One tool to rule them all?

While some of the more established economies have their own established certification systems (BREEAM in the UK, DGNB in Germany, LEED in the US), the countries of Central and Eastern Europe have yet to devise their own rating systems, leaving developers to choose from the different tools on offer. The question arises, why is there no universal rating system available, that could be understood by everyone, rather than a bewildering selection of certificates with different methods of assessment?

Harmony and disharmony
There has been much talk recently about the 'harmonisation' of rating tools. But what moves have so far been made in this direction? In 2009 it was announced that a memorandum of understanding had been signed between BRE Global (which runs the BREEAM certification method) and CSTB/Certivéa to try to develop a pan-European assessment together. At the time BRE?s director of sustainability, Paul Gibbon, declared in a press release: This is a huge step forward in aligning two of the major rating tools in Europe and an important step towards a single European rating tool. Bertrand Delcambre, the president of CSTB, added that: This initiative, much anticipated by the market, will bring a coherence to national policies such as the Grenelle de l?Environnement [Environment Round Table] in France or the UK's carbon targets, and hence clarity in what has become an international marketplace. Since then, however, it seems that this approach has been abandoned. According to Martin Townsend, the director of BREEAM: We had a number of meetings with HQE over harmonisation, but nothing came of them, and I can?t see a solution in this direction. But he goes on to add that there is work going on between BREEAM and LEED, and the latter has now agreed to recognise the BREEAM system of energy credits.

Joe Hennon, a spokesperson for EU Environment Commissioner Janez Potočnik, informed us that the Commission has only recently begun to look at this issue so is not in a position at this stage to comment in detail. What we do know is that the EU has been developing an Ecolabel for buildings, as already exists for food and consumer products. If this is not intended to replace all the other certificates, then it might be asked what the value would be in having another system to go with all the others. But it is not intended to solve the problem of multiple systems, counters Jane Henley, the CEO of the World Green Building Council, a coalition of the individual national Green Building Councils that have been set up to help facilitate green building as industry best practice, through lobbying government and educating the market. The Ecolabel is linked to EU building code, whereas LEED and the others are designed to define best practice as way above the building code, she explains, adding that it will be viewed therefore as a regulatory, rather than a voluntary instrument and, although complementary with the other ratings tools, as having a different role. The Ecolabel, therefore, would serve to testify that minimum legal standards for environmentally-friendly buildings have been met, whereas the voluntary ratings tools set their standards much higher than this, driving the push towards sustainable buildings much further.

Healthy competition
Little enthusiasm for or even acknowledgement that there still are any moves in the direction of developing a universal or pan-European certificate was expressed by any of the people we spoke to about this issue. As Jane Henley puts it: Competition does push up the quality. All these tools are part of a push towards the adoption of best practice ? and whichever system gets us there, it's important to focus on that.? Martin Townsend of BREEAM agrees: ?Competition between ratings tools is healthy and it helps to keep the services provided by organisations such as ours of a high quality and price-sensitive.? He goes on to explain that consultations between the ratings bodies are in fact bringing about greater comparability between the different systems: There is some work being done between the major tools used in different markets to see how we can bring that alignment together, and what's clear is that there is a growing maturity, in that there is a recognition that the important thing is to make sure that buildings improve, says Martin Townsend. For him, the main priority is for the harmonisation of the methods used to assess the greenness of buildings. The major issue here is not the harmonisation of ratings, but the metrics for comparing them,? he asserts. According to Mr Townsend: We need to be working from the same recipe book and know that the metrics are consistent. The lack of such common metrics is what causes confusion to arise. Basic benchmarking is needed to measure the performance of buildings in a way that people understand in terms of CO2 emissions, the well-being of the occupants, etc. BREEAM, for instance, focuses on the metrics for carbon emissions and the materials used in construction, but with LEED it's more in terms of dollars saved. To this endeavour the harmonising of the different metrics the World Green Building Council has also turned its attention: We are working towards some common understanding across the different rating systems. We don't think that one system is better than any other. But we encourage the setting of targets and achievable goals, which can have a dollar value set upon them. We are encouraging voluntary best practice ? and once the standard has been chosen and the goals set, we try to educate developers and building owners on how best to achieve this, for instance, how best to achieve LEED Gold standard.

Setting our own standard
Such a harmonisation of the assessment methods would clearly be of some value to the owners of international real estate portfolios. Buildings in France, Germany and the UK may need different rating tools for their respective countries, but their owners will want consistency in the metrics used to assess them across their portfolios. In the countries of the CEE region, another problem is the lack of an established green building certificate, with the result that the energy efficiency of buildings in the same country is assessed according to different criteria. The question is whether Poland is in a position to have its own standard, remarks Jane Henley. The market is dictating the situation, but it is challenging and leading to confusion. International developers might be familiar with a particular system a US firm might insist on LEED but a UK one might request that BREEAM be used and we have to educate on this basis. She suggests that the Polish government, for instance, might choose to have public buildings rated according to one of these systems, thus sending a clear signal to the market and leading by example, and at the same time increasing the demand for green buildings and educating the market. But, as she insists, the government shouldn't want to rule out the other systems, as competition does push up the quality.

The daddy of them all
BREEAM, as Martin Townsend puts it, is the parent of the ratings tools, having been established 22 years ago and one the oldest systems in use. The German DGNB rating, for example, is among those that are based upon the BREEAM system. In new countries where there isn't a dominant rating, says Martin Townsend of BREEAM, what we are trying to do is to use our extensive experience to help them to devise their own standards instead of having to go through the pain that we did when we were founded. BRE is a non-profit research trust, which is science and experience-based, and BREEAM is a standard based on a series of credits to encourage best practice. And we can share our best practice assessment experience with local bodies.

If it is true that the competition between the different systems is healthy and that they are working together to achieve the same goal ? the greater energy efficiency of buildings then this could be invaluable in our part of the world, where there is no dominant standard. But if CEE countries are waiting for the adoption of a pan-European green building standard to put an end to this confusing kaleidoscope of ratings tools, it looks as though they might be waiting in vain. Martin Townsend is convinced on this point: There won't ever be a single rating tool to rule them all a monopoly would be a bad thing. There needs to be choice and comparability so that developers can choose the ?appropriate assessment method for their needs, he concludes.