2nd Working Group (WG2) meeting for the Resource Efficient...

2nd Working Group (WG2) meeting for the Resource Efficient

Buildings study to develop a common EU framework of building

environmental performance indicators

(Draft) minutes of the meeting

Wednesday 30th November 2016, 09:30 – 18:00

MCE Conference and Business Centre,

Rue de l'Aqueduc, 118 / Waterleidingsstraat 118

1050 Ixelles / Elsene, BELGIUM

2

Final agenda

Arrival and coffee 09:00 – 09:30

Start of the WG meeting 09:30

1. Welcome and introduction Kestutis Sadauskas, Director (Directorate B), DG ENV

2. Update on progress of the study, DG JRC

3. Presentation of consultation results and revised proposals

3.1 Structure of the framework and integration of a life cycle approach Followed by discussion

3.2 Proposed approach to reporting and comparability Followed by discussion

Coffee break 11:30 - 11:45

3.3 Life cycle environmental performance macro-objectives (1,2 and 3)

Points for clarification

3.4 Quality, performance and value macro-objectives (4,5 and 6)

Points for clarification

Lunch break 13:00 – 13:45

4. Introduction to the breakout sessions, DG JRC

5. Breakout session 1: Group discussions of individual macro-objectives and associated indicator proposals Facilitated by DG JRC and DG ENV

Feedback to plenary of each group discussion

Coffee break 15:30 – 15:40

6. Breakout session 2: Group discussions of individual macro-objectives and associated indicator proposals Facilitated by DG JRC and DG ENV

Feedback to plenary of each group discussion

7. Towards a common EU framework Open discussion and questions

8. Summing up and next steps Chair and Hugo-Maria Schally, Head of Unit B1, DG ENV

Close of the WG meeting 18:00

3

Attendance

European Commission

Registered stakeholders

1 Josefina LINDBLOM European Commission, DG ENV

2 Rasmus BOLDSEN European Commission, DG ENV

3 Manfred FUCHS European Commission, DG GROW

4 Linn JOHNSEN European Commission, DG ENER

5 Mauro CORDELLA Joint Research Centre, Unit B5

6 Nicholas DODD Joint Research Centre, Unit B5

7 Miguel GAMA CALDAS Joint Research Centre, Unit B5

8 Marzia TRAVERSO Joint Research Centre, Unit B5

9 Charikleia BAMPALOUKA DG EAC

1 Karen ALLACKER KU Leuven

2 John ANDERSON German Aerospace Center

3 Christian ARTELT HeidelbergCement

4 Susan ARUNDALE FIEC - The European Construction Industry Federation

5 Nicholas AVERY European Steel Association (EUROFER)

6 Sven BIENERT University of Regensburg- IRE|BS International Real Estate Business School

7 Marc BOSMANS Eurima

8 Anna BRAUNE DGNB e.V.

9 Patrick BROWN British Property Federation

10 Morten BUUS Danish Transport and Construction Agency

11 Emmanuelle CAUSSE International Union of Property Owners

12 Angelos CHARLAFTIS ePAPHOS ADVISORS TEAMWORK

13 Andrea CHARLSON HS2 Ltd.

14 Ana CUNHA CRIBELLIER DEERNS

15 Dieter DE LATHAUWER Ministry of Health and Environment

16 Helena DOS SANTOS GERVASIO Joint Research Centre

17 James DRINKWATER World Green Building Council

18 Francois DURIER CETIAT

19 Kristina EINARSSON National Board of Housing Building and Planning

20 Kurt Emil ERIKSEN Active House Alliance

21 Pascal EVEILLARD SAINT-GOBAIN

22 Thies GROTHE Zentraler Immobilien Ausschuss e.V. / German Property Federation

23 Harri HAKASTE European Institutions and other

24 Thomas HARRISON University of Dundee

25 Michael HIETE Ulm University

26 Ari ILOMÄKI Confederation of Finnish Construction Industries

27 hans JULIEN CENTRE SCIENTIFIQUE ET TECHNIQUE DU BATIMENT

28 Jessica KARHU Green Building Council Finland (official: GBC Suomi ry)

29 Miles KEEPING Deloitte

30 judit KIMPIAN Architects Council of Europe

31 Philippa MALPARTIDA Verdextra

32 Ricardo Filipe MESQUITA DA SILVA MATEUS University of Minho- Department of Civil Engineering

33 Andrea MORO iISBE Italia

34 Sylviane NIBEL Certivéa (CSTB group)

35 Oscar NIETO Construction Products Europe

36 Johanna ODE Housing Europe

37 Athina PAPAKOSTA Sturgis Carbon Profiling

38 Joris QUIK Public Institute for Health and Environment (RIVM)

39 Paula RIVAS HESSE Green Building Council España

40 Ann-Cathrin ROENSCH European Builders Confederation

41 Armando SILVA AFONSO ANQIP

42 Simon STURGIS Sturgis Carbon Profiling

43 Guy THOMPSON MPA The Concrete Centre

44 Zsolt TOTH RICS

45 Ighor VAN DE VYVER VITO

46 Etienne VIENOT Rhônalpénergie-Environnement

47 Margareta WAHLSTRÖM VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd

48 Lisa WASTIELS Belgian Building Research Institute

49 Alan YATES BRE Global

4

Apologies

1. Welcome and introduction

Kestutis Sadauskas (Director of Directorate B, DG Environment) acknowledged the importance that

input from stakeholders have had on the framework process so far, and how this will continue to be

key also for the finalisation of the work, and following implementation.

2. Update on progress of the study, DG JRC

The Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission provided a brief overview of the study

work programme. This included a summary of the work packages relating to the identification of the

indicators that are the subject of the Working Group 2 meeting.

3. Presentation of consultation results and revised proposals

3.1 Structure of the framework and integration of a life cycle approach

The JRC presented revised proposals for how 1) the framework of core indicators could be structured and 2) how a life cycle approach can be integrated into the framework. It was explained how the revised proposals reflected the results of the public consultation which ran from July to October 2016, as well as feedback from discussions with members of technical sub-groups 1 and 3.

The floor was then opened for participants to respond to specific questions posed in relation to the structure of the framework and integration of a life cycle approach.

The comments and views expressed by stakeholders have been aggregated as follows:

In selecting life cycle modules care needs to be taken to avoid distortions when calculating impact categories such as Global Warming Potential (GWP). The full life cycle is needed, as there is otherwise a risk that conclusions will lead to different actions. The use of hot spots should be used carefully to avoid discarding important aspects – facades and fit out where cited as hot spots that could be missed by a focus on structures or A1-3 (the 'product stage' from EN 15978) only.

The importance of defining the goal and the audience for the framework was underlined e.g. users, buyers, designers. What is the intention of the framework and what is the strategy? In relation to this, the metrics and the desired impact of each metric were considered important. This should be clearly defined at the beginning of the document and the entire document should be related to the goal and audience chosen. This will solve most of the challenges raised.

In general the proposals were felt to be clearer than they were before but help will be needed for people to use the framework and potential users will need to understand which database and tools to use. Good instructions should be elaborated for the potential users of the framework. The occupancy period should be a focus. At the moment one opinion was given that it reads as being orientated towards designers. Several stakeholders emphasised the need for the framework to provide orientation for the different potential end-users and how they can improve the sustainability of buildings. In addition, a view was expressed that more indicators relating to the use of the building and end users/occupiers of the building should be provided.

The JRC clarified that the intention of the framework is to engage the key stakeholders and actors along the typical project stages – investors, clients, designers, contractors, owners and end users/occupiers.

1 Frank HOVORKA CDC

2 Anne HYVÄRINEN National institute for Health and Welfare

3 Gernot TRITTHART Lafarge Zementwerke GmbH

5

The JRC also noted that it should be discussed during the day how the needs of these different potential users could influence the configuration of the framework.

The revised structure of the framework was generally considered to be good and now clearer, with

consistency ensured by embracing a full life cycle perspective. The overarching LCA reporting and

the assessment of 'life cycle scenarios' were seen as an improvement, although it was observed that

it should be given the possibility to report on the 'life cycle scenarios' as indicators i.e. reporting on

quantifiable metrics.

A stakeholder from a major building assessment scheme confirmed that they could work with the

proposed framework but that orientation to market needs will be fundamental. Several other

stakeholders involved with building assessment schemes expressed the need to reflect varying levels

of experience with LCA and to provide different end-users with orientation on how to use the

framework and for what purpose.

It was pointed out by one stakeholder that the implementation of such an LCA orientated

framework would be difficult in countries where LCA practices are not as developed. It was also felt

that the framework should be affordable and operational across all of Europe and provide a basic

entry level set of indicators manageable in all countries as well as a set of indicators at a more

advanced level.

A concern was expressed about oversimplification in relation to a life cycle approach. The indicators

will drive behaviour so it is important that aspects such as the 'life cycle scenarios' still have visibility.

In relation to the life cycle scenarios, it was also pointed out that more work is needed to develop

them because there could be competing objectives with potential trade-offs. There were some views

expressed that there was a confusion as to how the 'final performance and inventory flow' indicators

related to the LCA impact category indicators.

Specific concerns were expressed by several stakeholders about the risk of paying too much

attention to just environmental aspects and related to this the limited scope of the MO4 indicator

proposals. Occupation of a building and market needs were considered the most important issue.

For buyers of property, factors such as price, location and comfort are important and other factors

are further down the list.

It was thus recommended to increase the focus on buyer and occupier needs and on practical

aspects that are important for them. Possible aspects to address that were identified by several

stakeholders could include: indoor air quality, daylight availability, thermal and acoustic comfort. It

was noted in relation to these aspects that national legislation sets minimum performance

requirements for indoor air quality, daylighting, acoustic comfort etc. Another stakeholder felt that

the framework should focus on the designer, and also referred to an end-user comfort list.

In relation to health and comfort, the JRC explained that while indoor air quality was identified

because it has a number of direct links to EU policies, it would be more difficult at the moment to

include further indicators, although this can of course be discussed and/or integrated into the future

identification of further indicators. Thermal comfort is moreover addressed in MO5 on climate

change resilience.

To close the discussion, the JRC noted the need to orientate the indicators and supporting guidance

to different end users in a sort of 'universal' framework. This will have an influence on the approach

to take, which will have to be discussed further during the day.

6

3.2 Proposed approach to reporting and comparability

The proposal to address data quality was generally supported. However, it was felt by several

stakeholders that how this is addressed should be considered carefully to avoid it becoming too

complex. For example, it was pointed out the use of LCA methodologies for data quality assessment

would require reporting for each of the life cycle stages. The methodology for data quality

assessment would therefore need to be practical to use in order to support wide use.

The quality of the data used in LCAs is covered by the ISO standards series. The Ecoinvent data

quality assessment method was cited, but was felt to require significant effort to use it and that as a

result it is not generally used. According to the ISO 14040 series an independent review process

should additionally be carried out in order to ensure the quality of the assessment.

It will be important that there are databases of a good quality to accompany these guidelines and methods. One stakeholder emphasised that databases of main building elements at each country level will be important. It was moreover reported that other good LCI data sources exist for the construction sector with examples cited including Ecoinvent, Gabi and EPDs (various schemes). Initial support to perform LCA calculations could be for instance be provided by listing generic LCIA characterisation factors for the most important materials used in different countries. The example of the sustainable building tool in Portugal was given, which provides data for the most important building elements. It was considered important to recognise that there can be a significant variation in results depending on the data used. The experience from producing EPDs was given as an example. Whilst generic data is important in order to encourage more stakeholders to engage with LCA it is also important to encourage better data to be made available/used. It was felt by one stakeholder that manufacturers will respond with product specific data and will control the quality of this data. Examples exist of how to encourage data of an improved quality to be used/collected. One approach being used is in France where generic and default data is provided for simplified reporting. Penalty factors are then applied to the default data to ensure it is always more conservative. A view was expressed, however, that supporting the use of generic or default data sources goes against the ISO 14040 series which gives a preference to the use of specific data sources. Many stakeholders considered that data quality requirements may change over time. If we want to encourage better data quality, the framework could be used to create the demand. However, in order to encourage reporting, and to make it easier to work with the framework, lower quality may have to be accepted initially. But an important question is whether it will be for internal or external reporting? A high level of reliability is, for example, important for publication. Third party and critical review will in this case be important to ensure quality. Perfection was felt to be something that could come over time. Overall, many stakeholders considered it more important to promote the adoption of life cycle thinking in the EU and to encourage a broad audience of professionals to start using LCA rather than applying too strict and difficult rules. The basic level of ambition for the indicators and the data used to calculate them therefore still needs to be determined. The example of the simplified and detailed rules laid down by the new voluntary GWP reporting scheme in France was referred to. In relation to the extent to which such rules might be laid down by the EU framework, it was pointed out that the building assessment schemes set their own rules, so the framework needs to work in a way that is compatible with these and supports the market.

7

Just as for the framework as a whole, it was underlined by a number of stakeholders that its main

purpose should be clarified – is it for reporting or comparability? Is it to drive better building designs

or to drive better documented buildings? Resolving these questions is particularly important if we

want to compare results and to set data quality rules. The following two points were made:

1. Comparability would not be necessary if the framework aims at driving designers to improve the sustainability of buildings.

2. Strict rules should instead be set in case the framework primarily aims at comparing different buildings / life cycle stages.

There were however opposing views on the level at which there should be comparability and the

extent to which this should be a key objective of the framework. It was moreover emphasised by

several stakeholders that comparability should be based on calculation for all life cycle stages.

On one hand, several views were expressed against comparability at EU or national level. Comparability was not considered to be fair because of geographical, technical and functional conditions that cannot/should not be fixed. Moreover, if various parameters were fixed in order to ensure comparability it may require reporting twice – at a general level according to comparability rules and at a specific level to reflect as accurately as possible the project's characteristics. For several stakeholders it was considered more important to encourage the sector to make progress by establishing a general framework with the same common indicators that can be used across the EU. Comparability would in this case be secondary. On the other hand, several stakeholders emphasised that comparisons at EU level were the objective of the framework and that it is important that it works at this level. The indicators should be kept at this high level to avoid having to provide too much detail on different influencing factors. The result of a survey carried out by CESBA was highlighted, with the lack of comparability between the 60 different assessment tools in use across the EU being cited. This makes for a "complicated business environment". Common metrics should therefore be strictly defined in order to support comparability and a common goal of improved building performance. In contrast, it was also emphasised that some building assessment schemes 'contextualise' or 'regionalise' their criteria – for example, to reflect national/regional/local factors in a Member State - so it was seen as difficult to create a universal tool. A ‘graduated’ approach could be fine but it will be important to relate that to what is achievable in specific markets so as to avoid the use of only minimum requirements. Reporting based on comparisons of market segments (on a ‘like for like’ or functional unit basis) could be supported, but mirror or reference buildings were not favoured by some stakeholders as they supported too much variation across the EU. During the discussions the JRC tried to formulate a way forward from the different views. For

example, a general objective of the framework could be to ensure transparent reporting on a

common set of indicators and to support comparability at national level. However, the objective of

supporting design optimisation should also be supported, but with care to avoid encouraging

reporting on two sets of results – one general for comparison and one specific that is 'regionalised'.

A balance was suggested to be possible to achieve by providing guidance together with examples of

how to use the indicators as a tool for the purpose of design/performance optimisation. A consensus

on the issue of comparability was not, however, reached during the discussions.

Overall, and as a conclusion to the session, many stakeholders felt that a high level of adoption of easier indicators was better than a low level of adoption of stricter indicators. The fixing of a framework of the same indicators across the EU was also important. It was considered that if the

8

approach is too strict this may limit adoption. This also applied to data quality issues. Although there would be a lack of initial precision, at least everyone will be moving in the right direction. Reference was made to the need for an approach that is ambitious and encourages progress.

3.3 Life Cycle environmental performance macro-objectives (1,2 and 3)

The JRC presented the revised proposals for MO1 (Greenhouse gas emissions along the buildings life

cycle), MO2 (Resource efficient material life cycles) and MO3 (Efficient use of water resources).

Stakeholders were then invited to ask questions of clarification to ensure they were clear on the basis

for the afternoon breakout discussions.

With regard to Macro-objective 1, stakeholders commented that:

The difference between primary and final operational energy was not clear. JRC clarified that final operational energy relates to metered energy use e.g. electricity for lighting.

Primary energy demand is a key aspect of the analysis and should be extended to include the contribution of construction materials and report on the split between renewables and non- renewables. How the indicator will take into account both the supply and demand for energy in the building will need to be addressed. JRC clarified that the current proposal relates only to primary energy in the use phase with reporting for renewable and non-renewable energy consumption. The calculation method is proposed to be the new EN 52001 standard, which accounts for supply and demand.

It should be clarified what sits behind the GWP impact category indicator – it seems that all the life cycle stages are no longer reported on. JRC clarified that all life cycle stages shall be reported on for GWP.

It was not clear what ADP stands for and if this also covers renewable contributions of energy as from wind. JRC clarified that it stands for Abiotic Resource Depletion Potential and relates to both the flow and scarcity of materials. The contribution of renewable energy would be addressed for on/near site generation within the operational primary energy consumption.

Due to the uncertainty of the background data, it was considered that risk aspects must be assessed for all environmental indicators. Reference was made to the need to avoid investment in 'stranded assets' i.e. those that may no longer be needed at some point in the future.


Waste is a good indicator which should appropriately cover also recycled materials. JRC clarified that this indicator has now been aligned with those specified in EN 15978. Materials sent for recycling is therefore included.

Module D of EN standard 15978, which addresses 'benefits and loads beyond the system boundary', should always be included JRC clarified that the proposal is to encourage reporting on Module D and alongside it consideration of design for deconstruction. The terminology of the latter has been updated to address deconstruction, recyclability and re-use in line with stakeholder comments.


The difference between operational and net use of water was not clear. JRC clarified that operational relates to life cycle stage B7 and that 'net use' refers to water use in all life cycle stages and at the point of supply/metering.

9

Technologies for the recycle of water exist. JRC clarified that in the first proposals the recycling of water, as well as the use of rain water, were considered as a 'focus area for attention' with the use of these alternative water sources to be deducted from mains (fresh) water use. There could still be an option for a second indicator to quantify the use of alternative water sources.

Clarifications are needed to differentiate between the consumption and supply of water resources. JRC noted the comment and that they had used terms that have different meanings i.e. fresh water v. drinking water.

3.4 Quality, performance and value macro-objectives

The JRC presented the revised proposals for MO4 (Health and comfortable spaces), MO5 (Resilience

to climate change) and MO6 (Optimised life cycle cost and value). Stakeholders were then invited to

ask questions of clarification to ensure they were clear on the basis for the afternoon breakout

discussions.

Stakeholders commented that:

The 'green factor' can also have an indirect influence on the climate inside the building. The question was asked as to why the performance aspects of external building materials, such as reflective materials, are not addressed as well? JRC clarified that aspects relating to the building design and material specification can more readily be taken into account in modelling of thermal performance. It is to be discussed whether the same can be said about green factor aspects.

10

4. Introduction to the breakout sessions

The JRC provided a brief overview of how the two ensuing breakout sessions would work, with participants

in each discussion group to discuss for 45 minutes before then feeding back the results of their discussions to

the plenary.

Each group was asked to discuss the overall suitability of the revised indicator proposals, before then

considering the specific questions set out in the supporting discussion paper circulated in advance of the

meeting. If there were to be time a general question on how the use and implementation of the indicators

for that macro-objective had also been added.

The key points to arise from each discussion group, together with the accompanying discussions that took

place in the plenary after each breakout session, are reported under agenda items 5 and 6.

5. Breakout session 1: Group discussions of individual macro-objectives and associated indicator

proposals

5.1 Results of the breakout session group 1 discussions

Macro-objective 2: Resource efficient material life cycles (three discussion tables)

Key points from the discussion:

There are overlaps between the different indicators which can lead to some confusion. Less metrics covering more aspects should be possible.

The Abiotic Resource Depletion Potential (ADP) LCIA method is not robust enough and resource efficiency also covers other aspects. The Bill of Materials (BoM) should be related to all LCA indicators included in the EN 15978 Standard, which should in turn be reported for the full life cycle of a building.

The service lifetime of a building is an important parameter to report although it is not clear if/how this should be reported in relation to the BoM.

For transparency reasons the Bill of Materials (BoM) should be accessible as supporting information, providing a listing of the type of materials, their mass and their respective lifetimes.

The reference basis to which indicators are normalised should be consistent for all indicators. Other normalisations than m2 could be added for the purposes of reporting, such as for instance the number of persons living in a building. Since the number of persons living in a building is not known at the design stage, the number of bedrooms or bed spaces could also be used as a proxy. The additional reporting normalisation will depend on the type/use of the building.

Table 1

Facilitator: Mauro Cordella, JRC

Johanna ODE Housing Europe

James DRINKWATER World Green Building Council

Margareta WAHLSTRÖM VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd

Nicholas AVERY European Steel Association (EUROFER)

Karen ALLACKER KU Leuven

John ANDERSON German Aerospace Center

Athina PAPAKOSTA Sturgis Carbon Profiling

Harri HAKASTE European Institutions and other

Andrea MORO iISBE Italia

Susan ARUNDALE FIEC - The European Construction Industry Federation

angelos CHARLAFTIS ePAPHOS ADVISORS TEAMWORK

11

Waste flows should report both materials and their possible use for energy recovery. Moreover, it should be investigated if backfilling must be reported as a separate waste flow or included among the recycled materials.

The mass flow of recycled, reused and other materials composing the BoM provides basic information. More advanced indicators require the application of LCA considerations. A differentiation of indicators based on their complexity was proposed as follows:

- In a 1st phase, it could be required to report on basic indicators and leave the reporting of more advanced indicators on a voluntary basis.

- In a 2nd phase, all indicators should be reported. It was generally agreed to be ambitious and go beyond the current practices. Existing data gaps can be filled and harmonisation of reporting would allow for driving the building sector towards improved sustainability. Support should, however, be provided both in terms of guidelines and calculation tools.

Apart from the qualitative description of assessment scenarios, quantitative parameters could be used to measure the adaptability of a building, such as for instance recyclability indices or the amount of additional materials needed. However, it was remarked that adaptability also covers qualitative aspects that cannot be quantified easily, such as the improved flexibility of a building configuration.

Examples for shaping indicators on LCA and adaptability are for instance offered by DGNB, BREEAM and the SB Tool.


The group was quite homogenous in the views expressed during the discussion.

The entire group agreed on the need to adopt a life cycle approach for assessing the resource efficiency of a building. They also agreed on using Abiotic Resource Depletion Potential (ADP) as a midpoint indicator because currently it represents the current state of the art, but its limits must be clearly stated in the framework.

More than one of the participants underlined that even if ADP is commonly used as an indicator to measure resource efficiency, it doesn’t really fit to the building sector, as no characterisation factors for building materials are available yet e.g. there are no characterisation factors for the cement.

It was suggested to clearly write in the framework that ADP should be used as the current state of the art, but that it addresses mainly metal materials and not minerals. Moreover, it should also be noted that, in the future, better indicators may become available and could be used to address resource efficiency.

Table 2

Facilitator: Marzia Traverso, JRC

Gernot TRITTHART Lafarge Zementwerke GmbH

Dieter DE LATHAUWER Ministry of Health and Environment

Andrea CHARLSON HS2 Ltd.

hans JULIEN CENTRE SCIENTIFIQUE ET TECHNIQUE DU BATIMENT

Joris QUIK Public Institute for Health and Environment (RIVM)

Oscar NIETO Construction Products Europe

Christian ARTELT HeidelbergCement

Helena DOS SANTOS GERVASIO Joint Research Centre

Michael HIETE Ulm University

Marc BOSMANS Eurima

Ighor VAN DE VYVER VITO\Energyville

12

Material Input Per unit of Service (MIPS) was mentioned as a possible option to measure resource efficiency. A MIPS database exists, as developed by the Wuppertal Institute. Other participants did not agree with using MIPS as it is not commonly used and it would mean proposing a new methodology that has not been scientifically approved. The current framework should only suggest methodologies that are currently used without introducing new approaches or methods.

A long discussion took place on the Bill of Materials (BoM) indicator proposal. Its use as an indicator was questioned. It was underlined that it should not be reported based on kg/unit as there is a risk is that the value will be summed up. It was underlined that the BoM represents data that is used as an input to the LCA but are not suitable as indicators in their own right.

It was considered that the bill of materials should remain but only to be presented in the supporting materials in order to guarantee a transparent calculation of the LCA midpoint indicators. Moreover, the BoM should be reported for the whole building and not normalised to m2.

All participants agreed that the service life of a building product should be reported. They also affirmed that these values are commonly reported in EPDs.

The construction and demolition waste indicator(s) were supported. The reported units should be kg or volume per the entire building.


Clarity on the goal/objective of using the indicators was emphasised as being critical. It was understood that at a policy level it is to use less resources and to drive creation of a more circular economy.

The proposal for reporting on the ‘design and service life bill of materials’ was felt to be a blunt indicator and the value of it to drive performance improvement was questioned. It would probably only drive life span extension for structures and this is not the only type of improvement that it was considered important to drive. Adaptability and recyclability were emphasised.

It was also pointed out that the BoM indicator proposal didn’t take account of the use of recycled or reused materials. It was considered, however, that there can be trade-offs associated with using recycled materials, and that these can only be captured by calculating a number of LCA impact categories e.g. GWP.

It was highlighted that the ‘abiotic resource depletion’ (ADP) impact category addresses both mass and scarcity of materials, so is more appropriate.

In order to help people calculate the ADP indicator some simple support tools are being developed that design teams could use. They can then feed the data they have already (i.e. bills of materials) into the calculations.

Table 3

Facilitator: Nicholas Dodd, JRC

Anna BRAUNE DGNB e.V.

Philippa MALPARTIDA Verdextra

Guy THOMPSON MPA The Concrete Centre

Jessica KARHU Green Building Council Finland (official: GBC Suomi ry)

Sylviane NIBEL Certivéa (CSTB group)

Kristina EINARSSON National Board of Housing Building and Planning

Alan YATES BRE Global

Lavinda KOK RIVM

Lisa WASTIELS Belgian Building Research Institute

Ari ILOMÄKI Confederation of Finnish Construction Industries

Thomas HARRISON University of Dundee

13

There was some scepticism as to how useful even ADP would be as a tool to drive performance improvement – "no buildings are designed to reduce ADP".

In relation to the value of focussing on ‘hot spot’ building elements, it was commented that this approach would mainly focus attention on the ‘massive’ materials. It was considered that in general these had a long life and that other parts/elements of a building were subject to more frequent replacement and should be considered. In practice it was pointed out that very few clients ask for 100% of a bill of materials to be looked at.

The construction and demolition waste indicator, now aligned with the EN 15978 indicators, was considered suitable. However, although considered important to include the demolition of old buildings and the potential for reuse of elements of them, a note should be provided emphasising that benefits from a previous life cycle (the previous building’s Module D) could not be included in calculation of impact categories/a full LCA because this would lead to double counting. DGNB’s rules on double counting were suggested as being a good example to review. It is important that it supports the EU policy aim that by 2020 70% of non-hazardous construction and demolition waste shall be recovered. An important part of doing this is ensuring that building products at their end of life can be recycled/are recyclable.

It was emphasised that regardless of environmental considerations, decisions on whether to demolish a building are usually made based on its fitness in the property market. From a practical point of view the end of life stage and Module D were considered to be an unknown at the design stage and at the beginning of the building’s life.

The question was asked whether the potentially hazardous/dangerous content of building materials was considered. It was confirmed that this is not currently part of the proposal. The extent to which information was available was questioned as there may not be a good present knowledge of potential future hazards. The archiving of information for future reference was proposed as a way of recording/passing on this type of information.

The general view on the proposal for life cycle scenarios was that they would be useful tools and that this fitted well with the approach to reporting described in EN 15978.

It was, moreover, suggested to look at GRI reporting, as this looks at a 50 year life span and requests reporting on all major decisions during this service life.

When the group was asked whether it would be better, given that they felt the life cycle scenarios to be very important, to instead use some form of semi-quantifiable method to derive an indicator score for adaptability or design for deconstruction, the general view was that it was more appropriate to report on how they had been addressed as part of the design/value engineering process. When prompted as to how this would look in terms of reporting, a structured approach was suggested, potentially linked to identification of which building elements had been examined/changed under the scenario. It was emphasised, however, that the outcomes from these scenarios is still hypothetical so it may not represent the final performance.

The deconstruction tools developed by DGNB were briefly described. They address, firstly, ease of extraction of different materials/elements and then also their recyclability. They are considered to be strategies to reduce primary resource use.

14

Macro-objective 4: Healthy and comfortable spaces – initial focus: indoor air quality


Who is the target group for these indicators (designers, tendering authorities, investors or

users/occupiers) and what will be reported? For designers and tendering authorities VOC emissions

make more sense, while for investors and occupiers other (comfort) indicators might be more

interesting.

The focus should be more on the end-user: What do they consider as healthy and comfortable? Are

VOC emissions really more in their mind than getting enough daylight or how warm or how loud it

is in the office/apartment?

Proposed way forward: while indoor air quality could be declared via VOC emissions,

somewhere there should be somewhere a 'placeholder' indicating that daylight, acoustics

and thermal comfort are relevant but will be covered at a later stage.

Focus on the occupation phase: Testing indoor air quality only after the finalisation of the building

(but without occupants) provides a rather 'artificial' snapshot of the actual indoor air quality.

Proposed way forward: A three-step-approach:

1. Source control: data on product emissions;

2. Check indoor air after finalisation of construction works (pre-occupancy);

3. Check indoor air after the occupants have moved in 1.

Ventilation rate/air exchange rate should be included in reporting on the design and in-situ

measurement of indoor air quality;

Data quality might be low at the beginning but this would encourage stakeholders to focus on

specific aspects of indoor air quality and the data quality will then improve with experience.

Proposed way forward: Even if the data quality is not very high at the beginning, develop a

step-by-step approach which allows for easier reporting at the beginning before then

moving to more ambitious levels at a later stage;

There is a need for a framework that positions the data collected in relation to specific indoor air

scenarios and the associated risks to occupant health. Currently, the national approaches are

focussing mostly on source control, not on specific indoor air scenarios. Who will develop them?

Link the reporting (format) as much as possible to the declarations of thermal performance (under

the EPBD) to use the 'recognition factor' for stakeholders to ensure easier uptake and use of the

MO4 indicators.

Potential additional indicators: humidity and water quality were proposed as proxies for conditions

that may favour mould growth;

1 the idea to have constant air quality monitoring came up but was not pushed forward, because of the potential costs for owners and occupants.

Table 4

Facilitator: Manfred Fuchs, DG GROW

PASCAL EVEILLARD SAINT-GOBAIN

Miles KEEPING Deloitte

judit KIMPIAN Architects Council of Europe

Francois DURIER CETIAT

Paula RIVAS HESSE Green Building Council España

Kurt Emil ERIKSEN Active House Alliance

15

Macro-objective 5: Resilience to climate change – initial focus: protection of occupier health and thermal

comfort


In tackling climate change, there are two main vectors: adaptation and mitigation. It should be made clear that this MO is focussing only on adaptation, i.e., the consequences of climate change and how to deal with them, not how to prevent climate change. This might entail a change in the name of the MO for clarification.

Moreover, even focusing only on adaptation, overheating and overcooling are just a small fraction of all the consequences that climate change can have on a building, the most obvious of the “neglected” ones being flood resistance. This should also be made clear and might also influence the “new” name of the MO.

With regards to the indicator proposal, it is not enough to state what will be the percentage of time out of range of the comfort conditions as it might be unacceptable to allow the building to remain outside that range. Probably remedial actions to bring back the building to within the comfort range will be required and the consequences of those actions should be taken in consideration.

Dynamic simulation is still quite expensive and, therefore, aimed mainly at high end, high profile buildings. Consideration must be given to who will use it and who will pay for it. Therefore, the use of dynamic simulation should not be required. However, it should not be discouraged either in order not to hinder a progression towards better tools.

The previous point acknowledges that some buildings will be simulated using dynamical models while other will use steady-state tools. This will obviously create a comparability problem. However, it was considered that, at this point, comparability is not the main issue to be tackled and instead the focus should be on promoting tools that allow for better building design and management.

Regarding the future weather files to be used in the simulations, it was acknowledged that ideally good quality files based on reliable forecast models should be used. However, these should not be required in a strict manner as this could become too prescriptive. It was accepted that the pragmatic way to go forward is to use the best weather file available, be it a good quality forecast or based on heat wave data. This, of course, would again raise a question on comparability but, as argued before, at this stage that is not the main concern.

The importance of green infrastructure and façade elements for the building thermal performance was acknowledged but it was considered that there is no need to consider these issues on their own since their effects will be reflected in the simulation results.

Table 5

Facilitator: Miguel Gama Caldas, JRC

Simon STURGIS Sturgis Carbon Profiling

Armando SILVA AFONSO ANQIP

Ana CUNHA CRIBELLIER DEERNS

Thies GROTHE Zentraler Immobilien Ausschuss e.V. / German Property Federation

Ann-Cathrin ROENSCH European Builders Confederation

16

Macro-objective 6: Optimised life cycle cost and value


It was considered that the result of the public consultation was to some extent biased by the influence of some respondent types.

It was highlighted that value is not an environmental indicator, although the environmental performance of a building can have an impact on value.

Improvements of the environmental performance of a building does not automatically result in a higher valuation of a building, it is all about how the market reacts. A huge part of the value is not influenced by the environmental performance.

The current text mixes different aspects, it needs to distinguish between the life cycles of the investment/investor and the life cycle of the building itself. The current text is confusing.

The framework for the MO should focus on LCC (the building life cycle). Investors will then pick up whatever they find useful from this framework, we should not try to prescribe anything for them. We need to be clear with what we mean by discount rates, as different rates are used depending on if you are an investor or if you use it to calculate the Net Present Value (NPV).

Reference was made to a Danish system for LCC and how certain discount rates are used for the NPV calculation. It was suggested to look into this example. There was a general feeling that discount rates should be left open.

Inflation should be included.

As for narrowing down the focus to building element hot spots, this is very much country and context specific (largely depending on climate), and the Commission should thus not set any rules on this.

In the overall LCC calculation we should include the cost of all building elements plus the integrated systems, while for maintenance, one could focus on external elements (facades, roofs) plus again the integrated systems.

A reliability rating is needed for different indicators, especially if we allow lower quality data (as per the discussion during the morning). The value-related indicator proposal 6.2 as such may, however, not be needed.

It will however be difficult to find a way to develop such a reliability rating so that it allows users to work with it in a time-efficient way. Transparency is already a tricky question within many Member States, and now we are talking about "across the EU".

Table 6

Facilitator: Josefina Lindblom, DG ENV

Sven BIENERT University of Regensburg- IRE|BS

Zsolt Toth RICS

Patrick BROWN British Property Federation

Morten BUUS Danish Transport and Construction Agency

Ricardo Filipe MESQUITA DA SILVA MATEUSUniversity of Minho- Department of Civil Engineering

Virginie SANCHO Envirobat BDM

17

5.2 Discussion points from the plenary following the breakout session 1 feedback

Macro-objective 2: Resource efficient material life cycles (three discussion tables)

JRC asked whether a common view could be reached on how to report on life cycle scenarios under MO2.

What direction should be taken - quantifiable or descriptive?

It was asked by some stakeholders whether there is room in the framework for supporting or enabling

indicators – for performances that cannot be measured? Maybe there should be scope for such non-

performance indicators. The life cycle scenarios should not be quantifiable as such – but should provide a

basis for using LCA to perform quantifications.

A supporting view was expressed that just because the reporting includes a number that doesn’t mean it is

the right thing to do. We need to be clear on what we want to achieve. The question was asked how much

of the work that has been done on quantifiable indicators can pick up on project processes and occupant

feedback.

An opposing view was expressed that it is important to be able to quantify in order to compare. There must

be some way of quantifying in a scientific way. Quantification is good as it draws attention to an issue and

can drive improvement. Also, you will be able to see a link between design decisions and the results. It was

pointed out that with the life cycle scenarios, we must first qualify and make assumptions.

With regard to the inventory flow-based indicators, these are quantifiable but not comparable – so they

can be dangerous. We need to be careful, especially if they are published.

It was highlighted that it is the performance of the resource that indicates how efficiently it is used – it is

therefore about an incremental reduction in impacts. This is a question of relative performance vs.

absolute performance.


Concern was again expressed about the scope of the MO. There will need to be clear statement on

potential future indicators. In addition, it will be important to use user/occupier feedback to provide

indications as to whether occupants were satisfied with the building.

Indicators for humidity and water quality were proposed as proxies for conditions that may favour mould

growth.

Macro-objective 5: Resilience to climate change – initial focus: protection of occupier health and thermal

comfort

It was queried as to why the name of the MO should be changed because of a focus on only one

issue (thermal comfort) and not on the whole topic. In response JRC summarized that the group

came to that view because the name indicates that we want more than we deliver (at the moment).

The question was asked as to whether it could be moved to healthy and comfortable spaces? In

response it was pointed out that then it would not be possible to include other issues under the MO.

It was considered that it needs to be made clear that in the future the indicator set could be expanded.

18

It was suggested that maybe reference should be made to “risk for overheating” instead of thermal

comfort. This is also the case because we are not really talking about thermal comfort with this indicator.

An opposing view was however that if we rename the macro-objective, maybe there is a risk that it is not

“as attractive”. So maybe the solution is still just to make it clear that the ambition is to eventually cover

more aspects of resilience to climate change (adaptation).

Macro-objective 6: Optimised life cycle cost and value

It was considered by one stakeholder that "it all comes down to life cycle cost". In terms of the time horizon

for indicator proposal 6.1, it should be the same as for reporting on midpoints indicators and (overall) LCA.

19

6. Breakout session 2: Group discussions of individual macro-objectives and associated indicator

proposals

6.1 Results of the breakout session 2 group discussions

Macro-objective 1: Greenhouse gas emissions along the buildings life cycle (three discussion tables)


Global Warming Potential associated with operational energy use should also be reported in order to understand the contribution of materials. It would be even better to be more ambitious and report on both primary energy and GWP for the whole life cycle.

Embodied energy and embodied CO2eq are indeed important factors for the comparison of buildings since energy savings in the use phase is often achieved through actions at the material level. Optimal points exist between the two.

If the framework refers only to new/refurbished buildings, then the focus is on the design stage, when different energy contributions can be calculated. During the occupation stage it would be impossible to split between different energy contributions. This goes back to the importance of defining who will be the final user of the framework. Moreover, operational energy use depends on the system installed when the building is constructed.

The reporting should be split into life cycle stages and the renewable and non-renewable contributions to primary energy use. In case renewable energy generation systems (such as solar photovoltaics) are present, this should not be reported as operational energy but be included in module D

In order to enhance comparability, the indicators should be based on best assumptions of today's information and not try to predict what will happen in the future based on inaccurate projections

Characterisation factors must be country specific and can refer to implementation of the EPBD. It was reported that the EU Voluntary Certification Scheme (VCS) proposals are based on average European factors.

The use of dynamic simulations should not be promoted. These simulations are more accurate but they would undermine comparability of results due to their variability and uncertainty. It is recommended to instead build on national regulations, which are largely based on steady-state simulations.

Strict rules are needed for defining the system boundaries of a building. Examples of how to simplify the LCA calculations are for instance provided in DGNB, SB Tool and Elodie. Comparability would be ensured but these types of LCA tools could not form part of entry level reporting since they can be a burden for people not experienced with LCA.

Table 1

Facilitator: Mauro Cordella, JRC

Johanna ODE Housing Europe

PASCAL EVEILLARD SAINT-GOBAIN

Sven BIENERT University of Regensburg- IRE|BS

Nicholas AVERY European Steel Association (EUROFER)

Karen ALLACKER KU Leuven

John ANDERSON German Aerospace Center

Athina PAPAKOSTA Sturgis Carbon Profiling

Harri HAKASTE European Institutions and other

Patrick BROWN British Property Federation

Ana CUNHA CRIBELLIER DEERNS

Ricardo Filipe MESQUITA DA SILVA MATEUS University of Minho- Department of Civil Engineering

20

Two options are included in DGNB: carrying-out a full LCA with a 5% cut-off rule or a simplified LCA covering 80-90% of materials. The SB Tool sets a cut-off rule on materials of 10% by volume, plus the consideration of machinery and equipment.

Two main simplification strategies can be defined: focusing on main elements or on main materials as entry level. However, simplification should not lead to the exclusion of important contributions such as the building envelope, integrated systems, machinery and equipment. A link to the BoM is however necessary. Moreover, it is important to cover all the life cycle stages, although some could be less relevant (e.g. A4, A5, C1)

Benchmarking is not considered fundamental, it would be sufficient to set targets.

Data gaps exist which must be filled.


The entire group agreed that LCA should be used as the basis for the approach for both GWP and energy consumption.

The necessity to report the energy consumption at the operational level together with the embodied energy of the materials was underlined. It is particular important to avoid moving impacts from the use phase to the production of materials e.g. insulating materials have higher embodied energy. The consideration of energy consumption along the lifecycle is therefore important to assess the trade-offs between energy consumption in the use phase and embodied energy in the production stage and replacement cycles.

It was also underlined that once we push towards a life cycle approach, providing information on GWP and primary energy does not require additional efforts for the user. In fact, to calculate the GWP, we need the data input for energy consumption as well.

Equipment has to be considered in the assessment.

Energy consumption has to be simulated as well as monitored (metered) in real cases. The simulated data can often be more reliable than the measured one – e.g. during the crisis period in the South of Europe heating and climate systems may in some cases have been switched off to reduce energy consumption.

The use of dynamic simulation was pushed by some participants. It was felt that it should be incentivised in particular because it is the only option to evaluate smart building and future innovations. It was underlined as well that if we push for higher quality of data inputs we should push as well for having higher quality in the results and this can be achieved with dynamic simulations.

The group also proposed to address some broader points (e.g. a recommendation to report on both energy consumption and embodied energy) in a more general part of the framework description at

Table 2

Facilitator: Marzia Traverso, JRC

Gernot TRITTHART Lafarge Zementwerke GmbH

Miles KEEPING Deloitte

Andrea CHARLSON HS2 Ltd.

hans JULIEN CENTRE SCIENTIFIQUE ET TECHNIQUE DU BATIMENT

Oscar NIETO Construction Products Europe

Christian ARTELT HeidelbergCement

Helena DOS SANTOS GERVASIO Joint Research Centre

Michael HIETE Ulm University

Kurt Emil ERIKSEN Active House Alliance

Ighor VAN DE VYVER VITO\Energyville

Morten BUUS Danish Transport and Construction Agency

21

the beginning of the document and not under the macro-objective itself. It should be there as guideline on how to implement LCA.


There was a request for clarification as to why operational energy use had been separated from life cycle GWP. It was emphasised that design decisions to reduce operational energy have impacts on embodied consequences – akin to "capex v. opex". This is why it is important to report on all life cycle stages, so that the relationships between them can be understood. An example was cited of metal louvres used to shade a building which had high embodied CO2 emissions.

In relation to the value of focussing on ‘hot spot’ building elements, it was commented that it is better to present the whole picture so that there is an awareness of the consequences of decisions. This would also avoid the potential for distortions. Building fit-outs were cited as a good example, as they can become, over many years, as the production stage as important when added up. EN 15978 handles this aspect in a different way, with rules on cut-off levels, dependant on the overall contribution of building elements to overall impacts.

Reference was made, however, to creating some form of ‘entry level’ for professionals. This was considered to be a matter of education, whilst also encouraging those who want to do more. This could be done by relating different aspects of the building to relevant disciplines – e.g. architect, structural engineer, services engineer.

The issue of data availability and quality can also be a significant. It was considered important to include all elements of the building in order to drive the building product supply chain to bring forward better data and produce EPDs.

The example of France was discussed, where GWP reporting is now being encouraged by a voluntary label and will later on then be required through regulation. Those wishing to report can follows two routes – ‘simplified’ or ‘detailed’. The reporting has been set up in a way that default data is provided to support users but if used instead of generic or primary data, they constitute a penalty because the values are inflated with greater associated impacts.

The use of kWh/m2 as the unit of reporting for operational primary energy consumption was discussed. This was supported in general because it reflects the metric highlighted in the EPBD (recast) for Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs) and Near Zero Energy buildings, and is generally accepted across Member States. However, other units of normalisation, such as by occupation or function, are more accurate as metrics to measure resource efficiency. For example, a large house with only 1-2 occupants using a large amount of energy can, using m2 as the normalisation, perform better than smaller house with the same amount of occupants using less energy. It can therefore introduce distortions.

Clarity was needed on what final energy refers to – does it mean measured energy and what is read from utility bills? It was clarified by JRC that it does indeed mean what appears on the utility bill

Table 3

Facilitator: Nicholas Dodd, JRC

Simon STURGIS Sturgis Carbon Profiling

Francois DURIER CETIAT

Jessica KARHU Green Building Council Finland (official: GBC Suomi ry)

Sylviane NIBEL Certivéa (CSTB group)

Kristina EINARSSON National Board of Housing Building and Planning

Thies GROTHE Zentraler Immobilien Ausschuss e.V. / German Property Federation

Lavinda KOK RIVM

Lisa WASTIELS Belgian Building Research Institute

Ari ILOMÄKI Confederation of Finnish Construction Industries

Ann-Cathrin ROENSCH European Builders Confederation

22

without being converted into primary energy consumption. It was emphasised that the different final energy consumptions should not be added up, but instead reported separately.

It was emphasised that reporting on operational energy consumption should be according to the new EN standard (EN 52001), which supports both calculated and measured performance.

The issue of whether to accommodate both steady state and dynamic calculation methods in the reporting for operational energy consumption was discussed briefly. The view was that both should be permitted. It was also highlighted that moving to dynamic simulation doesn’t necessarily mean that the gap between calculated and actual performance is reduced.

Macro-objective 3: Efficient use of water resources


It was asked that the term potable water be used (as opposed to fresh water)

The energy invested to deliver water to the user and then to use water (to pump water, to heat water, etc), is another point of interest.

In terms of which of the existing calculation methods to base the indicator on, it was considered that if a method provides consistency (which seems to be the case for UK and Portugal calculation methods), the framework should apply the principles of the method(s) that already work. A practical point was made that there is no criticism from building users in buildings where low-flow fittings are installed and used.

It was considered that there should be a normalised approach taking into account occupation, and that this should be based at a regional level.

In housing, the normalisation of calculation results is linked to the number of bed spaces. For offices, national building regulations indicate the maximum workers/m2.

Data to adjust the reporting to regional consumption patterns was considered to exist and this should therefore not be a problem.

Water scarcity was considered to be a highly regional matter even within individual Member States.

In terms of the extent to which grey and rain water should be taken into account, it was considered that they are important and as a sense of direction, it should be indicated that all of this should be "done" eventually. But it was questioned whether it was necessary at this point in time to report on such flows. It would probably be enough now to tick a box to say if you have used grey water or rain water. Later on, figures can be required to quantify these flows.

The cost of water can be an incentive to reduce consumption, but the cost varies greatly, even within one Member State. Facilitating the reporting of grey and rain water (by just asking for the tick in a box, or not) would incentivise use of the indicator.

There can be financial incentives to install low water using fittings and meters. In response to the (former) Code for Sustainable Homes in the UK, many newly built projects required low flow fittings, and this worked for quite a while. Portugal has a very similar system in place and it works well. Could we look at what made/makes these schemes function well?

It was pointed out that 'embodied water' is not necessarily potable water, meaning a lot of embodied water is not captured with "net use of fresh water". Construction product manufacturers

Table 4

Facilitator: Josefina Lindblom, DG ENV

Thomas HARRISON University of Dundee

Joris QUIK Public Institute for Health and Environment (RIVM)

Armando SILVA AFONSO ANQIP

Guy THOMPSON MPA The Concrete Centre

23

obviously try to avoid using tap water as much as possible, as they have to pay for it (twice, for using it and for discharging it). But of course, non-potable embodied water is still reducing the amount of water that could be used for producing potable water.

Studies on embodied water in concrete were referred to and can be provided.



Who is the target group for these indicators (designers, tendering authorities, investors or

users/occupiers) and what will be reported? For designers and tendering authorities VOC emissions

make more sense, while for investors and occupiers, other (comfort) indicators might be more

interesting.

The focus should be more on the end-user: What do they consider as healthy and comfortable? Are

VOC emissions really more in their mind than getting enough daylight or how warm or how loud it

is in the office/apartment?

Proposed way forward: while indoor air quality could be declared via VOC emissions,

somewhere there should be a 'placeholder' indicating that daylight, acoustics and thermal

comfort are relevant but will be covered at a later stage.

Focus on the occupation phase: Testing indoor air quality only after the finalisation of the building

(but without occupants) provides a rather "artificial" snapshot of the actual indoor air quality.

Proposed way forward: A three-step-approach:

1. Source control: data on product emissions;

2. Check indoor air after finalisation of construction works (pre-occupancy);

3. Check indoor air after the occupants have moved in.

Ventilation rate/air exchange rates should be included in reporting on the design and in-situ

measurement of indoor air quality;

Data quality might be low at the beginning but this would encourage stakeholders to focus on

specific aspects of indoor air quality and the data quality will then improve with experience.

Proposed way forward: Even if the data quality is not very high at the beginning, develop a

step-by-step approach which allows for easier reporting at the beginning before moving to

more ambitious levels at a later stage;

Step-by-step approach: Start with a simple list of 'boxes to tick' (e.g. 'maintenance' or

'sound insulation'). If the box is ticked, more information is provided on the definition of,

for example, sound insulation and how it should be measured/declared;

Table 5

Facilitator: Manfred Fuchs, DG GROW

Dieter DE LATHAUWER Ministry of Health and Environment

James DRINKWATER World Green Building Council

Philippa MALPARTIDA Verdextra

Margareta WAHLSTRÖM VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd

Alan YATES BRE Global

Marc BOSMANS Eurima

Andrea MORO iISBE Italia

24

Not only the calculated and the measured values should be used: Also occupant feedback

should be included (e.g. as a box to tick 'done'/'Not done');

If monitoring is done, there should be a 'box' if the monitoring results are checked and

occupant reactions are foreseen (instead of just collecting/storing data);

There is a need for a framework that positions the data collected in relation to specific indoor air

scenarios and the associated risks to occupant health. Currently, the national approaches are

focussing mostly on source control, not on specific indoor air scenarios. Who will develop them?

Who will be checking the indicators/reported performance? Will it be an independent assessment?;

It should moreover be kept in mind that VOC emissions are high after the installation of products.

There should therefore be a time 'buffer' between the installation and the measurement to ensure

that the emissions levels will be constant;

Macro-objective 5: Resilience to climate change – initial focus: protection of occupant health and thermal

comfort


It should be made clear that besides the effects of climate change on the building's performance, the existence and operation of a building in turn has an effect on climate change, namely at the level of:

Wind patterns change; Albedo increase; Flood water patterns change; Heat island effect; etc…

A 'future trajectory' for this MO should be clearly stated in order to clearly differentiate between the aspects that are considered important but will not be taken up at this stage for practical reasons and aspects that are not so important.

It is very important to keep the phrase 'resilience to climate change' in the title of the MO in order to raise awareness to the subject.

It is regrettable that the 'green factor' has been lost, as low tech solutions are of paramount importance to effectively tackle the environmental impact of buildings. Also, greenery effects (namely shading and evaporative cooling, amongst others) are not captured in computer simulations and should be taken into account separately otherwise their effect will be lost.

Overheating risk was not considered to be a significant problem for central and northern Europe since heating (not cooling) is the main acclimatisation action to be taken.

It is not enough to state what will be the percentage of time out of range of the comfort conditions, as it might be unacceptable to allow the building to remain outside that range. Probably remedial actions to bring back the building to within the comfort range will be required and the consequences of those actions should be taken in consideration. e.g, mechanically ventilated

Table 6

Facilitator: Miguel Gama Caldas, JRC

Judit KIMPIAN Architects Council of Europe

Paula RIVAS HESSE Green Building Council España

Virginie SANCHO Envirobat BDM

25

buildings have in practice zero risk of overheating since the output of the HVAC system can simply be increased.

A push to incentivise dynamic simulation is clearly required since, mainly for overheating calculations, steady-state models do not provide realistic results. The risk of compromising the credibility of the entire exercise was stressed if simulation tools that give unrealistic results are accepted. It was suggested that not having any simulation at all may be better, from a credibility point of view, than having an unreliable simulation.

It was suggested to set a threshold of building size below which steady-state modelling would be admissible as a "second best" solution. One of the stakeholders committed to check with thermal simulation experts if for small buildings steady-state calculations would be admissible without compromising the credibility of the exercise.

Regarding the future weather files to be used in the simulations, the risk to the credibility of the results was again stressed. It was deemed that not having any simulation would be better than having an unreliable one. Therefore it was deemed that only the use of good quality future climate forecast files based on reliable forecast models should be accepted. It was considered that these forecast files are not rare and therefore should not represent a big barrier to the adoption of the indicators.

Regarding the effect of climate change on the durability of façade elements, this issue should definitely be taken into account as higher storm frequency, increased rain fall, increased solar incidence, etc… all take a toll on the longevity of façade elements and, moreover, these effects are not captured in simulation results.

6.2 Discussion points from the plenary following the breakout session 2 feedback

For MO3, the potential to account in the future for the energy used for the transportation of water via

supply infrastructure was highlighted. The question was also asked as to whether it was more preferable to

use water for cooling or for irrigation. Water quality could additionally be a new aspect to consider.

For MO4, the need to consider post-occupation was emphasised. In addition, the ongoing maintenance of

ventilation systems should be a consideration.

For MO5, one stakeholder wondered why they should not be concerned about overheating because of the

energy used for mechanical cooling and ventilation. Another stakeholder responded that one has to look at

the building's performance before mechanical cooling and ventilation is introduced.

7. Towards a common EU framework

The participants were invited to comment on any aspect of the framework discussed during the day and,

following an introduction by Josefina Lindblom from DG ENV on the roles that stakeholders could play in

supporting implementation.

It could be interesting to see from the Commission's side what it considers as the barriers to

implementation as that could help organisations in providing the most relevant input.

It was suggested that the Commission could identify those indicators that are easiest to implement and

those which are more difficult to implement. This should maybe be made clearer in the background report.

26

Although it is important to address the whole picture (i.e. a life cycle approach) – it may be too difficult for

some stakeholders. Therefore, it could be worthwhile considering an entry level that is not too complicated

and which would not deter people from using the framework.

A number of stakeholders stated their willingness to participate in the implementation. For that they

should be updated on progress, including on the cost-benefit study, when possible.

This project has an enormous big-data potential. There will/can come a lot of very useful data out of this. It

is useful, even if it cannot be done now, to think about how access and storage of these data can be

arranged. If output was to be stored, actors could see how others are performing.

It would be helpful to see more information, maybed in the background documents, about the data that

could be gathered and how feedback from data-collectors could be used in the continuous development of

the framework. It is important to monitor and feedback information.

The need to also focus also on the end-user aspects and the occupancy period was re-iterated. One

stakeholder organisation stated their willingness to continue dialogue in this area and to provide data and

input where they can.

8. Summing up and next steps

Hugo Schally-Schally (Head of Unit B1, DG Environment) reflected on what had been said towards the end

of the day and how the Commission could best make the framework attractive for the mainstream market

at the same time as making sure it would be significant enough to drive sustainability. He opened up for

stakeholders to continue to feed in to this part of the process as well.

The JRC thanked all the stakeholders for their participation and active engagement in the discussions

throughout the day. The ongoing role of the sub-groups, and in particular SG1 and SG3, in concluding the

final stages of framework development was emphasised and their continued active engagement was

encouraged.

The deadline of the 16th December to submit further written comments and proposals was highlighted ,

followed by the formal closure of the meeting.

2nd Working Group (WG2) meeting for the Resource Efficient...

Documents

Transcript of 2nd Working Group (WG2) meeting for the Resource Efficient...