ICSI Guidance, tools and standards Action Track | Position paper JULY, 2021 A Review of the Landscape of Guidance, Tools and Standards for Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure 2 A REVIEW OF THE LANDSCAPE OF GUIDANCE, TOOLS AND STANDARDS FOR SUSTAINABLE AND RESILIENT INFRASTRUCTURE ABOUT ICSI The International Coalition for Sustainable Infrastructure (ICSI) was founded in 2019 by The Resilience Shift, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and its ASCE Foundation, the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE), the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate & Energy (GCoM), WSP and LA Metro, among others. It aims to bring together the entire value chain of infrastructure and unlock the opportunity of using engineers as a driving force for positive impact. It will give engineers a voice in ensuring that we pick the right infrastructure projects to fund and then design and build them with resilience in mind from the outset to ensure safe, sustainable and resilient infrastructure for all our futures. ICSI delivers industry change by engaging members and their organisations through Action Tracks that seek to understand the gaps and barriers to the development of sustainable and resilient infrastructure. ICSI responds with specific actions to address these challenges, and engages stakeholders who are instrumental in delivering actions and adopting new resources, practices and behaviours. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Cover image: Bixby Creek Bridge, also known Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ as Bixby Canyon Bridge, on the Big Sur coast of CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the California, USA (by Darpan Dodiya, Unsplash.com) original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. 3 A REVIEW OF THE LANDSCAPE OF GUIDANCE, TOOLS AND STANDARDS FOR SUSTAINABLE AND RESILIENT INFRASTRUCTURE LEAD AUTHOR: Savina Carluccio (The Resilience Shift) CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS: Juliet Mian (The Resilience Shift), Louis Andrews (Arup), Oliver Pritchard (The Resilience Shift) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Danilo Cancado Global Center on Adaptation (GCA) Andy Deacon Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate & Energy (GCoM) Caroline Field Arup Robert Fields STV Breanna Gribble STV Peter Hall Wood Dr Daniel Hoornweg Ontario Tech University Anthony Kane Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure (ISI) Nancy Kralik Fluor Cris Liban LA Metro Alex Mauroner Alliance for Global Water Adaptation (AGWA) Dr Nader Naderpajouh University of Sidney Jennifer Ninete HDR Mike Sanio American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 4 A REVIEW OF THE LANDSCAPE OF GUIDANCE, TOOLS AND STANDARDS FOR SUSTAINABLE AND RESILIENT INFRASTRUCTURE Contents 1. Introduction 5 2. Developing a catalogue of guidance, tools and standards 6 3. Review of the existing landscape 8 4. Gap analysis 11 5. Taking action to accelerate practice 13 References 16 Appendix A: Guidance, Tools and Standards Catalogue 17 5 A REVIEW OF THE LANDSCAPE OF GUIDANCE, TOOLS AND STANDARDS FOR SUSTAINABLE AND RESILIENT INFRASTRUCTURE 1. Introduction The International Coalition of Sustainable Infrastructure (ICSI) Guidance, Tools and Standards Action Track has set out to bring clarity and structure to the guidance, tools and standards that are available to practitioners and stakeholders across the infrastructure lifecycle. This will enable them to better plan, finance, design, deliver and operate and maintain sustainable and resilient infrastructure. SUSTAINABLE AND RESILIENT INFRASTRUCTURE Sustainable Infrastructure is planned, designed, constructed, operated and maintained, and decommissioned in a manner to ensure equitable economic, social, and environmental benefits over the entire lifecycle1. Resilient Infrastructure is able to withstand, adapt to, and recover from climate change and other shocks and stresses so that it can continue to serve its core function2. The Guidance, Tools and Standards Action Track set out to undertake a landscape review of existing resources to identify gaps and focus efforts where needed. This paper has been drafted using resources crowdsourced from ICSI members and it incorporates feedback from peer review and Action Track meetings. It presents the rationale, methodology and findings of a landscape analysis of existing guidance, tools and standards for sustainable and resilient infrastructure. Four key gaps are identified as the target for future actions of the ICSI Action Tracks. 6 A REVIEW OF THE LANDSCAPE OF GUIDANCE, TOOLS AND STANDARDS FOR SUSTAINABLE AND RESILIENT INFRASTRUCTURE 2. Developing a catalogue of guidance, tools and standards The aim of this exercise is to better understand the landscape by cataloguing and mapping what already exists, acknowledging that the list will never be exhaustive. The guidance, tools and standards included in the catalogue were collected through a process of collaboration and crowdsourcing with the ICSI membership. The Action Track working group received recommendations from ICSI members of academic institutions, engineering companies, government bodies, and international organisations with expertise across infrastructure sectors. We also drew from prior work by The CATEGORY Resilience Shift, cataloguing tools and approaches for infrastructure resilience3, and The primary classification assigns each item from the Global Centre on Adaptation’s (GCA) to the category of guidance, tool or standard stocktake of climate-resilient infrastructure according to the following definitions: 4 standards . At present, a total of 207 1. Guidance: a series of steps or examples have been collated to form the recommendations that infrastructure final catalogue. Appendix A presents the practitioners may choose to follow catalogue in its entirety, and the Sustainable to improve the resilience and/or 5 Infrastructure Tool Navigator details these sustainability of their assets. and more available guidance, tools and standards. 2. Tool: helps perform a specific task, following a well-defined process, with inputs and outputs. Easy examples Taxonomy are models, software or web-based applications, but also financial A taxonomy framework has been used to instruments and frameworks. categorise each item in the catalogue. This 3. Standard: a widely recognised framework was defined at the beginning of publication approved and monitored for the process and refined through feedback compliance by an authoritative agency with ICSI members. or professional or recognised body as This approach helps to set out the existing a minimum acceptable benchmark. A landscape and identify gaps and opportunities set of requirements for infrastructure for consolidation. A description of the resilience and/or sustainability that must taxonomy categories is provided in Section 3 be followed for a project to meet the below. standard. 7 A REVIEW OF THE LANDSCAPE OF GUIDANCE, TOOLS AND STANDARDS FOR SUSTAINABLE AND RESILIENT INFRASTRUCTURE INFRASTRUCTURE LIFECYCLE • Resilience or sustainability assessment STAGES 2. Developing a catalogue of • Impact or interdependency assessment or identification Secondly, items were classified according guidance, tools and standards to where they could be applied in the • Cost-benefit assessment infrastructure lifecycle, that comprises four • Strategy development key stages: Needs identification; Planning; • Project financing Delivery and; Management. • Energy efficiency and carbon reduction We consulted with ICSI members and reviewed existing lifecycles used by other • Resilience or sustainability definitions and organisations to derive the infrastructure principles lifecycle in Figure 1. This simplified lifecycle • Asset management and the whole lifecycle was consistent with comments we received • Climate action, mitigation or from ICSI members that the specifics of an adaptation infrastructure lifecycle vary substantially under differing contexts and that only a • Risk assessment and management high-level lifecycle would be applicable to • Design guidelines all. We also identified the need for a more • Procurement guidelines balanced lifecycle, with examples providing greater detail often being skewed by the • Construction guidelines user’s perspective. For example, a lifecycle • Capacity building from an engineer’s perspective was likely to overemphasise the delivery stage. The ICSI infrastructure lifecycle (Figure 1) places equal value on all stages. Prioritisation ADDITIONAL CATEGORISATION A need was identified to prioritise and highlight the resources that would be the Each reference in the catalogue was classified most helpful to infrastructure practitioners. according to the following definitions of Going forward, ICSI will look to support sustainability, resilience, and risk: projects that facilitate access to key resources with the aim to consolidate and reduce Additionally, items were classified by: confusion in the current crowded landscape. • Infrastructure sector These resources will be made easily accessible • Potential users and recognisable to stakeholders across the infrastructure lifecycle. However, as so • Geography (where possible) many different resources are available, and • Topic areas (see below) more will inevitably be published, neither To aid in identifying potential gaps, one or the catalogue nor our prioritised list will be more topic areas were assigned to each exhaustive. item to give