Briefing paper: The Business Case for Environmental Management Systems in the United Nations

Table of contents

Executive summary p2

1. Why the UN system is considering EMS p32. Overview of EMS p43. The UN’s environmental impacts and the ‘value at stake’ p64. Evaluating the costs and saving of implementing EMS p125. Environmental management experience in UNU and ADB p176. EMS for the UN system p197. Recommendations p22

1

Executive Summary

A range of internal and external drivers has prompted UN entities to consider systematic adoption of Environmental Management System (EMS) for measuring and managing environmental risks, costs and impacts in their organizations. In September 2012 the High Level Committee for Management (HLCM) asked UNEP to present an “elaborated cost benefit analysis” of EMS approaches, to help UN system agencies to understand whether and how the UN could realize a range of financial and intangible benefits, and what commitment would be required.

This paper provides an overview of EMS and how it can add value to public sector organizations. It outlines potential costs and benefits for UN organizations, including meeting stakeholder expectations of accountability and efficiency, and enhancing reputation, organizational resilience and staff morale. The paper highlights achievements from best-practice environmental projects in UN organizations to date and notes that the best way to replicate these successes and realize further gains is through systematic measurement, management and reporting, integrated into existing organizational frameworks (an EMS).

The precise nature and extent of the financial savings that each agency might achieve will require more detailed and case-specific investigation. Using available data, however, this paper finds that systematic measurement and management of environmental impacts through an EMS could help the UN system as a whole to achieve reductions in operating costs of US$ 250-335 million per year through improved management of electricity and other utilities, fuel, travel and some office-related procurement, which collectively cost the UN an estimated US$ 2.7 billion1 in 2010. Significant further savings could be realized through inclusion of certain additional high-risks and potentially high cost activites for which UN-wide data is lacking, including waste disposal, wastewater management, construction of UN premises, and vehicle procurement/maintenance.

The one-off costs of implementing EMS, which would identify and prioritize improvement actions, could be spread over several years, with each agency working at its own pace. A high-level estimate puts the required total investment at US$ 23 to 40 million (as a rule of thumb, US$ 110-187 per capita for organizations with 1,000 or more staff, or 1.36% of one year’s turnover for small organizations). A UN-wide approach to EMS, as advocated by the ‘Strategic Plan for Sustainability Management in the United Nations System’ approved by EMG members in September 2011, would help contain these costs by avoiding duplicate research, seeking efficiencies of scale when outside expertise is required, including for staff training, and promoting collaboration in addressing common issues at a single location.

The cost of implementing improvement projects will vary significantly between agencies and is highly dependent on local costs and operating conditions. However, a systematic approach will help the UN to prioritize management of the biggest risks and to support realization of the most cost effective projects first, thus containing overall costs. The experience of various government programmes and UN case studies reported in this paper indicate that the annual savings above can be achieved through projects with an average payback period of three years or less. As with EMS development, investments in implementing projects would be made over several years and can be made most cost-effective through UN-wide collaboration.

1 Why the UN system is considering EMS

1 Data extrapolated from “Moving Towards a Climate Neutral UN” GHG inventory data from 2010 and reported results in the 2010 Annual Statistical Report of UN Procurement.

2

The UN system has pursued policies and strategies that demonstrate its commitment to sustainability in operations and premises, advancing elements of environmental management and sustainability thinking in practices ranging from energy efficient facilities to green meetings and sustainable procurement. These initiatives however are disparate, ad hoc in nature, and not yet well integrated with the main business of the organizations.2 Crucially, by failing to systematically assess all significant impacts (including energy, waste and water management, and air pollution emissions), the UN may be missing opportunities to save scarce financial resources and failing to manage significant risks to staff and to beneficiary nations and communities.

The UN’s commitment to “Delivering as One” calls for a systematic approach in which policies, strategies and resources are aligned to achieve common goals – in this case, improvements in environmental sustainability. United Nations Executive Heads approved in September 2011 a “Strategic Plan for Sustainability Management in the UN System” that provides a model for the systematic integration of environmental sustainability into the management of UN facilities and operations. In particular they committed “to move towards the introduction of organization-specific sustainability management systems and to endeavour to identify appropriate resources for implementation”.

This action builds on the highly successful Climate Neutral initiative launched by the UN Secretary-General in 2007, reiterated in his letter of 13 June 2012 to the members of the Chief Executives Board for Coordination (CEB). Member States are also looking to the UN to lead by example on sustainability management. The GA resolution 67/226 on the Quadrennial comprehensive policy review of operational activities for development of the United Nations system (para 15) echoes the Rio+20 outcome document “The future we want”, and calls on the UN system to “improve the management of facilities and operations, by taking into account sustainable development practices, building on existing efforts and promoting cost effectiveness in accordance with legislative frameworks while maintaining accountability”.3 The Secretary General has been asked by member states to periodically report on progress in this field4.

The need to take into account environmental sustainability for internal management is increasingly recognised by governing bodies, including: the Governing Body of ILO asked in 2009 the organization to adopt Climate Neutrality by 2015; WFP’s Executive Board requested acceptance of the Joint Inspection Unit recommendation regarding adoption of EMS; UPU Postal Congress in 2008 demanded a more efficient use of resources and further efforts to ‘regularly measuring and reducing its environmental impact’ were requested in 2012.

These policy pronouncements provide a strong system-wide impetus for adopting organization-specific environmental management systems (EMS) by UN organizations. Individual agencies stand to benefit from EMS, widely recognized as a means of realizing efficiency gains and operational savings, driving innovation and creating public value. These internal motivations are especially relevant and timely for public sector bodies in the prevailing climate of reduced fiscal spending and austerity.

2 Overview of EMS2See JIU Report (2010). Environmental profiles of UN system organizations (JIU/REP/2010/1)3 See UN General Assembly Resolution 66/288 ‘The future we want’ accessed at http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N11/476/10/PDF/N1147610.pdf?OpenElement on 30 January 20134 http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/67/226 , page 5 ,

3

2.1 Definition of Environmental Management Systems (EMS)

Rising global concern over the need to protect the environment has led to calls for greater responsibility and diligent care, not only among businesses but also in public sector organizations. Concurrently, organizations have recognized the strong synergies to be realised between enterprise management and environmental protection, through environmental management. The practice of environmental management enables public institutions to mainstream environmental and sustainability goals into their service delivery processes. Environmental management encompasses aspects of strategy, policy, procedures and activity that form an organization's response to environmental issues. It also describes the methods that enable organizations to assess their operations, identify and manage risks, and commit to continuous improvements in both the practices adopted and the results achieved.

An Environmental Management System (EMS) is one of the most widely used tools of environmental management. Since 1996, more than 250,000 organizations in 150 countries have achieved EMS certification5. Although originally intended to help private sector companies demonstrate compliance with environmental legislation, EMS have also been embraced by the public sector as a best-practice business tool for managing diverse and competing environmental issues. International organizations that have already implemented EMS include the European Commission (42 certified buildings in Brussels) and the EU Parliament6 as well as the Asian Development Bank. Within the UN system, UNU and the publishing services of the UN Secretariat have already obtained ISO14001 certification, while WFP and the World Bank Group have committed to developing an EMS consistent with accepted standards.

2.2 Summary of Benefits of EMS

The adoption of EMS enables public institutions such as UN organizations to achieve the following: better stewardship of resources by identifying efficiency improvements and cost savings; maintain transparency and accountability on how environmental performance is integrated in the

delivery of mandates; this builds credibility and reputation among stakeholders (member states, donors, beneficiaries and staff);

identification and management of environmental risks which, left unchecked, could significantly and adversely impact the local environments of the very people the UN was created to assist;

reducing the organizations’ environmental footprint and

5 See statistical compendium on ISO 14001 by ISO accessed from http://www.iso.org/iso/iso-survey2010.pdf and similar report from http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2187008/iso14001-environmental-standard-continues-global-march6 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/emas/emas_ec/index_en.htm and http://www.europarl.europa.eu/pdf/emas/environmental_Statement_EN.pdf

4

fostering a sustainability culture within organizations, which makes it easier to secure behavioural changes such as reducing travel, fuel-efficient driving, recycling and sustainable procurement.

2.3 Implementation approaches and formal standards for EMS

An EMS is intended to assist organizations to determine the environmental impacts of their activities, propose planned actions to address these, and periodically verify their effectiveness. It can be implemented in a single process or broken down into more manageable pieces.

EMS can be developed as a standalone management tool, or elements can be incorporated into existing organizational frameworks for policy development, risk management, monitoring and reporting. The most important element in EMS is a commitment to continuous improvement, characterized by a cycle of Plan-Do-Check-Act, illustrated above.7

An organization can choose whether to have its EMS formally certified to an existing standard. The most common standard, ISO 14001, has been adopted by 250,000 organizations worldwide since its introduction in 1996. In Europe, the EMAS standard imposes higher requirements including public reporting of results and more rigorous criteria for performance improvement over time.

ISO 14001 is the reference used for the environmental sustainability management model proposed by the Strategic Plan for Environmental Sustainability Management in the UN System, (see section 6).

7 Diagram of PDCA cycle taken from the Introduction of ISO 14001:2004 Environmental management systems – Requirements with guidance for use. International Organization for Standardization (ISO).

5

3 The UN’s environmental impacts and the ‘value at stake’

The United Nations (UN) achieves its mandates through approximately 214,0008 civilian and peace keeping personnel in more than 50 organizations9. In performing their work, UN system organizations invariably consume energy and natural resources and generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and waste, which can affect often-vulnerable local environments.

Understanding the activities of each organization and their potential impacts on the environment is crucial to establishing EMS. The Strategic Plan for Environmental Sustainability Management in the UN System identifies three indicators: a) Greenhouse Gas emissions/energy use, b) consumption of water resources and c) use of materials (measured as waste generation). A fourth, qualitative, indicator covers efforts made for increasing staff awareness and capacity. This paper analyses the UN activities that give rise to these impacts (eg electricity that causes greenhouse gas emissions) to estimate the “value-at-stake” of EMS: the direct financial costs and the potential environmental risks associated with them.

3.1 The value-at-stake: the cost of the UN's expenditure on energy, water, fuel, procurement

Sources of information for this section include consumption data used to provide the Climate Neutral UN GHG inventory and the centrally reported values of procured goods and services. The quantifiable values associated with the environmental aspects are summarized in the following table:

Table 1:US$ value of annual cost of electricity, water, waste, materials and travel Total (estimated minimum for the UN system) 2,790,102,645Purchased electricity: at least 337 million kilowatt hours per year10 41,511,182Petroleum and fuel products (based on data from GHG reporting) of which, cost for vehicle fuelof which, cost for generators and heating

738,593,90394,484,051

644,109,851

Chartered trips and aviation fuel: 105,565,000 litres per year11 70,521,611Commercial air travel: at least 571,000 trips per year 1,100,000,00012

Other materials (paper, toner, IT equipment, packaging materials reported13 836,690,000Water consumptions: estimated cost of 4,721,928 m3 potable water used14 2,785,949Waste generation in offices estimated at 77,562 tonnes Municipal Solid Waste in 201015 (361 kg per capita)

unknown

8 http://www.greeningtheblue.org/sites/default/files/2011CNeutral_UN_final_0.pdf9 http://www.un.org/en/aboutun/structure/index.shtml 10 Data extrapolated from GHG inventory report of 201111 Based on annual average price of aviation fuel in 2010 derived from 5 year data in http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=jet-fuel&months=60 accessed on 01 Feb 201312 JIU Report: Review of Travel Arrangements within the UN System (JIU/REP/2010/2) 13 Materials considered have short life cycle, are high volume and represent “low-hanging” reduction opportunities: (1) paper &office stationery, (2) furniture, (3) IT equipment, (4) toners, detergents, and cleaning products, (5) rubber and plastic products, and (6) wood/timber pallets and crates.. 14 Average annual per capita water consumption as reported in2010 and 2011 Annual Statistical Report of UN Procurement. Global water price :Ecosystem Economics for UN FAO The Economic Value of Water for Agricultural, Domestic and Industrial Uses: A Global Compilation of Economic Studies and Market Prices accessed from http://cbwtp.org/jsp/cbwtp/library/documents/FAO_Water_Values.pdf on 05 January 2013 15 2010 Annual Statistical Report of UN Procurement indicates average per capita waste generation of 361 kg.

6

This analysis addresses only those areas for which reasonable and high-level cost data was publicly and readily available. The volume of waste generated by UN operations is not uniformly reported and cost is not reported at all. There are some omissions from the data above: for example, no data is available on the water use and waste generation of UN residences and guest houses, warehouses or other light industrial premises (such as workshops, vehicle maintenance garages and fuel depots run by UN agencies to service their own vehicles and operational needs). Extrapolations assume all staff are employed in offices, cost estimates make use of global average figures, which in many cases will be well below the costs of operating in large capital cities.

Crucially, no data was available for some key areas in which environmental impacts and financial costs are likely to be high, namely the construction, leasing, purchasing or maintenance of UN buildings, or the purchase and maintenance of vehicle fleets (the GHG inventory provides fuel consumption only). It does not include impacts from purchased services such as freight (for food or medicines). It includes no costs associated with projects financed by UN entities, as they are beyond the scope of this paper.

As individual agencies assess their own operations and associated environmental impacts, they may discover additional priority areas, such as procurement and waste disposal associated with construction, or air pollutants associated with diesel generators and older vehicles.

3.2 Risks from not managing environmental impacts

The UN operates in some of the world’s most marginal environments, in countries with vastly different levels of environmental protection legislation and sustainable development capacity in their institutions. The UN should at all times meet and exceed the legislative requirements of the host governments of countries in which the UN serves. Failure to do so risks tangible damage to the capacity of the local environment to support the people who live in it, as well as loss of reputation, loss of donor funds in the event of an incident, and even claims for compensation from affected beneficiaries or staff. Increasingly, UN donors require evidence of risk management measures as a pre-condition of providing funds, including for the provision of UN premises.

The lack of quantifiable information in categories identified above represents critical unmitigated environmental impacts. These impacts include exacerbating local air pollution via UN vehicles and generators in cities, contributing to climate change through significant greenhouse gas emissions; and excessive consumption of locally available potable water and other scarce natural resources.

By far the most critical, non-quantified impact is waste. The UN’s principle waste streams include: Municipal Solid Waste (MSW); redundant equipment, furniture and e-waste; ‘consumables’ such as tyres, motor oil, toner cartridges and construction offcuts; sewage (grey water from kitchens/bathrooms and black water from toilets). In developing countries where infrastructure is poor, landfill sites (waste dumps) may pose a risk to the health and wellbeing of local people. In such countries, the price UN agencies pay for waste removal may be artificially low, because it does not reflect the full cost to the community (in pollution or human health impacts) of the waste impacts. Landfilled items represent wasted resources, some of which may be non-renewable (such as metal, or plastic made from fossil fuels) or toxic and many can be reused or reprocessed. Diverting waste from landfill also cuts disposal costs.

7

Illegal waste dumping is a problem in many countries. In many countries, and particularly during emergencies, the UN must provide its own infrastructure for sewage treatment and/or disposal.

The UN should seek to minimise all its waste streams and to ensure waste that cannot be avoided is disposed of in a safe and responsible manner. Unmitigated risks can have very real consequences for UN beneficiary communities and adversely impact local economic development. They should be managed even if they have a net cost: cleaning up after an incident could cost far more and some impacts are irreversible. EMS provides a system that routinely identifies and mitigates risks and provides procedures in the event of an incident.

3.3 Opportunities for realizing benefits and optimizing savings

Many environmental impacts can be managed in ways that bring financial benefits. Financial benefits of EMS are best realized when an organization systematically sets targets and then identifies and implements projects to reduce resource consumption and reduce or divert waste. Performance against targets is periodically reviewed to confirm progress made and to identify new techniques or technology by which further gains might be cost-effectively made. Savings may accrue from:

Reduction of water consumption; Reduction of fuel consumption; Reduction in energy use; Reduction of materials consumption; and Reduction of waste generation.

As a management system, an EMS does not prescribe specific environmental performance targets. Instead, it offers the means for organizations to set their own targets based on their capabilities and readiness. Examples of integrating environmental considerations into operations include systematically considering energy efficient lighting and heating/cooling when refurbishing a building, or periodic assessments of new technologies to confirm their cost-effectiveness. LED lights, for example, can reduce lighting costs by 80%, and cost just one quarter as much as they did 5 years ago, when the technology was new. A conventional bulb still costs less, but the electricity it uses costs up to 20 times its purchase price each year. (The simple payback on LEDs can be as little as 5 months).

By considering multiple environmental impacts simultaneously, an EMS can identify projects with multiple environmental benefits, such as fitting water efficient taps that reduce both water use and the energy needed to heat water. An EMS can also evaluate projects involving competing environmental demands, such as replacing paper towels (reducing waste) with hand dryers (increasing energy use).

The potential savings available through EMS adoption have been estimated below through a combination of reviews of academic literature, surveys of government advisory bodies such as the UK Carbon Trust or the US Environmental Protection Agency, leading non-government programmes such as ICLEI, and interviews and surveys of environmental focal points in UN organizations. Table 2 presents both theoretical reductions typically found in organizations that are new to environmental management, and actual targets and results adopted by UN and other agencies. Some organisations report reductions of 50%

8

or more in one or more of the four areas. Dozens of examples exist in the private sector of achieving a “factor of four” improvement: halving resource use while doubling revenue16.

Table 2: Practical and achievable targets for environmental improvement and efficiency Energy efficiency (purchased electricity, heating fuels, onsite generation)

UK Carbon Trust: energy surveys commonly identify 20-50% savings through energy efficiency measures, with 20% considered readily achievable via actions with an average payback period of 3 years or less.

A 20% reduction also considered feasible for organizations new to energy management by: the EU17, US EPA18 and the Clinton Global Initiative19.

UNU reported 18% reduction in energy consumption in 2011 compared to 2010, resulting in savings of US$ 24,400.

UPU achieved reduced energy use from a lighting retrofit by 70% with a payback period of around two years.

WFP Senegal implemented no-cost measures, including switch-off campaigns and energy awareness among staff, and saved 22% of electricity costs, or US$ 14,000.

FAO: An elevator upgrade is saving US$ 142,000 per year and 288 tCO2e, with a payback period of 3.3 years. A new workstation energy scheme required US$ 1,000 and saved an estimated US$ 100,900 per year. The payback period was 3.6 days.

Vehicle fuel conservation

The UK’s Automotive Association indicates savings of 10% from fuel-efficient driver training. A similar programme at TNT obtained 20% savings.

Guidance from the Canadian government indicates a poorly tuned vehicle will emit “up to 50% more emissions” and use “considerably more” gas”

WFP is seeking to reduce fuel consumption by 17% over 3 years through low cost measures such as driver education training, improving vehicle maintenance, and selecting more efficient vehicles on replacement , saving US$ 1.9 million per year in fuel costs.

Travel In 2011, UN Secretariat members were asked to make a 3% annual reduction in administrative costs, including travel.

Sustainable UN research indicates significant savings can be achieved through low and no-cost changes including reducing multiple attendees at conferences and increasing use of low-cost virtual meeting technologies (Skype, Arkadin).

UNIDO: directors have undertaken to reduce their own travel by up to 30%.20

UNCTAD: aims to reduce travel by 500 flights per year (1 per staff member) through better teleconferencing, reducing total emissions (93% are from travel) by 20%.21

UNAIDS: Committed to reducing travel by 25% over two years.22

Consumption of materials

Significant variations exist according to type of materials purchased, however the following serve as a guide:

Best practice in the UK and US is to install one printer per 10-12 staff: Many UN agencies still have ratios of 1 per 5 staff or even 1 per 2 staff.23

Printing can be reduced by 30% through double-sided copying, and up to 90% by

16 Von Weizsacker, E.; Lovins, A; Lovins L.H (1997) Factor Four: Doubling Wealth, Halving Resource Use - A Report to the Club of Rome; Earthscan Publications, London. 17 http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/2013/january/energy-efficiency-investments-not-cost-effective/76147.aspx accessed 15/02/13 18 http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/documents/suca/ee_and_carbon.pdf19 http://press.clintonglobalinitiative.org/press_releases/bbc-cgi-announcement/20 http://www.greeningtheblue.org/case-study/unido-directors-leading-top21 http://www.greeningtheblue.org/case-study/unctad-promoting-videoconferencing22 http://www.greeningtheblue.org/case-study/unaids-walk-talk-and-travel-less23 See http://bigissues.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/index/bigissues/improvement-programme/quick-wins/print-strategy/ and http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/103809

9

redesigning workflows to enable electronic invoices, payslips and other transactions. Ordering precise quantities of stationery, maintenance materials and other goods on

demand (rather than stockpiling) can reduce total volumes. This may be offset by complementary increases (i.e. to achieve lower annual paper consumption, a one-off purchase of scanning equipment is necessary).

From 2009-2011 the General Assembly reduced printed parliamentary documents from 336 million pages to 150 million, saving US$ 10 million.

Water consumption Government studies in Canada and Australia indicate potential 40-50% savings from ‘low-hanging-fruit’ water efficiency improvements (cost recovery in 2 years or less).

In the UN system, 10 agencies report water consumption. Their average consumption (22m3/person/yr) is 3x higher than the UK government’s ‘poor practice’ mark for government buildings (6.5m3/person/yr). Savings from low flush toilets, low flow taps, drought-resistant landscaping and other low cost actions, could exceed 80%.

UNEP implemented water efficiency installations as part of its facilities improvement programme, realizing over 10% return on investment.

ADB implemented a water conservation programme as part of its facilities improvement that included rainwater harvesting and an on-site wastewater treatment system. Through this programme, it was able to reduce water consumption by 20% and realized cost savings of US$ 47,316 .

FAO installed flow restrictors on basins and showers, aiming to cut water use in bathrooms and the cafeteria by 40%. The €3,000 installation cost should save 16,000 m3 of water per year and € 5,760/year in water costs and € 222/year in electricity from reduced pumping. Payback period is 6 months.

Waste generation UK Government recommends reduction of waste generation by 25% from a 2009/10 baseline and to increase the recycling rate to 75% by 2020.

ILO reduced the volume of most of its waste streams by up to 46% with realized savings of approximately US$ 44,000 / year from recycling and use of a compactor.

ADB implemented waste management as part of its EMS (3R programme) reducing waste paper by 35% and overall waste volume by 41.5%, realizing total savings of US$ 358,335 or US$ 39,815 per year

Data in the table above, which shows the full scale of technologically feasible reductions, has been used to provide conservative estimates for the financial savings that could realistically be achieved within the first 3-5 years of implementation, allowing for time to design the EMS, identify priority areas at each agency, and carry out the identified projects. The figures for reduction potential have been estimated assuming that all UN agencies pursue adoption of EMS and recognizing that for reasons of budgeting, lease agreement or staff rotation, UN organizations are most likely to implement only those projects with short pay-back periods averaging 2-3 years.

Table 3: Potential global financial savings from resource efficiency improvementsComponent Value-at-stake,

in US$ (est)Potential

reduction (%)Potential savings, in US$

Lower range Upper rangePurchased electricity 41,511,182 20 8,302,236

Petroleum and fuel products – vehicle fuel

94,484,051 10 - 40 9,448,405 37,793,620

Petroleum and fuel products – generator and heating

644,109,851 20 128,821,970

Chartered trips and aviation fuel: 70,521,611 10 7,052,161

Commercial air travel: 1,100,000,000 5 - 10 55,000,000 110,000,000

10

(excl. DSA)Other materials (paper, toner, IT equipment, packaging materials reported in 2011 Annual Statistical Report of UN Procurement)

836,690,000 5 41,834,500

Water consumption 2,785,949 20 - 50 557,190 1,392,975

Waste generation in offices and other premises

Unknown 25 Unknown Unknown

TOTAL 251,016,463 335,197,463

The experience of UN system organizations in implementing various environmental initiatives mirrors that of private sector organizations: organizations with a poor baseline performance stand to make the biggest gains with the least outlay. It is therefore possible that actual gains realized could significantly exceed the conservative estimates in Table 3, and achieve much better payback periods.

In addition, EMS implementation has the potential to yield significant non-financial benefits. Commonly reported changes such as improvements to reputation, or staff satisfaction, or better knowledge retention, may not confer direct financial returns but nevertheless impart advantages in terms of enhanced stakeholder relationships and improved institutional processes. Many others cannot be quantified in advance, but can be measured over time through Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), such as reduced incidents in workplaces, reduced impact on vulnerable local environments, improved staff comfort, productivity and retention. Improved reputation can lead directly to increases in funding and can help mitigate punitive costs and losses if an incident later occurs.

Table 4: Intangible Benefits of EMS Description of benefits of EMS ReferencesImprovement of environmental performance and reduction of environmental impacts; Streamlined communication through centralized policies and procedures; Better cross-facility cooperation

Psomas et al.(2011)24, Proto & Supino (2000)25, Zutshi, et al. (2008)26, Soyka (2006)27

Minimise environmental liabilities, build awareness, gain better understanding of environmental operations; Improved compliance, retention of institutional knowledge

Chavan, M. (2005)28, Soyka (2006)

Enhancement of business efficiency by maximising efficient use of resources and reducing waste;

Psomas, et al. (2011),

Build good corporate image and improvement of stakeholder relationship; Recognition as environmental steward;

Chavan (2005),

24 Psomas et al. (2011) Motives, difficulties and benefits in implementing the ISO 14001 Environmental Management System. Management of Environmental Quality, 22(4):502-52125 Proto, M. & Supino, S. (2000) Ecomanagement quality system: ISO 14001. The state-of-the-art in Italy. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 11(4):767-77226 Zutshi et al. (2008) Environmental management system adoption by government departments/agencies. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 21(5):525-53927 Soyka, P. (2006) Designing environmental management systems to create financial value: A benefit-cost estimation methodology. Environmental Quality Management (Winter 2006): 1-1828 Chavan, M. (2005) An appraisal of environmental management systems: a competitive advantage for small business. Management of Environmental Quality, 16(5):444-463

11

Creation of new markets and building of competitive advantage Rezaee & Elam (2000)29

29 Rezaee, Z. & Elam, R. (2000) Emerging ISO 14001 environmental standards: a step-by-step implementation guide. Managerial Auditing Journal, 15(1/2):60-67

12

4 Evaluating the costs and savings of implementing EMS for the UN

“In most cases, developing and maintaining an EMS will not require large capital outlays. What an EMS will require is time”30

Implementing an EMS requires human resource and a range of specialist environmental, technical and project management capacities which not all UN agencies currently have in-house. Implementing improvement projects will involve some diversion of funds in order to realise lasting (yearly) gains. Smaller agencies are particularly concerned about whether the costs of setting up and maintaining an ongoing management system will justify the likely savings. Having assessed the potential gains from systematic environmental management, it is also necessary to understand potential costs. Techniques to maximise cost effectiveness are discussed in Section 6.

4.1 Analytical framework and methodology

The range of available studies listing quantitative costs for EMS implementation is surprisingly limited. Within those limitations, a selection of studies and cases is used in this analysis to define and identify the costs involved in EMS. Adopting EMS is expected to change the way the UN system allocates resources. Establishing the business case for EMS is intended to help determine those differences. In this discussion, the ‘Business as usual’ scenario is defined as “not implementing EMS”. Comparing the case for action against the base case seeks to define the order of magnitude of the costs and benefits relative to the overall value-at-stake.

4.2 The costs of EMS

The costs involved in establishing an EMS comprise four parts: development, certification, implementation and maintenance, outlined in table 5.31

Table 5: EMS cost descriptionCost item Description Elements of costEMS development

Resources allocated for planning activities, capacity building, and setting-up of management programmes, systems and procedures. Most of the expenses for these activities are considered one-off particularly the establishment of policies, forms and templates.

Composed of direct labour cost (cost of new and existing staff time), consultants’ and trainers’ fees; Most of the costs involved are considered one-off such as policy development, gap analysis, management plan etc.

EMS certification(if undertaken)

This includes the cost of third party audits (multi-stage and surveillance) as well as registrars’ fees. The cost of certification is considered as one-off

The cost is composed of direct labour costs, fees of auditors, and registrars’ fees. Costs of the initial certification

30 NSF International (1996); “EMS: an Implementation Guide for Small and Medium Sized Organizations”; Michigan, p.28.31 Alberti et al. (2000) Evaluation of the costs and benefits of an environmental management system. International Journal of Production Research, 38(17):4455-4466

13

Cost item Description Elements of costand the re-certification as recurring every 3years. is considered one-off

EMS implementation

Includes the cost of activities needed to put the EMS in place such as monitoring and measurement, internal audit, stakeholder communications, continuing capacity development. These activities are conducted regularly even after the EMS has been developed.

Costs include direct labour costs, consultants’ and trainers’ fees, and third party analytical testing; Implementation costs are considered as recurring except for the cost of monitoring equipment

EMS maintenance Covers the cost of updating the policies, manuals and procedures. These costs are also considered recurring as the activities are conducted regularly.

Maintenance costs include recurring direct labour costs

Once implemented, an EMS requires ongoing staff resources to collect data for regular reporting of progress against goals and, if wished, undertaking recertification and further studies to facilitate continuous improvement of the system.

Practitioners of change management identify various intangible costs of EMS that may increase the investment required to implement the management system. These include overcoming resistance to organizational change and addressing perceptions that EMS will “add bureaucracy”.32 Early and comprehensive communications strategies can minimise these transactional costs, manage expectations and promote buy-in across the organization.

Studies on the implementation of EMS among public sector organizations in US and Canada identify internal and external labour costs as making up the bulk of expenses in their EMS programmes, accounting for approximately 80% of the total costs of implementation, as shown in Table 6 below.

Table 6: Breakdown of estimated cost of EMS per category,Proportion

Labour cost 80% of total EMS cost Staff time cost 70% of labour cost Consultants’ fees 30% of labour costOthers (equipment, testing services, trainers, auditors) 20% of total EMS cost

Many organizations choose to disregard the cost of internal staff resources, explaining that the staff engaged in EMS are considered the ‘process owners’ and the EMS is seen as improving their processes. At UN University (UNU), staff involvement in EMS is seen as part of their terms of reference. The Asian Development Bank (ADB), in setting up its EMS in 2003, assigned most of the work such as write-up of procedures to appropriate in-house staff supported by a team of technical consultants, to promote staff ownership of their processes. In such instances, the reported cost of EMS is significantly reduced, reflecting only certification, consultants’ fees, and equipment as the upfront investments. Some manuals33 suggest further minimizing staffing costs by delegating time consuming tasks such as data collection or process documentation to interns or other junior and administrative staff, which also engages them.

32 See Psomas, E., Fotopoulos, C. & Kafetzopoulos, D. (2011) Motives, difficulties and benefits in implementing the ISO 14001 Environmental Management System. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 22(4): 502-521 33 NSF International (1996); “EMS: an Implementation Guide for Small and Medium Sized Organizations”; Michigan, p.28.

14

To indicate the scale of the resources involved in establishing an EMS, the range of investment costs experienced in a number of organizations is presented in the table below. The estimates are normalised based on the number of employees covered by each EMS. The median per capita cost is US$ 148.

Table 7: Comparison of the cost of EMS in US$Organization/Cases Overall cost range Cost per capita

GETF 34(2002) 27,000 – 195,000 130-180NASA (2001)35 445,000 – 1,450,000 111 – 138Other studies, US local government (2004)36,37, 38 80,000 – 280,000 158 – 187 In the studies the cost of developing and implementing EMS varied according to organizational size, with smaller enterprises spending proportionately more for EMS than medium sized ones. The UK’s Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) conducted benchmarking of the costs and benefits of EMS as applied to small and medium enterprises in UK in 2011.39 The study indicated that the average annual cost of developing an EMS is US$ 1,362 per million US$ turnover, while yielding average yearly savings of US$ 4,785 per US$ 1 million of turnover within two years of implementation.

The cost of EMS for UN system organizations can be estimated using the normalised cost per capita of US$ 110-187. This range accounts for differences in the activities related to certification, level of organizational readiness, existing change management practices within the organization, and other circumstances specific to the organization that can affect unit prices of labour and consultants. Another key factor is the level of technical support required, estimated at 25-30% of the total cost. These are one-off costs, spread over 1-2 years.

Across the UN system (based on number of staff only), the total cost is estimated to be US$ 23-40 million. This estimate is based on assumption that the EMS will be certified to a standard such as the ISO 14001. Should organizations decide against certification, the cost would fall by approximately 24%.Once implemented, an EMS requires staff resources to co-ordinate improvement projects, undertake monitoring and identify and prioritize new opportunities. Various studies40,41,42 suggest that yearly maintenance costs amounts to between 12% and 40% of the total cost. At UNU, a working group of up to 10 staff are involved in EMS, but spend just 10-20% of their time on it.

34 Global Environment and Technology Foundation35 ICF Consulting (2001) NASA Environmental Management Systems (EMS): Costs and Benefits accessed at http://www.denix.osd.mil/ems/upload/NASA_EMS_costs.pdf on 30 October 201236 City of Toronto (2004). Municipal Environmental Management System: Benchmarking Survey Results accessed at http://www.toronto.ca/teo/pdf/benchmarking_survey_results_report.pdf on 20 December 201237For local governments, an average of 140 employees per 10,000 population was used. Data accessed at http://www.ccsce.com/PDF/Numbers-Sept-2012-Where-Does-California-Rank-2011.pdf 38 See case studies at http://www.peercenter.net/case_studies/ 39 Hillary, r. & Burr, P. (2011) Evidence-based study into the benefits of EMSs for SMEs. DEFRA. Accessed at http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=16942 o30 January 2013 40 ICAO; 2012: “Report on EMS practices in the Aviation Sector”; accessed http://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/Documents/Publications/Doc%209968%201st%20Edition%20alltext%20en%20FINAL.pdf, 15/2/2013.41 ICF Consulting (2001) NASA Environmental Management Systems (EMS): Costs and Benefits accessed at http://www.denix.osd.mil/ems/upload/NASA_EMS_costs.pdf on 30 October 201242 MacLeod, D. & Leetham, K. (2004) Municipal Environmental Management Systems: Benchmarking Survey Results. City of Toronto Environmental Services

15

4.3 Comparing costs and benefits

Even when applied to a limited value-at-stake of US$ 2.79 billion per year (noting that total activities, and therefore benefits, could be significantly higher), it is clear that the costs of adopting EMS for the UN system, a one-off cost of US$ 23-40 million, are modest compared to the conservatively estimated yearly savings of US$ 251-335 million. The estimate does not include the further one-off costs of implementing improvement projects, which would require detailed analysis by each agency, but it is also clear that it is possible to define cost-effectiveness parameters that contain implementation costs while still facilitating sufficient opportunities to achieve the projected savings within 3-5 years of commencing implementation. Annex A and B provide tangible examples of cost-effective project implementation in the UN system.

These findings are consistent with those of other evaluations of EMS. An ICAO43 survey found 96% of senior managers of aviation organisations with EMS in place “would recommend that other organizations establish EMS”. Paramasevam44 found that benefits of EMS overtake costs within four years. UNU, the first UN agency to obtain a certified EMS, reports that savings from lower utilities and other bills “have more than offset” the costs of implementing and maintaining EMS certification.

The proportion of savings that might be achieved through current ad hoc initiatives and standalone projects (for example, in response to donor or host government requirements, or unintended consequences of other work) is considered to be low. Current UN consumption indicators for all natural resources are well above national averages of many member states, suggesting that the UN is not effectively managing its use of materials, nor, as a consequence, its environmental impact. The Climate Neutral UN initiative, which uses a measurement and management model, has potential to produce more consistent results in energy management. However, without a structured framework by which all environmental impacts can be compared, UN agencies lack a means to choose which other impacts to address first, and risk diverting resources from more productive to less productive projects. This study, and that of the JIU in 2010, finds that current in-house environmental management practices of most UN organizations leave ample potential for further efficiency gains and greater cost savings.

To estimate the savings, it has been assumed that EMS takes 1-2 years to develop (as indicated by numerous studies, including DEFRA and ICAO), with project implementation following over at least 3-5 years, and a review in year 4 or 5. In the absence of data on the UN system’s global operating budget, normalized per capita values were used to compare the cost of EMS with the per-capita value-at-stake. Table 8: Per capita figures of costs of EMS

US$ per staff member

Value-at-stake , per year 13,037Cost savings, lower range, per year 1,173

43 ICAO; 2012: “Report on EMS practices in the Aviation Sector”; accessed http://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/Documents/Publications/Doc%209968%201st%20Edition%20alltext%20en%20FINAL.pdf, 15/2/201344 Paramasevam, G. et al (2001) “Cost benefit analysis for implementation of environmental management systems”, published in Environmentally Conscious Design and Inverse Manufacturing (Proceedings). Accessed from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=992464&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D992464 17 February 2013.

16

Cost savings, upper range, per year 1,565EMS cost, one off 148

Figure 1: Comparison of per capita cost of designing an EMS with the UN system’s per capita value-at-stake and cost savings, in US$

Expressed in this way, the yearly savings shown above are estimated to be in the order of 8-9 times the one-off implementation costs. Further savings could be achieved (with limited additional costs) if additional areas such as waste, vehicles and construction are included in future. Opportunities also exist to reduce costs: for example not all agencies will choose to be formally accredited, and levels of in-house technical expertise will vary. The Strategic Plan for Sustainability Management in the UN System, which seeks to reduce costs by maximising collaborative working, is discussed further in section 6.

4.4 Cost of improvement projects

The cost of implementing improvement projects will vary significantly between agencies, depending on such diverse factors as initial baseline performance, local operating conditions, local costs of utilities, materials and labour, organizational appetite for change, local and organizational leadership, competing priorities and availability of funds. A single initiative implemented in two different locations may yield very different cost recovery periods, and individual initiatives for each agency can and should be subject to separate investment analyses well beyond the scope of this paper. However, the UN examples in table 2 above and in Annex B make clear that substantial scope exists to realize significant environmental improvements even if very short cost-recovery (simple payback) periods are adopted. Further options for maximizing the cost-effectiveness of improvement projects are discussed in Section 6.

A systematic understanding of impacts, costs and benefits, such as that provided through an EMS is instrumental in identifying and prioritizing investments.

5 EMS for the UN system

17

Significant opportunities exist for the UN organizations to adopt a collaborative approach and reduce costs from implementing both an EMS and the improvement projects identified. Such mutual support would be particularly beneficial for smaller agencies, which may face disproportionately high resource requirements45.

5.4 The UN Common Model for EMS

A common model for systematically integrating environmental sustainability into the management of UN facilities and operations, an EMS, was first advocated by the Joint Inspection Unit in 201046. The “Strategic Plan for Environmental Sustainability Management in the UN System”, provides minimum requirements for all agencies to ensure robust and comparable work:

EMS will be developed following the requirements of ISO 14001. Organizations can choose to implement EMS following the full requirements of ISO 14001 or develop a simplified framework that is still consistent with the principles of the standard.

The Strategic Plan advocates a ‘phased and clustered’ approach in which agencies start with headquarters-based operations and functions as a minimum, then are encouraged to progressively include other locations over time. By limiting the boundaries of EMS to initially cover only the core functions or the major facilities such as headquarters, UN organizations can gain experience and lessons from planning and implementing the system.47.

Milestones against which progress can be reported, particularly in the early stages of establishment:

o Obtain executive management commitment and allocate resources (staff/budget)o Define environmental sustainability policyo Undertake initial review of environmental impacts, risks and requirementso Prepare an environmental action plan: including goals/targets, identifying priority actions

and allocating responsibility, resource and timeframeso Implement the plan, including preparing documentation as required and undertaking

improvement projects to reduce impacts/realize savings/benefitso Report yearly and periodically review results to identify corrections in any areas where

goals have not been met, and to continuously identify new opportunities.

These elements are summarized in the figure below.48

45 Hillary, r. & Burr, P. (2011) Evidence-based study into the benefits of EMSs for SMEs. DEFRA. Accessed at http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=16942 o30 January 2013 46 “Environmental profile of the United Nations System organizations – review of their in-house environmental management policies and practices” (JIU/REP/2010/147 Further guidance and support on each phase is available through existing published guidance such as the ISO 14005 “Guidelines for the phased implementation of an environmental management system”, and the Acorn Scheme of the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA)48 UNEP: Strategic Plan for Sustainability Management in the United Nations System: 23 August 2011; p.6

18

To facilitate common reporting, UN agencies have identified four common indicators:a) greenhouse gas emissions/energy use,b) consumption of water resourcesc) waste generationd) training provided for staff awareness raising/capacity building.UN agencies may also report on additional parameters as wished.

This approach provides a range of opportunities for agencies to save time and money through sharing resources, information and experiences, particularly for smaller organizations. As noted earlier, the costs related to building organizational capacity through outsourced service providers accounted for 25-30% of the total cost of EMS implementation. These costs can be minimized through collaborative working:

Centrally developed training modules in EMS for nominated organizational focal points (EMS co-ordinators, technical specialists such as facilities, fleet or travel managers) and awareness raising materials/campaigns for staff;

Sharing externally-hired technical experts at the initial review, action plan development and implementation stages. For example, a single consultant who reviews all of the environmental impacts of all the agencies in a city (or country, or group of countries) will involve lower travel costs than if each agency brings in their own consultant. A consultancy company awarded a sizable body of work may be willing to negotiate a lower day rate.

Delegating to single focal points the researching of legislative frameworks in the countries where the UN operates, and sharing the findings.

Developing common templates and forms (which may themselves be based on existing published materials, tailored to UN-specific requirements) will save time and money at each agency while also facilitating efficient reporting.

Sharing case studies and other research among focal points will dramatically cut time spent by each agency on researching solutions to individual impacts and challenges.

19

At the same time, flexibility is built into the common model so that each EMS can be tailored to the needs of each agency.

Agencies adopting EMS are free to determine their own minimum performance standards, targets, objectives, and priority areas for action. This flexibility is widely seen as contributing to the success of EMS across many industries and helps them to address the most significant environmental impacts first.

Agencies can implement at their own pace, reporting progress against milestones over time.

The UN strategic plan does not propose mandatory certification of EMS. Instead it provides a reference model that can be used by organizations to help determine their interest in certification.

20

6 Recommendations

Benchmarking undertaken as part of this reporting process indicates that the UN consumption of resources and management of waste lags some way behind that of many member states and donor governments. The UN must be encouraged to reform its resource use and reallocate funds away from unsustainable consumption by investing in efficiency projects that will repay themselves in the short to medium term. This report has found that an EMS covering even a limited range of UN activities stands to reap hundreds of millions of dollars in savings, an order of magnitude greater than the cost of setting up a system to identify them. This report therefore makes the following recommendations:

UN system organizations should implement Environmental Management System, following the requirements of the ISO 14001 standard, whether or not eventual certification is pursued.

Collaborative working: Organizations should seek to reduce costs and maximize capacity building by working collaboratively as advocated in the Strategic Plan. The vehicles for this should be the Sustainable UN facility and the EMG network of sustainability focal points.

Prioritization of cost-effective measures: Agencies implementing EMS are strongly encouraged to focus on environmental improvement activities that allow short payback periods such as 2, 3, or 5 years, depending on local drivers and appetite for change.

Integrate EMS into key business processes, including corporate reporting. A key challenge for many UN agencies engaged in implementing the UN climate neutral strategy is that greenhouse gas reporting often stands apart from other organizational performance reporting, and the means for identifying and implementing improvements are therefore not always well integrated into strategic planning and operational processes. This can lead to expensive and labor intensive data collection and reporting processes and ultimately loss of momentum across the organization as managers decide there is too little reward for the effort.

Selecting the right people for the right work: Agencies that already have an EMS, highlight the importance of putting together a team of people. Most agencies will require at least one full time co-ordinator or project manager during design and rollout of the EMS system. Involving people with sufficient technical knowledge or previous experiences in implementing large scale EMS reduces delays due to missteps and adds value to the institutional learning on EMS implementation. At the same time, agencies can reduce overall costs by making use of in-house staff to document current practices and collect data. Involving staff from key functional areas also helps promote buy-in and embed the EMS throughout the organization.

Adequate allocation of resources: The strategic plan speaks of organizations’ difficulty in securing sufficient staff resources to enable regular collection and analysis of data for the UN Climate Neutral strategy, let alone earmarking funds for in-house climate mitigation measures. A decision to adopt EMS in the pursuit of significant efficiency and financial gains must be accompanied by adequate investment in staff, expert knowledge, data management systems and associated implementation costs. These will repay themselves over time and ultimately represent a reprioritizing of UN funds that is more in line with UN sustainable development mandates.

21

Annex A

Environmental management experience in UNU and ADB

The two case studies below represent organizations that have a fully certified EMS. Examples of individual projects with short payback periods are listed in Annex B.

United Nations University

The United Nations University (UNU) is the first UN-system organization to obtain an ISO 14001 certification for its EMS. The EMS initiative of UNU began in 1999 was certified to ISO 14001 in 2001. The EMS covers the headquarters in Tokyo and an institute in Yokohama. *

Drivers Initiated at the staff level and supported by the top leadership Improvement and efficiency in how UNU is organized A good step forward in promoting environmental sustainability

EMS implementation Strong management support Focused on energy, water and waste management, legal compliance, green procurement,

emergency preparedness, and internal working environment.

Examples of observed benefits of EMS EMS systematized and guaranteed the conduct of monitoring and emergency drills. Identified irregularities in water consumption through its monitoring programme. Reduced electricity consumption in 2011 by 18% compared to 2010 realizing savings of US$ 23,000 Achieved reductions in consumption of water by 28%, electricity by 9%, and gas by 25% in 2009

compared to 2004 levels

ResourcesThe general conclusions on the implementation of EMS suggest that the savings from the reduction in utilities usage more than covers the cost of implementing the management system.

Key lessons learned An EMS need to fit very tightly with what the organization is already doing. Certification to ISO 14001 is symbolic of efficiency and good practice of UNU and a message to

society of UNU’s practicing what it preaches.

22

Asian Development Bank

The Asian Development Bank (ADB) is a multilateral development finance institution based in the Philippines. It employs over 4,000 personnel in its HQ and supports 30 offices around the world. The ADB obtained ISO 14001 certification in 2003. From EMS, the bank introduced other management systems: (1) OHSAS 18001 occupational health and safety management system; (2) Six Sigma in 2006; (3) LEED Gold standard at its HQ in 2011; and (4) ISO 50001 energy management system certification in 2012

Drivers Demonstrate ‘walk the talk’ and present seal of good corporate governance Encourage borrowers to mainstream sustainability in their operations. Increase awareness of the staff and promote sustainable procurement within the bank

Benefits of EMSElectricity, water consumption, paper waste and solid waste generation were identified as environmental aspects of the bank. Since its inception and up to 2011, ADB has realized cost savings of approximately US$ 648,000 from initiatives including:

water and materials conservation (200 m3 rainwater storage and re-use of treated wastewater) Energy demand management, efficient lighting installation, motion sensors, solar PV installation Reduction by 90% of solid waste – only 10% residual waste go to landfill

Cost of EMSADB considers that cost was not significant as it was mainly labour cost performed by inhouse staff to promote ownership of processes. Also, some EMS elements were already in place.

Key lessons ‘The cost justifies the means’. The financial benefits of EMS did not come from big ticket

projects but from small improvements and changes in the way the staff were doing their work Involving the staff and contractors from the beginning. ADB instituted working groups to ensure

that EMS elements are prepared for each departments EMS and ISO 14001 can be a building block towards other management systems such as LEED

building certifications, OHSAS 18001, and ISO 50001

23

Annex B

Cost saving investments in UN organisations

Reduction in energy consumptionThe Universal Postal Union (UPU) employs 256 staff and its headquarters (HQ, International Bureau) is based in Berne, Switzerland.

In 2007, UPU replaced the building’s lighting system with high-efficiency lamps, with sensors in rarely frequented rooms. The US$ 610,000 upgrade reduced electricity used for lighting by 70%.

In 2011, the organization’s IT equipment was replaced with Energy Star-compliant equipment. Virtual servers reduced the need for climate controlled server rooms.

These improvements in energy consumption resulted to reduction in diesel fuel consumption by 55% and purchased electricity by 30%.

Lessons learned: Energy efficient lights and virtual servers are two of the most cost effective options in offices.

Reduction in energy consumptionThe United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) employs 1,275 staff in Nairobi HQ.

The landmark UNON building is designed to reduce energy consumption by 54% compared to UNEP’s previous premises, from 99 kWh/m2 per year down to 44 kWh/m2. It includes low energy servers with reduced cooling requirements, energy efficient lights, light wells to maximise natural light and presence detection and daylight sensors. Laptops, using two-thirds less energy than PCs, are replacing them on a rolling basis. Yearly energy savings are more than US$ 92,000.

The building also features water efficient dual-flush toilets and drought-resistant landscaping, fed by rainwater collected from the roof.

Many of the resource efficiency features were donated, reducing the implementation cost.

A 6,000m2 solar PV installation cost US$ 1.4 million. The solar PV generated cost savings of US$ 90,000 in 2011 and US$ 126,000 in 2012. The estimated payback period of the solar PV alone is 10 years however, when combined with the energy saving measures the cost of energy systems for the building is less than 7 years.

Lessons Learned: Solar power can be cost effective when complemented by energy efficient technologies.

Zero cost energy reduction programme

World Food Programme

An energy efficiency campaign in WFP’s regional bureau in Dakar, Senegal, saved an estimated 46,000 kWh per year (22%), saving 34 tonnes of CO2 and US$ 14,000 in energy bills, with no cash outlay.

Changes made: desks repositioned to make best use of natural ventilation, reducing the need for air conditioning; staff stopped leaving windows open when the air conditioning is switched on; thermostats reprogrammed to 23oC (some had been set as low as 16oC); ICT reprogrammed printers to double sided; reminders helped staff to switch off lights and equipment.

Awareness materials included comprised emails, posters designed by the WFP Climate Neutral team and reminders at staff meetings.

Lessons learned: small changes from everyone can make a big difference.

24

Waste managementThe Asian Development Bank (ADB) is a multilateral development finance institution based in Manila. It employs over 4,000 people at its headquarters (HQ) alone.

Waste recycling and a programme to reduce generated waste yielded a cumulative reduction of 41.5% of general waste and 35.5% of paper waste from 2004. This is translated to total savings of US$ 358,335.

Lessons learned: reducing total waste generated, for example by reducing packaging, food waste and donating old IT equipment and furniture, can yield more cost effective savings than simply recycling.

Waste managementThe International Labour Organization (ILO) is a tripartite UN organization employing over 3,500 staff in its Headquarters (HQ) in Geneva and in 62 offices worldwide.

In 2010, ILO generated equivalent cost savings of US$ 43,212 from the use of compactor for its incinerable waste. This reduced number of waste transport trips from 249 to just 30 or 88%.

ILO also qualified for a local government financial incentive for paper and cardboard recycling, worth US$ 8,823 in 2010 and 2011.

The intangible benefits include: (1) reduced liability and risk from poorly managed waste; (2) improved organizational image; (3) improved quality in waste management; (4) reduced GHG emission from waste decomposing in landfill; and (5) social benefits from reduction of pollution.

Lessons learned: Many resource efficiency projects yield intangible ‘downstream’ savings, such as reducing GHG emissions because delivery/refuse trucks make fewer journeys

Waste managementWorld Food Programme (WFP)

A fleet management review by Logistics staff at WFP Chad yielded changes to maintenance schedules that have saved US$ 74,000 per year in reduced waste oil, lubricants and air filters without affecting vehicle performance. There was no cash outlay required.

Simultaneously, a lubricant procurement contract required used motor oil to be taken back by the supplier for reprocessing.

The new supplier also agreed to take WFP’s entire stockpile of waste oil, accepting the first batch of 4,400 litres in May 2012. This provided a zero-cost option for disposal of this potentially hazardous waste stream, and mitigated a significant risk: WFP had been storing the used oil onsite because of concerns about waste handling practices locally, creating a spill hazard.

The team is now negotiating with other companies to enable the recycling of used tyres and vehicle batteries.

Lessons learned: making eventual disposal part of the original procurement decision can significantly cut costs down the line.

Water conservationAsian Development Bank’s (ADB) water conservation measures include rainwater harvesting and on-site wastewater treatment facility

ADB installed a 200 m3- storage and Class-C compliant wastewater treatment facility for collected rainwater at its HQ. The water is used for irrigation and cleaning purposes.

Cost savings from the water conservation initiative : US$ 47,316 since 2004. Lessons Learned: Rainwater harvesting provides a free resource that requires

only minimal treatment to be fit for gardens or toilet flushing, and conserves potable water which has been treated to a higher standard.

25