The impact of a building in operation is broadly understood by a building owner. They have to pay the water bill, the gas bill, and the electric bill, and so they can see the consumption uses of the building first-hand. But what about the embodied impacts of the building?
Do building owners think about the energy that went into the extraction of the materials that go into the building? Or the water used in the raw material processing? Or what impact the building will have at the end of its life, when all its constituent parts are disposed of? I’m sure some do, but I suspect a lot do not. And I can understand why – for a layperson these invisible costs can seem quite intangible, the overall environmental impact almost impossible to quantify.
This is exactly why LCA was created. Experts have developed tools and methods that enable us to put a ‘number’ on the environmental impact of our buildings, considering everything from the extraction of the materials all the way through to deconstruction and disposal at the end of life.
One of the main drivers in the industry for LCA at the moment is BREEAM. BREEAM is the world’s leading sustainability assessment method, established by the Building Research Establishment (BRE), and is used by the industry to demonstrate the sustainability credentials of their buildings.
The launch of the BREEAM UK New Construction 2018 scheme saw the introduction of completely new Mat 01 criteria – the criteria which encourage the use of low impact materials. The new criteria have moved away from assessing material impact using Green Guide ratings (the previous approach), and now use a ‘whole Life Cycle Assessment’ approach. (For background information on LCA and the recent changes in the Mat 01 criteria, this blog from the BRE may be helpful.)
Despite the merits of the Mat 01 transformation, it is fair to say that in the first 18 months of its application the industry has shown itself reluctant to embrace the whole LCA approach. Reasons for this will vary, but in our experience here at Darren Evans Assessments, resistance has been caused by a combination of the following:
This narrative has been fed back to the BRE through various channels. While they might have assumed some pushback initially (see point 5, above!), over time it has become clear that there may be problems with the underlying issue.
The BRE have responded to the industry feedback by running a series of workshops consulting on possible resolutions. And so I found myself, on a damp, autumnal Tuesday morning in Bristol, joining a group of other BREEAM Assessors to talk with the BRE about the Mat 01 criteria. The question of the day was whether to change the criteria or not. At the meeting, the BRE tabled four possible options for change:
At the end of workshop we all voted on our preferences, and the results varied wildly, which I suspect was a reflection of the different types of projects and clients we all work with. It was clear that the BRE have a tough challenge ahead.
Personally, I think there’s a broader issue here than the details of the criteria: the industry doesn’t yet understand the value of the LCA. Disseminating this message can’t be done by the BRE alone – the responsibility sits with all sustainability professionals. But I do hope that implementing one or more of the above tweaks will help make the Mat 01 issue more appealing to the industry, and therefore support the message of how valuable the LCA is.
It seems obvious that there is no ‘one size fits all’ solution, so we’ll wait with anticipation to find out what the BRE’s final conclusions will be. In the meantime, we must continue to work with what we have, helping our clients to understand the huge benefit that LCA can provide – not only to their projects, but to the environment.
The 2018 technical manual is a case in point. A technical change has been introduced that will severely challenge the way the industry currently organises its BREEAM assessments (especially in relation to design and build contracts).
Current industry practice for design and build contracts is often to leave the heavy BREEAM lifting to the successfully appointed contractor. However, according to the new requirements, if the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) for Mat 01 is not submitted to the BRE before a project is submitted for planning then all seven associated credits are lost, and are unable to be secured post-submission.
Assuming the LCA for Mat 01 isn’t submitted before the planning submission, and those seven credits are lost, it places increasing pressure on contractors to secure Excellent BREEAM ratings with fewer credits available. If contractors aren’t aware of the change in time, they may price for new projects that require a BREEAM Excellent rating, without knowing that expensive credits will need to be sought outside of Mat 01.
To better manage this risk for developing projects assessed under BREEAM 2018, it would be advisable to appoint a dedicated BREEAM advisor during the early project development stages, as with other members of the design team. This would make sure that valuable early BREEAM credits are not overlooked or lost, increasing the likelihood of compliance with the highest sustainability standard.
Appointing a BREEAM assessor during the early development stages would also ensure that the bid team are able to ascertain any potential pitfalls or risks inherent in the project’s initial design, including relevant BREEAM actions that may have been overlooked before planning submission.
A BREEAM consultant working at this stage has time to gain early BREEAM involvement credits such as Man 01, achieve RIBA stage dependent credits such as Mat 01, identify resource efficiencies and place the project in a strong position right from the start to achieve its desired BREEAM rating.
Here at Darren Evans Assessments we have the expertise to support any type or size of project you’re working on. Our advice reduces risk and promotes successful BREEAM compliance, and we’d be happy to talk you through any next steps you have in mind.