18
FIEC
CONSTRUCTION EUROPE
SEPTEMBER 2014
Greater clarity needed
on sustainability
FIEC
Avenue Louise 225,
B - 1050 Brussels, Belgium.
Tel: +32 2 514 55 35;
e-mail:
The latest guidance from Directorate-General Environment may not have a
major effect thanks to a lack of firm policies being unveiled
A
fter what seemed an
inordinate
gestation,
the
long-awaited
communication
from
the
European
Commission’s
Directorate-General Environment
(DG Environment) on sustainable
buildings has finally emerged.
Despite
initial
concerns
surrounding what direction
the guidance may take on
improving sustainability within
the construction sector, the DG’s
latest announcement offers a
general direction rather than
proposals that are likely to have
an immediate effect.
Among its core areas of
focus are the development
of a common assessment
framework for buildings, which
will investigate – among other
things – overall energy use,
including embodied energy of
products and processes, material
use, design for deconstruction
and recyclability/reusability of
materials.
However, the DG Environment’s
early ambitions appear to have
been abandoned. The original
approach to the concept of
“sustainable buildings” adopted
by the Commission a couple of
years ago, which embraced the
three pillars of sustainability –
the environmental, economic
and social aspects - has slowly but
surely been diluted in favour of a
narrower focus on environmental
aspects.
Indeed, even the language has
changed. The eventual title of
the communication has dropped
“sustainability”,
becoming
titled
Resource
Efficiency
Opportunities in the Building
Sector.
The evolution of the sustainable
buildings communication over
its preparation time is probably
not surprising. Sustainability
means different things to
different people. It is a complex
theme which is itself subject to
external forces and changing
times.
Our notion of sustainability is
not fixed. Moreover, sustainability
in its widest sense may be
a fair-weather policy, which is
inevitably put on hold when it
becomes too expensive.
DESPERATE
Recent events have seen the
debate move quickly, from “blue
sky thinking” about our future
living environment, to an urgent
and almost desperate focus on
energy efficiency. This has been
fuelled in part by the potential
threat to the EU’s energy supplies.
The Commission has had to
look for quick wins and energy
efficiency is nudging out the
longer-term focus on the other
aspects of sustainability – at least
in the short term.
Furthermore, the debate on
energy efficiency is taking place
at the highest level, with the
president-elect of the European
Commission recently pushing for
a minimum EU energy efficiency
target for 2030 of 30% – a target
he insisted could be reached with
a specific focus on buildings. All
this means that priorities have
changed.
FIEC believes it is in the
industry’s interest to conserve
natural and man-made resources
as much as possible.
This is not only because of the
existing regulatory requirements
in the EU, but also because the
problem of depleting resources
threatens the long-term future
and competiveness of EU
construction.
Although contractors have
already done much to reduce
our impact on the environment,
we share the Commission’s view
that more can be done.
Indeed, contractors can even
benefit from the Commission’s
approach, but only if a new
framework
for
assessing
buildings reduces fragmentation
in EU policy and in the worst
cases, overlapping regulations.
We
welcome
coherent
measures that are simple to
apply, cost effective and flexible,
allowing for differences in
national circumstances that
make direct comparison of
buildings unrealistic.
We
also
welcome
the
lifecycle approach presented
in the communication and
the proposed indicators and
common assessment framework.
It is important that FIEC and
other key industry players are at
the table during the forthcoming
work with stakeholders to
develop this framework.
CONCERNS
FIEC wrote about its concerns
over end of waste criteria a little
over a year ago in
Construction
Europe
. We know that DG
Environment has considered and
even worked on this issue.
However, we understand that
at best, such criteria will be
available in the long rather than
the short term and at worst, the
work will be – or even has already
been – discreetly dropped
altogether.
As construction and demolition
waste is raised again in this latest
communication, we repeat our
request for clarity on this matter.
If theCommission is never going
to establish end of waste criteria,
it needs to inform member states
that the problem lies with them,
so that discussions can take place
with industry stakeholders at a
national level in order to develop
national solutions.
Contractors
can
make
significant improvements to the
treatment of waste and help
the EU to achieve its waste and
recycling objectives. But they
need to know what is expected
of them.
The
communication
also
addresses
the
needs
of
consumers and argues that there
is an information deficit. Is this
really the case? Is it the amount
of information that is lacking, or
the quality? FIEC suspects that
it is the latter and calls for this
to be tackled in the proposed
assessment framework.
This would help reduce
confusion and stimulate demand
for high performing buildings
that are energy and resource
efficient. Maybe once we achieve
this, we can start deciding
what we mean by sustainable
buildings.
ce
■
This article contains
information about FIEC’s draft
position on the Communication
on Resource Efficiency
Opportunities in the Building
Sector. At the time of writing, we
are consulting our members and
our final position is expected
to be published in September
2014.
FIEC believes it is
in the industry’s
interest to
conserve natural
and man-made
resources as
much as
possible
