The final part of the BuilderScrap.com Draft Strategy for Sustainable Construction.

There were no consultation questions relating specifically to innovation, however, several comments were made by respondents regarding the Innovation chapter and these are summarised below:

1. The main points made on innovation were:

Support for R&D or Knowledge Transfer Some suggested that sustainable construction might not act as a direct driver for change within the industry since its economic benefits might be long-term or hidden. The industry was unlikely to fund research into sustainability or sustainable construction on its own; Government support and / or additional fiscal incentives for R&D might be needed. Some attached importance to the testing, demonstration and independent third party certification of new products or services. Greater certainty on funding streams for developers and end-users would assist product development.

Innovation Measurement The consultation document suggested using the BERR Community Innovation Survey to track a target of increasing the numbers of “innovation active” companies in the sector. Respondents felt that some work was needed to clarify “innovation active” in the context of the sector and develop challenging benchmarks and targets recognised and
accepted by the industry.

Learning from overseas Some respondents said the UK construction industry could benefit from greater awareness of overseas experience.

Regulation and standards Some suggested that Building Regulations should aim to be more outcome based and non-prescriptive to assist innovation.

Thanks for reading.

The final of this weeks BuilderScrap.com post on the Sustainable Construction Draft.

Q: Do you agree that the targets and milestones proposed for Materials will deliver improved resource efficiency with reduced environmental and societal impacts, and are sufficiently ambitious? If not, then please propose alternative targets.

1. Most of the respondents who answered the question thought the targets were reasonable, though some thought they might be very difficult to achieve by 2010. Some questioned whether the targets would drive improvement in performance.

2. Some respondents said that if the targets were adopted, a mechanism should be introduced to monitor performance, taking account of ongoing research on sustainability of materials. Phased implementation and shorter-term milestones were also suggested as a way of making the targets more achievable and effective.

3. A number of respondents suggested that the targets should be consistent with a forthcoming European standard on Environmental Product Declarations developed within CEN/TC 350.

4. Some advocated incentives for manufacturers and developers to create a stronger market demand for more sustainable products.

5. Some respondents expressed the need for an independent tool or certification scheme to rate the sustainability of all products and enable direct comparisons across the sector. Some suggested there was a need for specification guides and sustainable toolkit templates.

6. Other suggestions included: a target for recycled content; more widespread use of Life Cycle Assessments; and the need to support SMEs.

Todays BuilderScrap.com question for the draft proposal. What do you guys think?

Q: New measures to stimulate action from companies to improve resource efficiency are proposed. Please prioritise these proposals and identify quick win opportunities with high impact.

1. There was a broad level of support for measures proposed. Many respondents ranked all five measures in order while others highlighted those to which they attached particular importance. The results are set out in the table below (NB: as details have been added from those who did not rank all responses, rows do not necessarily add up to the same figure).

Numbers of respondents     1st     2nd   3rd    4th      5th

Programme for
smaller contractors                2       0         2        2        16

Halve amount of
construction waste at             3       0          7        9         3
site level by 2015

Manufacturers to
consider lifecycle of                4       8          6        4         0
Products

Designers/architects
to consider waste                   14      8          3        0         0
minimisation

Contractors and
Subcontractors to
reduce, reuse,                         6       9          4         4         1
recycle

2. Some of those who did not rank the measures commented that they were interlinking proposals which would all contribute to waste minimisation but that there was no single “silver bullet”. Some argued that more comprehensive data on waste, waste streams and recycled content material were necessary to underpin a successful waste action plan.

3. On design, there were various comments on the need for standard sizes, greater focus on off-site construction and/or the adoption of lean standards. A number of respondents argued for an extension of producer responsibility, particularly with regard to packaging, so that products could be considered over their life cycle. The importance of full life cycle assessments was highlighted. Others suggested that voluntary sectoral agreements could help deliver targets.

4. Other ideas included broadening the scope of codes of best practice to include more information on waste; greater use of WRAP processes; and greater education across the supply chain, possibly through resource programmes.

More from the BuilderScrap.com on the sustainable construction draft.

Q: Do the targets, milestones and proposals for waste appear realistic, achievable and sufficiently ambitious over the time frames envisaged? If not, then please suggest alternatives and who should be responsible for their implementation.

1. Respondents offered a range of opinions on the feasibility of the targets and milestones proposed. A third considered them appropriate and achievable targets; very few considered them as unattainable. Two respondents considered them insufficiently ambitious.

2. However, levels of support differed across individual targets. For example, a significant number of respondents (25%) considered the 2020 zero waste to landfill target unrealistic, due to economic and/or regulatory constraints, even if they agreed with the principle of reducing volumes to landfill to minimum levels. Some suggested that that particular target contradicted the acknowledgement in the Waste Strategy for England 2007 that landfill might continue to have a place for disposal of some wastes, such as hazardous wastes. Some questioned whether achieving absolute zero would deliver environmental benefits if this meant the transport of waste for long distances.

3. Alternatives to the 2020 zero waste target were proposed, such as halving waste every five years; reassessing the longer-term target after 2012; or focusing on waste reduction rather than landfill avoidance.

4. There was a strong level of interest in the concept of zero net waste. Respondents suggested that further analysis was required to develop a workable definition and an achievable target. A couple of respondents questioned the appropriateness of an “offset” target; others commented that a more reliable supply of recycled content materials would be needed to make this target feasible. Some respondents suggested breaking the target down by sector.

5. Few respondents addressed the question of responsibility for implementation; those that did suggested Defra, CLG or the Environment Agency.

6. There were a number of suggestions about the measures to help reach these targets, e.g. a specific target for designers; the need for additional waste infrastructure capacity; incentives to industry to invest in technologies and processes used elsewhere.

More from Draft Strategy for Sustainable Construction. At BuilderScrap.com we continue to publish extracts from this draft not only because it aligns with our goals but also the nature of feedback given is important to us.  Let us know what you think!

Q: Which of the proposed actions for business do you consider to be a priority? Why? What are the barriers to implementing this action and how might they be overcome? Who should take the lead in implementing this action?

1. Some respondents felt it wrong to focus on priorities since action was required across a broad front. Others suggested a single action. Some discussed the difficulty of appraising design quality.

2. The three top priorities identified by respondents were: early supply chain engagement or integration; greater demand for Design Quality Indicators (DQIs) and BREEAM; and for clients to drive the process. There was little comment on how contractors might promote the adoption of DQIs more effectively when this was primarily an issue for the client. There was an
important role for the public sector as client and scope for using better regulation to promote the uptake of BREEAM standards.

3. A number of respondents felt that more attention should be paid to the supply chain and the role of integrated teams rather than the client / designer relationship.

4. The continuing focus on initial cost rather than whole life value was seen as key. In the public sector, the distinction between capital expenditure and operational budgets characterised the issue. Lack of knowledge sharing between professions could result in “partial” advice and guidance.