed and sedge cutting, areas were
estimated  by  looking  at  existing  maps  which  showed  areas  of  reed  and  sedge,
aggregating the areas of reed and then the areas of sedge separately, and dividing the
reed areas by 1.5 and the sedge areas by 5. This was done to estimate an annual figure
for the cut area, as reed cutting takes place on an annual or biennial basis whilst sedge
cutting is usually carried out every four to five years, as no actual data is available for
the  total  area  cut.  The  map  areas  were  updated  following  on  conversations  with  Mr
Richard Starling, president of Reed and Sedge Cutters Association, as additional areas
have  been  incorporated  to  commercial  cutting,  and  to  exclude  some  which  were
known not to have been cut at all during the previous year.

In terms of energy and fuel consumption, the following data sources were used:
o  Figures for conservation cutting with volunteers were provided by the Broads
Authority  as  estimates  of  amounts  consumed  per  machinery  per  day,  and
applied  to  the  previously  estimated  number  of  days  used  by  this  technique,
differentiating between mowing or scrub clearance. In the case of the Bukher
(a  machine  used  for  cutting),  consumption  figures  were  not  available  and
therefore  estimates  of  averages  were  obtained  from  the  commercial  reed  and
sedge cutting 2004 restoration reports. These were records kept by the Cutters
Association  of  a  number  of  areas  cut  in  2004  on  behalf  of  the  Broads
Authority  for  fen  restoration  purposes.  The  machinery  manufacturers  did  not
supply  information  on  energy  usage  for  the  manufacturing  and  therefore  this
information was not incorporated in the audit.
o  Data  for  machinery  usage  for  the  fen  harvester  was  estimated  from  the  log
book  by  looking  at  engine  hours  and  estimate  of  fuel  consumption  by  the
Broads Authority, which would appear to provide a more robust estimate basis.

43

Carbon audit for different land management techniques
Also, Loglogic, the manufacturer of the Harvester and Blower machines, was
able  to  provide  estimates  of  energy  usage  during  their  manufacturing  which
were included in the analysis.
o  For  the  commercial  reed  and  sedge  cutting,  the  consumption  of  fuel  by  the
BCS Commander was  estimated as average litres per hectare based on actual
figures  recorded  by  Mr  Richard  Starling  for  his  own  cutting  in  2005  which
were  applied  to  the  overall  estimate  of  area  (hectares)  worked  with  this
machine. For the Bukher and Olympia machines, consumption averages were
based  on  figures  from  the  2004  restoration  reports.  Mr  Paul  Mace  supplied
figures from his own records of area and consumption during 2005 using the
Olympia, but the averages from the restoration reports were finally applied to
the audit because Mr Mace advised that his figures could be skewed due to his
working  on  hard  ronds  exclusively  which  provides  lower  consumption
averages. The restoration reports consumption estimates were applied as they
would offer a higher, ‗worst case scenario‘ estimate in this occasion.

For the measurement of emissions from transportation the data sources were identified
as follows:
o  Data  for  cutting  with  volunteers  was  derived  from  the  odometre  in  the  Land
Rover, estimating a figure for annual mileage, and then applying the estimated
number of days of work with volunteers to the model as total annual mileage.
Volunteers own mileage was difficult, but an estimated figure was derived by
the Broads Authority.
o  For the fen harvester technique, estimates for transport were provided by the
work diary (transport of personnel and equipment) and by the fuel record book
of the JCB used to transport cut material.
o  In  the  case  of  commercial  cutting,  transport  by  personnel  was  analysed  by
measuring  the  distances  from  each  cutter‘s  home  address  to  their  work  sites
using  Google  Maps  UK.  There  were  no  figures  available  on  average
consumption  of  the  Argocat.  Average  consumption  figures  per  hectare  for
transport of cut  material by  boat  were derived from  the data provided by Mr
Richard  Starling  and  applied  to  the  overall  estimated  area  (hectares)  which
used this method of transport. For the Quad, derived consumption figures were

44

Carbon audit for different land management techniques
obtained  from  the  2004  restoration  reports  and  also  applied  to  an  overall
estimated area for which the Quad was used in 2005.

6.2.2. Findings of comparative analysis

In  order  to  compare  the  overall  performance  of  the  different  land  management
techniques, their emissions levels per hectare are used as shown in figure 6.5.

Table 6. 5
Emissions in 2005 by land management technique

Conservation
Fen Harvester
Commercial
Rotating
Volunteers
Reed & Sedge
clearance
Area cut in 2005
6.21 h
12.09 h
79.22 h
14 h
TOTAL kg CO2
3034.37
13157.27
3171.74
51860.63
kg CO2/hectare
488.56
1088.28
40.04
3701.33
Carbon footprint
0.7 h
2.9 h
0.7 h
11.5 h

The results of the emissions generated by each activity category are shown in table 6.6
which provides a more detailed picture of the main activity sources of emissions for
each technique.

Table 6. 6
Emissions in 2005 by activity category per technique

Conservation
Fen
Commercial
Rotating
Volunteers
Harvester
Reed & Sedge
clearance
Energy
usage
by
977.5 kg
8981.4 kg
2026.34 kg
41817 kg
machinery
clearing
157 kg/hectare
743 kg/hectare
26 kg/hectare
2987 kg/hectare
vegetation
Energy
usage
by
84.92 kg
manufacturing
of
0 kg
0 kg
0 kg
7 kg/hectare
machinery
Transportation
of
2056.87 kg
2407.75 kg
10043.63 kg
personnel,  machinery
0 kg
331 kg/hectare
199 kg/hectare
717 kg/hectare
and equipment
Transportation  of  cut
1683.2 kg
1145.4 kg
0 kg
0 kg
material
139 kg/hectare
15 kg/hectare

45

Carbon audit for different land management techniques
The rotating scrub clearance shows the highest level of carbon equivalent emissions in
2005  with  an  average  3,704  kg  per  hectare,  over  three  times  more  then  the  fen
harvester, which emitted about 1088 kg/hectare. This is almost three times as much as
the  conservation  cutting  using  volunteers,  which  emitted  and  average  of  489  kg  of
CO2 equivalent per hectare. The commercial reed and sedge cutting produces about a
tenth of these emissions, with an average of 40 kg per hectare.

Cutting  with  the  fen  harvester  produced  a  carbon  footprint  of  2.9  hectare  of  forest
required in a year to absorb the 13,157 kg of carbon equivalent emitted in 2005. This
amount  of  emissions  was  generated  by  cutting  about  12  hectares  of  fen.  In  contrast,
the commercial reed  and sedge  cutting  applied to 79 hectares (over 6 times the  area
cut with the fen harvester) but generated 3,172 kg of carbon emissions (over 4 times
less  than  the  fen  harvester),  and  a  carbon  footprint  of  0.7  hectares.  Whilst  these
techniques  concentrate  on  cutting  of  fen  vegetation,  for  the  scrub  clearance  the
rotating  technique  produced  a  footprint  of  11.5  hectares.  This  contrasts  heavily  with
the 0.7 hectares of the conservation cutting with volunteers for example. The rotating
clearance emitted 51,861 kg of CO2 equivalent for a cutting area of just 14 hectares.
The conservation with volunteers produced emissions of 3,034 kg covering an area of
over 6 hectares.

The rotating clearance produces the highest level of emissions from energy usage of
machinery  with  about  41,817  kg  carbon  generated,  versus  8,981  kg  from  the  fen
harvester,  2,026  kg  from  commercial  reed  and  sedge  cutting  and  977  kg  from
conservation cutting with volunteers. Its efficiency in this area is also the worst, with
2,987 kg/hectare, versus 743 kg/hectare  for the fen harvester, 158 kg/hectare  for the
volunteers technique and 26 kg/hectare for the commercial cutting.

Although the fen harvester analysis is the only one which includes indirect emissions
(about  85  kg  CO2 equivalent)  from  the  manufacturing  of  machinery,  this  amount  is
not  high  enough  to  make  a  significant  difference  to  the  overall  results.  The
comparative  analysis  of  the  techniques  excluding  these  emissions  (as  the  other  two
techniques  do  not  include  them  and  therefore  this  would  provide  a  more  accurate
comparison) is shown in table 6.7.

46

Carbon audit for different land management techniques
Table 6. 7
Emissions in 2005 by land management technique excluding indirect emissions

Conservation
Fen Harvester
Commercial
Rotating
Volunteers
Reed & Sedge
clearance
Area cut in 2005
6.21 h
12.09 h
79.22 h
14 h
TOTAL kg CO2
3034.37
13072.35
3171.74
51860.63
kg CO2/hectare
488.56
1081.25
40.04
3701.33
Carbon footprint
0.7 h
2.9 h
0.7 h
11.5

Emissions  by the transport  of personnel  and equipment  are also  the highest  with  the
rotating clearance technique which generated 10,044 kg in 2005 versus an estimated
2,408 from the fen harvester and 2,057 kg generated by cutting with volunteers. The
emissions  from  these  activities  from  the  commercial  cutting  were  considered
negligible as in most cases and overall in average, they accounted for trips of less than
10 miles. In terms of efficiency though, these results represented an estimated 717 kg
per hectare emitted by the rotating clearance, 331 kg per hectare from the volunteers
cutting and 199 kg emissions per hectare from the fen harvester.

The rotating scrub clearance and conservation cutting with volunteers do not transport
cut material off-site, as it is piled or burned there, thus this activity category does not
produce any emissions for these techniques. The fen harvester generates about 1,683
kg of carbon equivalent from removing cut material and the commercial cutting about
1,145  kg.  This  means  that  the  fen  harvester  technique  offers  the  worst  performance,
with  an  estimated  139  kg/hectare  versus  the  15  kg/hectare  generated  by  the
commercial cutting.

Due to the lack of accurate data in many occasions, caution needs to be exercise in the
interpretation  of  these  results  and  figures  should  not  be  considered  as  absolute.
Nevertheless, the results do show great differences in the magnitude of emissions and
therefore inferences may be drawn as to the scale of emissions levels in a comparative
context. This allows for the identification of better and worse performances in terms
of efficiency, as indicated in the Defra Guidelines (2001).

47

Recommendations
7. Recommendations

The carbon audit model developed for the Broads Authority has been able to provide
measurements of the carbon equivalent emissions generated by the land management
techniques it uses within its conservation and restoration strategies. The application of
the  model  has  highlighted  a  lack  of  recorded  data  on  areas  cut  and  energy
consumption or mileage travelled which could produce more accurate absolute results.
Ideally,  the  Broads  Authority  should  develop  a  data  recording  programme  to  ensure
that  records  of  actual  areas  cut,  actual  machinery  fuel  consumption,  and  accurate
mileage  or  vehicle  fuel  consumption  is  recorded  on  an  on-going  basis.  In  order  to
ensure the successful  implementation  and maintenance of such a programme, and in
accordance  with  the  Defra  Guidelines  for  Company  Reporting  on  Greenhouse  Gas
Emissions  (2001),  the  Broads  Authority  could  introduce  the  role  of  a  ―Greenhouse
Gas Champion‖, with responsibility to manage the data recording programme as well
as the strategy for managing and reporting on emissions. This strategy should include
targets and objectives for improving performance and/or reducing emissions, such as,
for example, potential resourcing of machinery from closer to the sites or newer and
more efficient machinery with lower emission levels, and therefore would require the
application of the model to carry out further auditing on an on-going basis. The model
and the database developed for the Broads Authority allows them to input future data
for  additional  periods  and  provides  reports  on  emissions  generated  so  that
improvements  and  the  success  of  carbon  reduction  initiatives  can  be  monitored  and
assessed.

The  carbon  audit  model  has  been  developed  in  a  way  which  allows  the  Broads
Authority  to  carry  out  audits  on  other  land  management  techniques  offering  further
comparative analyses capabilities. Therefore, audits of other techniques not produced
here  should  be  carried  out  by  the  Broads  Authority,  to  extend  their  assessment  of
emissions  levels  by  land  management  techniques.  These  additional  techniques  could
include, for example, grazing by ponies.

The scope for the development of a carbon audit model was limited to emissions from
human  physical  activities  focusing  on  energy  usage  and  transportation.  In  order  to
achieve a full and comprehensive understanding of the actual level of emissions and

48

Recommendations
potential for sequestration offered by the land-use change and management activities
carried out by the Broads Authority, the model should be further extended to include
emissions and sequestration by soil and vegetation, e.g. methane emitted by wetlands,
and  by  land-use  changes,  such  as  conversion  of  scrub  to  fen  habitats,  analysing  the
impact  of  tree  loss  for  example.  The  Broads  Authority  could  get  in  contact  with  the
Country  Land  and  Business  association  (CLA)  which  is  currently  developing  a  tool
called CALM for land managers to be able to audit their net GHG emissions and sinks
(UK Climate Change Programme, 2006). Alternatively, the World  Land Trust offers
free  comprehensive  on-site  carbon  audits  via  its  ―Carbon  Balanced‖  scheme  (World
Land  Trust,  2005)  whilst  Winrock  International  (1997)  provides  guidelines  for
measuring  emissions  of  final  disposal  of  biomass..  The  Hadley  Centre  for  Climate
Prediction  and  Research  could  also  be  contacted  for  assistance  in  carrying  out  a
comprehensive carbon audit. It offers, for example, details on wetland databases used
in  global  modelling  studies  of  methane  levels  (Sanderson,  2001).  The  World  Bank
(1998) offers guidelines for calculation of both CO2 and non-CO2 emissions of open
burning of biomass.

49

References

AHGCC (2002), ―Final Report to the Technical Management board (TMB)‖, Report
number ISO-TMB AHGCC N41, Ad Hoc Group on Climate Change, 37 pp.
Available at
http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/2122117/Report_on_Climate_Change.pdf?func
=doc.Fetch&nodeid=2122117, last accessed May 22 2006.

Agroforestry Research Trust (2005), ―Agroforestry‖, Agroforestry Research Trust
web site. Available at http://www.agroforestry.co.uk/agover.html, last accessed
June 2 2006.

Aselmann I. and Crutzen P.J. (1989). Global distribution of natural freshwater
wetlands and rice paddies, their net primary productivity, seasonality and possible
methane emissions. Journal of Atmospheric Chemistry. 8, 307-358.

Ball, Andres S and Jules N Pretty (2002), Agricultural influences on carbon emissions
and sequestration. In: UK Organic Research 2002: Proceedings of the COR
Conference, 26th-28th March 2002, eds. Powell et al, Aberystwyth, pp. 247-249

BSCSP  (2005), “Opportunities for Soil Carbon Sequestration in Forests and Trees”,
Big Sky Carbon Sequestration Partnership web site. Available at
http://www.bigskyco2.org/terrestrial.htm, last accessed July 2 2006.

Boehmenr, K and Chan Kook Wen (2006). Launching of ISO 14064 for greenhouse
gas accounting and verification. ISO Management Systems, March-April:14-16

Brady, Kevin (2001). How Can an EMS Manage GHG Emissions? International
Environmental Systems Update, v8 n11, November 2001, pp. 14-16.

CINCS  (2006),  ―Norms  and  standards‖,  Climate  Investment  Network  for  Carbon
Sequestration. Available at http://www.cincs.com/id22.html, last accessed June 19
2006.

Carbonfootprint.com  (2006)  web  site.  Available  on  http://www.carbonfootprint.com,
last accessed on July 4 2006.

ClimateBiz  web  site  (2006),  ―Measuring  and  Reporting‖.  Available  at
http://www.climatebiz.com/sections/backgrounder_detail.cfm?UseKeyword=Meas
uring%2C%20Reporting%20%26%20, last accessed June 29 2006.

DOE  (2006a),  ―Guidelines  for  Voluntary  Greenhouse  Gas  Reporting‖,  U.S.
Department  of  Energy,  10  CFR  Part  300  -  RIN  1901-AB11.  Available  at
http://www.pi.energy.gov/enhancingGHGregistry/index.html,  last  accessed  May
22 2006.

DOE  (2006b),  ―Technical  Guidelines  Voluntary  Reporting  of  Greenhouse  Gases
(1605(b)) program‖, Office of Policy and International Affairs, U.S. Department of
Energy. Available at
http://www.pi.energy.gov/enhancingGHGregistry/technicalguidelines.html, last

50

accessed May 29 2006.

Defra (2001), ―Environmental Reporting - Guidelines for Company Reporting on
Greenhouse Gas Emissions‖, UK Department for Environment and Rural Affairs.
Available at http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/business/envrp/gas/, last
accessed May 22 2006.

Defra (2005), ―Annexes to Guidelines for Company Reporting on Greenhouse Gas
Emissions‖, UK Department for Environment and Rural Affairs. Available at
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/business/envrp/gas/, last accessed July 20
2006.

EPA (1998), ―Wise Rules for Industrial Efficiency: A Tool Kit for estimating energy
savings  and  greenhouse  gas  emissions  reductions‖,  Climate  Wise  program,  U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Available at
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/searchresult?OpenForm=0.0120241
09254597&queryText=climate+wise, last accessed May 29 2006.

EPA (2006), ―Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions‖, EIIP Technical Report Series,
Revised  draft  of  Volume  8,  Emission  Inventory  Improvement  Program,  U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiip/techreport/volume08/index.html, last
accessed May 29 2006.

Europa (2006), ―The Kyoto Protocol‖, European Union website. Available at
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/05/49&format=
HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en#fn4, last accessed June 21 2006.

GEMI  (2000),  ―Business  and  Climate  Work  Group‖,  Global  Environmental
Management Initiative. Available at
http://www.businessandclimate.org/gemi/climate.nsf, last accessed May 31 2006.

GRI (2002), ―Energy Protocol‖, Global Reporting Initiative. Available at
http://www.globalreporting.org/guidelines/protocols.asp,  last  accessed  May  31
2006.

Gilardin, M (2006). Apocalypse Now. The Ecologist, February 2006:24-27

Humphrey,  N  and  Hadley,  M    (2000).  Environmental  Auditing.  Palladian  Law
Publishing Ltd, Isle of Wight, 229 pp.

ICC  (1989).  Environmental  Auditing.  Publication  468,  International  Chamber  of
Commerce, Paris, 25 pp.

IPCC (2000), ―Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry – A Summary for Policy
Makers‖, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Available at
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/, last accessed June 11 2006.

51

IPCC Working Group I (2001), ―Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis‖,
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Available at
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm, last accessed May 19 2006.

ISO (2006), ―ISO 14064 Greenhouse gas accounting and verification‖ press release,
International Organization for Standardization. Available at
http://www.iso.org/iso/en/commcentre/pressreleases/2006/Ref994.html, last
accessed May 31 2006.

Knaus, M, Dirk Löhr, Bernadette O‘Regan (2006). Valuation of ecological impacts —
a regional approach using the ecological footprint concept.  Environmental Impact
Assessment Review, 26:156-169.

Ledgerwood,  G,  E  Street  and  R  Therivel    (1992).  The  Environmental  Audit  and
Business Strategy. A Total Quality Approach. Pitman Publishing, London, 203 pp.
Loreti,  C,  W  F  Wescott,  M  Isenberg  (2000).  An  Overview  of  Greenhouse  Gas
Emissions Inventory Issues. Pew Centre on Global Climate Change, August 2000, 54
pp. Available at http://pewclimate.org/document.cfm?documentID=144, last accessed
28 June 2006.

Loreti,  C  (2002).  Summary  of  Selected  Programs  Involving  GHG  Accounting.
Meridian Institute. July 2002, 26 pp. Available at
http://www.merid.org/GHGaccounting/docs/Loreti%20Summary%20of%20Select
ed%20Programs%20Involving%20GHG%20Accounting.pdf, last accessed 28 June
2006.

Lovell, Andrew C (2003). Developing a carbon audit framework to support corporate
level carbon reduction strategies. Thesis presented in part-fulfilment of the degree
of Master of Science in  accordance with the regulations of the University of East
Anglia, August 2003, 77pp.

Meade,  Roger  A  (2005).  The  value  of  peat,  English  Nature.  Presentation  to  Defra‘s
Horticultural  Growing  Media  Forum  (HGMF),  October  2005.    Available  at
http://www.defra.gov.uk/hort/peat/hgmf/pdf/AnnexeB.pdf,  last  accessed  July  3
2006.

OECD  (2001).  Environmental  Indicators  for  Agriculture  –  Vol.  3:  Methods  and
Results.  Organisation  for  Economic  Co-operation  and  Development,  glossary
pp.389-391

Pielke, Roger A (2005). Misdefining ―climate change‖: consequences for science and
action. Environmental Science and Policy, 8:548-561.

Sanderson,  Michael  G.  (2001).  Global  distribution  of  freshwater  wetlands  for  use  in
STOCHEM.  The  Hadley  Centre  for  Climate  Prediction  and  Research,  technical
note (HCTN) 32, September 2001, 9pp. Available at
http://www.metoffice.com/research/hadleycentre/pubs/HCTN/index.html, last
accessed July 3 2006.

52

SDC  (2002).  Low  carbon  spaces.  Area-based  carbon  emission  reduction:  a  scoping
study.  Report  to  the  Sustainable  Development  Commission  prepared  by  the
Tyndall  Centre  for  Climate  Change  Research.  UK  Sustainable  Development
Commission,
137pp.
Available
at
http://www.sd-
commission.org.uk/publications.php?id=56, last accessed July 4 2006.

UK Climate Change Programme (2006), ―Tomorrow‘s Climate Today‘s  Challenge‖,
Climate Change The UK Programme 2006. Available at
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/uk/ukccp/index.htm, last
accessed June 29 2006.

UNEP  (2000),  ―The  GHG  Indicator:  Guidelines  for  Calculating  Emissions  for
Business  and  Non-Commercial  Organizations‖,  Energy  Branch,  Division  of
Technology,  Industry  and  Economics,  United  Nations  Environment  Programme.
Available  at  http://www.uneptie.org/energy/publications/files/ghgind.htm,  last
accessed June 1 2006.

UNFCCC  (1992),  ―United  Nations  Framework  Convention  on  Climate  Change‖,
United Nations. Available at
http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/2853.php,
last accessed June 6 2006.

UNFCCC (1997), ―The Mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol: Joint Implementation,
the  Clean  Development  Mechanism  and  Emissions  Trading‖,  United  Nations
Framework
Convention
on
Climate
Change.
Available
at
http://unfccc.int/kyoto_mechanisms/items/1673.php, last accessed May 21 2006.

WRI  (2001),  ―GHG  Protocol  Initiative‖,  World  Resources  Institute  web  site.
Available at
http://www.ghgprotocol.org/templates/GHG5/layout.asp?MenuID=849, last
accessed June 1 2006.

Welford,  Richard  (1998).  Environmental  Auditing.  In  Corporate  Environmental
Management  1:  Systems  and  Strategies,  2nd  edition,  ed.  Richard  Welford,
Earthscan, London, pp.116-137.

Winrock  International  (1997),  ―A  Guide  to  Monitoring  Carbon  Storage  in  Forestry
and  Agroforestry  Projects‖,  Forest  Carbon  Monitoring  Program,  Winrock
International
Institute
for
Agricultural
Development.
Available
at
http://www.winrock.org/fnrm/files/carbon.pdf, last accessed June 1 2006.

World  Bank  (1998),  ―Greenhouse  Gas  Assessment  Handbook‖,  Environment
Department,
World
Bank.
Available
at
http://www-
wds.worldbank.org/external/default/main?pagePK=64193027&piPK=64187937&t
heSitePK=523679&menuPK=64187510&searchMenuPK=64187511&theSitePK=
523679&entityID=000094946_02081604154234&searchMenuPK=64187511&the
SitePK=523679, last accessed June 1 2006.

World  Land  Trust  (2005),  ―Carbon  Balanced‖  web  site.  Available  at
http://www.carbonbalanced.org, last accessed July 10 2006.

53