The Level(s) interview

In this edition of the Level(s) Interview, we speak to Josefina Lindblom, Policy Officer at the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Environment (DG ENV), about the Staff Working Document ‘Supporting life-cycle approaches to decarbonise European buildings’.

Josefina explains how this document supports policymakers, local authorities and the building sector in adopting a whole-life carbon approach to buildings, helping to reduce carbon emissions while addressing Europe’s housing challenges and supporting the objectives of the EU’s wider Housing Package.

1) To start with, could you briefly explain what the Staff Working Document is and what gap it aims to fill in EU work on building decarbonisation?

This Staff Working Document bridges several ongoing policy initiatives. It connects decarbonisation and affordability in the housing sector and it demonstrates how these concepts can work together, by tackling the inefficient use of vacant or underused space on the one hand, and improved circularity at the highest level possible, on the other. In this way, it supports the objectives of the Housing Package that was adopted in December last year, with initiatives like the Affordable Housing Plan, the European Strategy for Housing Construction and the New European Bauhaus.

The Staff Working Document describes carbon emissions from the building stock, including new construction, renovation and refurbishment. It discusses the size and importance of the emissions, what impacts these, and what strategies can be put in place to decarbonise the stock in an effective and affordable manner, with examples of national and local actions.

In this way it serves to inform and inspire Member States, local authorities and the building sector as they take on recent legal requirements and prepare to meet objectives in different ongoing EU initiatives.

2) You have mentioned that the preparatory work behind the Staff Working Document helped bring the better use of existing buildings to the forefront within the Commission. Could you explain how work that started from whole-life carbon evolved into a broader policy entry point for making better use of the existing building stock and addressing housing needs as well?

When we started the preparatory work, we procured studies to provide us with detailed knowledge. Data gathering and modelling exercises showed us that even when new buildings are constructed with sustainability in focus, both in terms of material use and energy efficiency, the so-called upfront carbon emissions, which are emitted before the building is used, will always play a substantial role in a building’s life-cycle performance.

In parallel, we became increasingly aware of all the unused built space out there, and this made us dig deeper into the subject. Around the same time as we had strong evidence for the potential to decarbonise the building stock through better use of existing buildings, the Affordable Housing initiative was launched. We quickly realised that there was an important win-win, as this can also be a way of adding to the supply of affordable buildings. So, what started as a decarbonisation consideration, quickly turned out to be just as much an affordability consideration.

It basically means that building new very often comes at a high environmental/carbon cost. If all current demand for affordable housing would be provided through new construction, it would have a severe impact on climate and the environment overall. If part of that demand can be covered by buildings that we already have, but which are not well used, that would be a great advantage. It would of course in many cases imply repurposing, extensions and renovations of buildings, but if this is done in a clever way, the environmental footprint can be much lower compared with new buildings. We need to see a change in this direction.

4) The Staff Working Document points to measures such as simplified approval processes for renovation and repurposing, flexible zoning, vacancy registers and the reintegration of vacant buildings into the market. In your view, which of these measures could make the biggest difference in the short term, and where do you see the main implementation barriers?

Yes, the Staff Working Document does have an emphasis on simplifying renovation approvals and creating greater flexibility for getting vacant buildings back on the market; however, rather than just focusing on one, I would say that all these measures are equally needed. This is because ultimately, wehave to work with all of those aspects, like renovation, zoning, and registering and reintegrating vacant buildings. In fact, as different solutions will have different time frames, these measures will actually end up supporting each other.

We also have an ongoing study which is looking into this in depth. It looks carefully at what is happening around Europe and beyond, and there is a lot we can learn from. It runs for another year, but has already started to provide really interesting information, both in relation to supply of affordable housing and decarbonisation. It will support several actions, like under the Affordable Housing initiative as well as the New European Bauhaus.

I think the main barrier is that we have a system which is set up for new builds, both the legal framework and the construction sector. We know that repurposing is not exactly the same as a newly built building, so we can’t expect the same results. But that does not mean that it is less good. We need to think differently, and in order to think differently we need permittingauthorities to allow repurposing. 

5) With the revised EPBD's new EU-wide calculation framework, more harmonised construction product data under the CPR, as well as Level(s), all helping to support more comparable whole-life carbon assessments, what do you see as the key next step at EU-level to roll out life-cycle approaches more widely?

There are a few more EU-level actions that can be done to enable the implementation of life-cycle approaches to be more cost-efficient, but the recent revisions of the CPR and the EPBD have really advancedlife-cycle thinking.

Level(s) sits between the CPR and legislation based on life-cycle performance of buildings, like the Sustainable Finance Taxonomy and of course the EPBD. Overall decarbonisation must be in focus, given today’s geopolitical situation, and therefore the implementation of those legal frameworks, including national whole-life carbon roadmaps, will be key next steps at EU level.