A strategic framework for sustainable construction in developing ...

Construction Management and Economics (January 2007) 25, 67–76

A strategic framework for sustainable construction in developing countries CHRISNA DU PLESSIS* Programme for Sustainable Human Settlements, CSIR Building and Construction Technology, PO Box 395, Pretoria 0001, South Africa Received 17 September 2004; accepted 9 January 2006

There is no doubt that large-scale development in the built environment and its physical infrastructure is needed in the so-called ‘developing countries’. However, these problems need to be addressed in a way that is socially and ecologically responsible. There is great urgency to make sustainable interventions now, while these built environments are being created, rather than try and change things after the fact. However, there are a number of challenges to the introduction of sustainable construction technologies and practices, and certain enablers need to be developed to help these countries adopt a more sustainable path. The Agenda 21 for Sustainable Construction in Developing Countries suggested a strategy for addressing some of these challenges by developing a Research and Development Agenda, based on a matrix of immediate, medium-term and longterm technological, institutional and value enablers. This Agenda is supported by a Stakeholder Plan for Action. The challenge now is to find the means to implement these suggestions at a local level by developing regional and national action plans. Keywords: Sustainable, construction, development, developing countries, strategy

Introduction On 18 September 2000, in its 55th session, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted its now famous Millennium Declaration (United Nations, 2000). Paragraph 11 of this declaration proclaimed the following undertaking: We will spare no effort to free our fellow men, women and children from the abject and dehumanizing conditions of extreme poverty, to which more than a billion of them are currently subjected. We are committed to making the right to development a reality for everyone and to freeing the entire human race from want.

The Declaration then sets out a number of resolutions that became known as the ‘Millennium Development Goals’. These include achieving by 2020 ‘a significant improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers as proposed in the Cities Without Slums initiative’ (paragraph 19), as well as the provision of clean water and improved sanitation to half of the

*E-mail: [email protected]

world’s population who currently live without these services. In 2002, the UN World Summit on Sustainable Development adopted the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (WSSD, 2002), which undertook, apart from the protection of biodiversity and encouraging a number of economic equity measures, to ‘forever banish underdevelopment’. To achieve this goal, the following critical areas of intervention for the global sustainable development agenda were identified: clean water, improved sanitation, energy, adequate shelter, healthcare and food security. The kind of built environment that is created in the next few years, and the processes by which it is created, will be a determining factor in achieving the objectives of these priority areas. Both the Millennium Development Goals and the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation show an international shift in emphasis from the mainly Green Agenda issues of the Agenda 21 to the Brown Agenda (as identified by the IIED, 2001). While the Green Agenda was a response to the impact of ecologically detrimental development, such as deforestation, climate change, pollution, and the over-consumption of non-renewable

Construction Management and Economics ISSN 0144-6193 print/ISSN 1466-433X online # 2007 Taylor & Francis http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals DOI: 10.1080/01446190600601313

68

du Plessis

resources, on the earth’s life-support systems, the Brown Agenda focuses on the problems of poverty and underdevelopment. The difference in approach between these two Agendas is described in Table 1. However, a Green or Brown Agenda approach alone will not result in sustainable development. While the Brown Agenda is the development part of the equation, the Green Agenda is what will make this development sustainable. The one without the other is not sustainable development. Without making decisions from the long-term systemic view that characterises the Green Agenda, the short-term focus on tangible development delivery that characterises the Brown Agenda will only perpetuate the negative effects of development on the environment and eventually on people. In turn, not addressing human well-being and meeting basic human needs will impact negatively on long-term social and environmental sustainability. The understanding that sustainable development is about both meeting human needs and the integrity of the biophysical environment is captured in both the Well-being Index (Prescott-Allen, 2001) and the 2005 Environmental Sustainability Index (Esty et al., 2005, p. 22), which includes both human well-being and environmental well-being indicators. The construction sector sits right at the interface between the Brown and Green Agendas—it is both the vehicle for improving quality of life and the actor that will determine the environmental and social sustainability of development endeavours. Thus, the challenge for the construction sector in developing countries is not just to respond to the development challenges of adequate housing, rapid urbanisation and lack of infrastructure, but to do it in a way that is socially and ecologically responsible. Considering the rapid rate of urbanisation experienced by most developing countries, and the acceleration of infrastructure development occasioned by the Millennium Development Goals and the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation, there is a real need for urgency in introducing sustainable construction practices into the developing world. The level of underdevelopment in these countries provides an opportunity to avoid the problems experienced in developed countries, but also Table 1

an imperative not to waste scarce resources by making sure that what is being constructed now will be sustainable in every sense of the word. This, in turn, will require a concerted effort to ensure that the role players within the broader construction sector have what they need to make sure that their solutions support sustainable development. To facilitate the development of a strategy for introducing sustainable construction into developing countries, the International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction (CIB), in partnership with the United Nations Environment Programme, commissioned the preparation of an Agenda 21 for Sustainable Construction in Developing Countries (A21 SCDC). This document, based on input from 22 experts from 12 different countries, was launched at the World Summit on Sustainable Development. The A21 SCDC (Du Plessis et al., 2002) provides a common vocabulary and a basic understanding of the issues, challenges, barriers and opportunities related to sustainable construction in developing countries, as well as a comprehensive framework for a research agenda and a generic strategy for action that now has to be populated at a regional or national level, according to local priorities. This paper will discuss the rationale behind the research framework and the resultant recommendations for a research and development agenda and stakeholder strategy for action suggested by the A21 SCDC. However, it is necessary to first clarify the specific interpretation of the terms ‘construction’ and ‘sustainable development’ as used in this paper and the A21 SCDC, and to provide a brief introduction to the challenges to which the framework is responding.

The terminology of sustainable construction ‘Construction’ and ‘sustainable’ are both highly complex concepts, and as a result there is an ongoing debate about their scope and meaning. Placing these two terms together to form a third further magnifies the interpretative dilemma. It is not possible simply to define

Difference between the Brown and Green Agendas

Key concern Timeframe Scale Concerned about View of nature Environmental services

Brown

Green

Human well-being Immediate Local Low-income groups Manipulate and use Provide more

Eco-systemic well-being Delayed Think global, act local Future generations Protect and work with Use less

Source: McGranahan and Satterthwaite (2000)

69

Sustainable construction in developing countries ‘sustainable construction’ as ‘construction that is sustainable’ without first asking: sustainable for whom and sustainable in what way? Construction itself also has narrow and broad interpretations. As there are no agreed common definitions yet, this section of the paper sets out to explain the specific interpretations of these concepts that informed the A21 SCDC. Construction Construction can be interpreted at four levels: as site activity, as the comprehensive project cycle, as everything related to the business of construction, and as the broader process of human settlement creation (Irurah, 2001). The most common interpretation is as the site activities that lead to the realisation of a specific building or other construction project (e.g. road, bridge or dam). At this simplest level construction is viewed as a specific stage in the project cycle. However, intervention at this level is limited to those aspects under the direct control of the contractor. Broader concerns need to be addressed at stages earlier or later in the project cycle, leading to the second interpretation of construction as the comprehensive cycle of a construction project, covering key stages such as feasibility, design, building/construction, operation, decommissioning, demolition and disposal. While interventions in the construction life cycle as outlined above can considerably reduce the impact of the construction product, it still does not cover the full scope of activity allied to construction. Construction by itself is a large sector of the economy, responsible for millions of jobs and a significant proportion of GDP in most countries. When allied to other sectors and industries in material production and distribution, as well as service sectors such as transport, finance and the property market, its impact on society and the environment and its influence on the character of our world is tremendous. In Latin America, the term construbusiness has been coined to denote this broadest interpretation of the construction sector (John et al., 2001). The fourth level entails the broader process of creating human settlements, including the planning, design and implementation processes. To capture this broad understanding of construction, the A21 SCDC (Du Plessis et al., 2002, p. 4) proposed the following definition: Construction is the broad process/mechanism for the realisation of human settlements and the creation of infrastructure that supports development. This includes the extraction and beneficiation of raw materials, the manufacturing of construction materials and components, the construction project cycle from feasibility to deconstruction, and the management and operation of the built environment.

Sustainable construction While the terms ‘green building’, ‘ecological building’ and ‘sustainable architecture’ have been in use for some time, the first definition of sustainable construction was proposed by Charles Kibert during the First International Conference on Sustainable Construction in Tampa, 1994: ‘Sustainable construction is the creation and responsible management of a healthy built environment based on resource efficient and ecological principles’ (cited in Bourdeau, 1999, p. 41). Other definitions include: ‘Sustainable construction, in its own processes and products during their service life, aims at minimizing the use of energy and emissions that are harmful for environment and health, and produces relevant information to customers for their decision making’ (Huovila and Richter, 1997, cited in Huovila, 1998, p. 7); or as ‘ a way of building which aims at reducing (negative) health and environmental impacts caused by the construction process or by buildings or by the built environment’ (Lanting, 1998, p. 6). The International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction (CIB) defined sustainable construction as ‘the sustainable production, use, maintenance, demolition, and reuse of buildings and constructions or their components’, while sustainable buildings and built environments are seen as ‘the contributions by buildings and the built environment to achieving—components of—sustainable development’ (CIB, 2004, p. 02) The A21 SCDC (Du Plessis et al., 2002, p. 8) defined sustainable construction as ‘a holistic process aiming to restore and maintain harmony between the natural and the built environments, and create settlements that affirm human dignity and encourage economic equity’. This definition takes sustainability further than just reducing negative impact, as implied in the earlier definitions, by introducing the idea of restoring the environment, as well as highlighting the social and economic aspects of sustainability, explicitly defining what the goals for these aspects are. None of these definitions is wholly satisfactory, but they do serve to outline three aspects of sustainable construction: (1) It requires a broad interpretation of construction as a cradle to grave process, involving many more role players than just those traditionally identified as making up the construction industry. (2) It emphasises both environmental protection and value addition to the quality of life of individuals and communities.

70

du Plessis

(3) It embraces not just technological responses, but also the non-technical aspects related to social and economic sustainability. Underlying these (and other) definitions is the assumption of a common understanding of what terms such as ‘sustainable’, ‘sustainability’ and ‘sustainable development’ mean. However, despite a large body of literature and countless conferences, the interpretation of these terms is still contentious. Sustainability and sustainable development It is now more than 30 years since the 1972 UN Conference on Human Environment in Stockholm suggested that the post-war economic development model based on continuous growth in consumption, and fuelled in part by the drive to ‘develop’ the socalled ‘developing countries’, may exceed certain basic environmental limits, and in the process upset the delicate balance of the ecosystem on which the human species depends for its survival. From this understanding grew the gradual formulation of a new model for development that: ‘meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’, as defined by the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED, 1987). In essence sustainable development is about managing the relationship between the needs of humans and their environment (biophysical and social) in such a way that critical environmental limits are not exceeded and modern ideals of social equity and basic human rights (including the ‘right to development’) are not obstructed. The purpose is to avoid environmental and/ or social meltdown, thus ‘sustaining’ the existence of not only modern society, but the future of the human species. The relationship between humans and their environment is determined by a number of factors. The first is the interpretation of ‘quality of life’ held by a particular society. This is the main determinant of the needs that have to be met. The second factor is the choices made in terms of the technological, political, economic and other systems adopted by mainstream society. These two factors are informed by the particular value system a society subscribes to. This value system not only determines the relationship between people within that society, but also how a society responds to its biophysical environment. The biophysical, in turn, influences these choices through the limitations of its source and sink capacities. Within this complex relationship (described in Figure 1) a number of responses are possible, some wiser than others. Sustainable development tries to identify and promote

Figure 1 A relational model of sustainable development

the responses that will allow the continued existence of the community (or species) at the best possible quality of life. The requirements that a sustainable development path will place on the relationship between humans and their biophysical environment and with each other has been well defined in documents such as the Agenda 21 (UNCED, 1992), the Habitat Agenda (UNCHS, 1996) and the Earth Charter (Earth Charter Commission, 2001). However, while there is reasonable consensus on the drivers and the requirements of sustainable development, the details of how they can, and should, be achieved differs between the ‘developed’ and the ‘developing’ sectors of society. Understanding the important role of value systems in determining quality of life and the nature of relationships, and that these value systems may differ from culture to culture, is key to understanding why, for instance, sustainable development as interpreted by the business sector in capitalist countries will be very different from how a community-based organisation in a developing country will interpret it. How exactly these interpretations differ is a different debate that falls outside the scope of this particular paper. However, the acceptance that these differences do exist was one of the main motivators for formulating a sustainable construction strategy aimed specifically at developing countries.

The challenge of sustainable construction in developing countries There are a number of systemic problems facing developing countries, such as rapid rates of urbanisation, deep poverty, social inequity, low skills levels, institutional incapacity, weak governance, an uncertain economic environment and environmental

71

Sustainable construction in developing countries degradation, which by themselves create a challenging environment within which to work. The sheer enormity of this developmental challenge often results in confusion between what are developmental interventions and what are interventions that aim to ensure that the development that needs to happen will follow the principles of sustainable development. The result is delivery wish lists based on a specific cultural interpretation of development and acceptable economic models, and underpinned by powerful commercial and political interests (e.g. the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation) masquerading as sustainable development plans and strategies. One of the reasons why these Plans confuse ‘development’ with ‘sustainable development’ is the framework used to guide their formulation. In 1987, economist Ed Barbier published a model of sustainable development that has formed the basis of almost every subsequent framework (Barbier, 1987). He postulated that sustainable development rests on three pillars or spheres of development—social, economic and environmental. While subsequent thinkers have added pillars such as technical, political or institutional pillars (see for example Hill and Bowen, 1997), the three pillar idea stuck and still continues to inform interventions from the triple bottom line of sustainability reporting to building assessment tools. However, it can be argued that sustainability lies not in actions within each of these spheres, but in the relationships between them. A sustainable development strategy that creates jobs at the expense of the environment, or a renewable energy project that ignores its environmental and social impact and displaces thousands of people and reduces biodiversity, defeats its own purpose. Thus, while the three pillars (Barbier, 1987) model has been useful to highlight that a multifaceted approach is required, this model itself does not encourage the holistic thinking necessary to deal with what is, in essence, a systems problem. The notion that sustainable development should be seen as a holistic solution (the whole being more than the sum of its parts) to the complex systems problems of the interconnected and interdependent relationships that determine the interactions between humans, their society, economy and technology, and the biosphere, is well supported in the literature (Capra, 2002; Girardet, 1996; Hawken et al., 1999; McDonough and Braungart, 1999; Rees, 1999; etc.) The biggest challenge for the construction sector in developing countries thus lies in finding a holistic approach to making sure that its contribution to the physical, economic and human development of these countries meets the requirements of sustainable development as defined by locally identified needs and value systems (which may differ from the needs and values of

the economic elite in these countries). The objective of the A21 SCDC was to create a framework for such a holistic approach.

Enabling sustainable construction For developing countries to embark on a path of sustainable development and construction a twopronged approach is required: it is first necessary to create a capable and viable local construction sector; second, it is necessary to ensure that the sector is able to respond to the demands sustainable development places on its activities. This can only be possible if all the different stakeholders cooperate in the implementation of a clear strategy that involves specific supportive actions by all role players and the development of a set of enablers. The A21 SCDC (Du Plessis et al., 2002, p. 45) identified three types of interdependent and multi-dimensional enablers: technological, institutional and enablers related to value systems (both how things are valued and the social, spiritual or moral values that guide decisions). These enablers are informed by local development needs (human needs) and both local and global environmental considerations (environmental limits). These needs and limits drive the development of value systems that determine the preferred way of addressing the relationship between meeting human needs and protecting the integrity of the biosphere. The value system enablers drive stakeholder action, and guide the development of the technological and institutional enablers. The technological enablers provide the necessary knowledge base and technical capacity for stakeholder action and the development of institutional enablers, while the institutional enablers enable and encourage both stakeholder action and the adoption of the technological enablers. Figure 2 describes this relationship. Developing these enablers requires an approach that operates simultaneously at different scales, as well as different time horizons. In terms of scale, enablers need to cover a range of needs from an urban level to materials and components. The kinds of enablers that have to be developed also respond to different time scales, with certain immediate enablers to be developed to provide a sound basis from which to work. Concurrently with these immediate enablers, a set of medium- and long-term enablers would also have to be developed. The immediate enablers relate to the creation of an enabling environment and the collection and sharing of information for benchmarking and assessment. The medium-term enablers relate to the mitigation of impact and actual implementation of

72

du Plessis The technology enablers Technology enablers fall into three areas:

N N N

Hard technology related to equipment and materials, industrial processes, and physical infrastructure solutions. Soft technology such as systems, mental models and those tools (ICT-based or otherwise) that support decision making, monitoring and evaluation. Knowledge and information (e.g. databases, benchmarks, guidelines and manuals, handbooks, indigenous knowledge systems).

Some of the key R&D areas for the development of technology enablers identified in the A21 SCDC are captured in Table 3. Figure 2 A strategy for enabling sustainable construction

sustainable construction, while the long-term enablers relate to the creation of a totally new and more sustainable built environment paradigm (Du Plessis et al., 2002, p. 45). This enabler framework is outlined in Table 2. A specific problem such as rapid urbanisation, selfhelp housing or energy efficiency is then mapped on to the matrix, ensuring that all the necessary enablers to support sustainable solutions to the specific problem are developed. A number of key areas for R&D have been identified as part of the A21 SCDC document, and are briefly discussed below. However, this list is neither exhaustive nor prioritised and is open for further development at a regional, national or local level. Table 2

Institutional enablers Technology by itself is useless, unless supported by processes for technology transfer and functioning institutions to facilitate the uptake of new technologies. To create an enabling environment for sustainable construction, it is necessary that institutions such as the different levels of government, development agencies, academic and research institutions, professional associations and non-governmental organisations adopt sustainable development and its principles as a seminal aspect of their operations and develop their own capacity to support sustainable construction and use the associated technology. To assist them with this, the following key areas (described in Table 4) were

Framework of enablers for the A21SCDC R&D Agenda

Time Immediate

Medium

Technological N

Benchmarking & Assessment

N

Knowledge systems & data-capturing

N

Technologies to mitigate impact

Institutional N

Clarified roles and responsibilities N Education

N Mapping the route to change

N N

N Re-evaluating heritage

N N

Long term

Values

N

Technologies of the future

N

N

Changing the construction process

N N

Advocacy & awareness Cooperation and partnership Linking research to implementation Develop regulatory mechanisms Strengthening implementing mechanisms Using institutions as drivers Regional centres of excellence

N Understanding the drivers

N Develop a new way of measuring value and reward N Develop codes of conduct N Corporate social responsibility reporting

73

Sustainable construction in developing countries Table 3

Key R&D areas for technology enablers

Benchmarking and N assessment (immediate) N N N

Knowledge sharing (immediate)

Technologies to mitigate impact (medium term)

Future technologies (long term)

Changing the construction process (long term)

N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Establish the impact of the construction industry in developing countries Establish the impact of the built environment in developing countries Establish the capacity of the broader construction industry Develop an expanded life cycle analysis for existing technologies that uses local conditions/ benchmarks Develop a vulnerability index A global database of relevant developing country studies An inventory of design and assessment tools appropriate to developing countries The collection and publication of best practices from developing countries (buildings, processes, capacity building, etc.) Identify and adapt existing technologies and practices appropriate for developing country conditions Promote technology transfer between developing countries Identify remaining technology gaps Ecosystemic/biomimetic buildings and infrastructure Renewables (energy and materials) Biotechnology Recycling as a resource Rethinking traditional technologies Develop processes and tools that encourage integration and a synergistic and ecologically responsible approach to delivery Develop construction and deconstruction processes that minimise environmental impact while maximising job creation and local prosperity

identified where institutional enablers need to be developed. Value system enablers Even when the technology is available and an enabling institutional environment has been created, people still have to choose to adopt the technologies and make use of the opportunities created. Whether society as a whole will move towards a more sustainable approach to development will be determined by the decisions individuals and groups make regarding their own behaviour. Sustainable development requires attitudinal and behaviour changes that will only come about through personal commitment to what is, in the end, a moral choice informed by a personal value system. However, value systems are also a product of broader social interactions and the construction industry can assist with the redefinition of its current value system through the development of new ways of measuring value and reward, developing shared codes of conduct, and instituting corporate social responsibility reporting for the construction sector. Here, government can play a critical role by showing leadership through example, ensuring that departmental operations, management practices, policies and programmes follow a vision that supports sustainable development and is evaluated against the achievement of objectives that support this vision. Some of the enablers identified are captured in Table 5.

A strategy for action The development of specific enablers is, however, only one part of the strategy. To ensure the development and uptake of these enablers all the different stakeholders in the creation of the built environment need to take specific actions to create a supportive environment. These actions are centred on the following elements:

N N N N N N

Capacity building (internally and externally). Developing sustainable and accessible funding streams and methods for accessing these. Establishing partnerships and other vehicles for cooperation across sectoral and national borders. Internal housekeeping to bring organisational practices in line with sustainability principles. Developing programmes and mechanisms to encourage and support implementation. Developing and using appropriate mechanisms and tools for monitoring and evaluating organisational and industry performance.

The specific actions under each of these categories will differ for research and education, the private sector, service providers, governments and regulatory stakeholders and civil society. In developing countries, where the business case for sustainable construction is still weak, and civil society is focused on the satisfaction of immediate, survival needs, government will have to play a decisive role in setting such a strategy in motion.

74 Table 4

du Plessis Key R&D areas for institutional enablers

Clarification of roles and responsibilities

Education

N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Advocacy & awareness

Cooperation & partnerships Linking research to implementers

N N

Develop regulatory mechanisms

N

Strengthening implementing mechanisms

N N N N N N

Using institutions as drivers

N N

Regional centres of excellence

Table 5

Institutional power relationships and how these will drive change Roles of players within the construction process Role of traditional governance systems Revise curricula and training programmes New methods of teaching to reflect new complexity and integration of processes Identify gaps in learning for role players and stakeholders Continued professional education training programmes Methods of rating and auditing curricula, as well as institutions Pilot projects Best practices databases Monitoring and evaluation tools and systems Establish research networks Partnerships between developing country institutions Partnerships between research and industry or other non-research partners Update existing regulations to enable sustainable construction Develop regulatory tools (e.g. financial incentives) to encourage sustainable construction Identify enforcement problems and develop more effective enforcement mechanisms Develop more progressive standards Determine gaps incapacity and skills levels and develop a strategy to address these Financial mechanisms (including incentives and disincentives) to encourage and enable innovation and sustainable construction Rating schemes to assess projects and practitioners Rethink professional fee structures Systems and tools to enable and monitor the use of institutional procurement as a sustainability driver Mechanisms for auditing and accreditation of institutions and practitioners Establish regional centres for training, technical support, information capturing and knowledge sharing

Key R&D areas for value enablers

Mapping the route and landmarks of change Re-evaluating heritage and tradition

Understanding what drive current value systems New ways of measuring value and reward Develop codes of conduct based on shared ethic Corporate social responsibility reporting

N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Mapping the pace of growth/change of threats and negative impacts (climate change, pollution, etc.) Mapping the successes achieved Identify where heritage and tradition hinder or help sustainability Identify the contribution traditional and cultural heritage in developing countries can make to the development of enablers Restore respect for and value of heritage and traditions Identify the drivers of value systems both in the construction sector and in broader society Identify more sustainable options to satisfy these drivers A process for identifying a common set of values and shared ethics Different systems for professional reward Different ways of measuring intrinsic (non-economic) value Develop a shared vision and ethical statement for the construction sector Develop internal codes of conduct for professional organisations and industry sectors based on this shared vision Develop common CSR reporting mechanisms for the construction sector

Sustainable construction in developing countries While it can be argued that in developing countries government itself is often weak, it does have the ability to create the necessary institutional enablers to improve the business case and build the capacity and skills levels of the industry through its own procurement practices, incentive programmes and taxation.

The way forward The evidence is mounting up that developmental activity is exceeding the environmental limits of the planet and may be endangering a large percentage of the world’s population. The seriousness of the situation is highlighted in a report prepared by the Pentagon (Schwartz and Randall, 2003, pp. 19, 22) on the risks of abrupt climate change as a result of human activity: Ocean, land, and atmosphere scientists at some of the world’s most prestigious organizations have uncovered new evidence over the past decade suggesting that the plausibility of severe and rapid climate change is higher than most of the scientific community and perhaps all of the political community is prepared for … And paleoclimatic evidence suggests that such an abrupt climate change could begin in the near future … it seems that the questions to ask are: When will this happen? What will the impacts be? And, how can we best prepare for it? Rather than: Will this really happen?

Apart from the dire predictions of climate change related disaster, the recently completed Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Report (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005) found that human activity has had a detrimental impact on the ability of the biophysical environment to deliver necessary life-support services to the human species. The construction sector is a significant contributor to global climate change and a number of other environmental threats, and few would argue that the sector needs to make a radical shift in its practices if we are to mitigate the impact of these threats. Yet, as Milford (2004) rightly pointed out, we are not seeing enough demands from civil society or governments for changes in the construction sector, nor is the sector held accountable for its social and environmental impact. There are no street protests against unsustainable construction in Pretoria, Sao Paulo or Shanghai, no international e-mail campaigns against multinational construction companies or materials manufacturers. The voices calling for a better world have little to say about the way the built environment is being created. It is therefore up to the construction sector itself to do the responsible thing and recognise that it is no longer about choices—fundamental change in the construction sector has become a moral imperative.

75 As developing countries will increasingly become the arena for infrastructural and industrial development, the construction sector in these countries has a critical role to play in responding to this imperative. The currently low levels of physical development provide a (limited) window of opportunity in which to steer construction on to a more sustainable path. To fully capitalise on this opportunity, a clear and coordinated response is required as a matter of urgency. The strategy developed by the A21 SCDC provides a broad framework to guide the development of such a response. It has identified a number of tasks for immediate action that respond to the most critical obstacles that are holding back the shift to more sustainable construction: capacity building, raising awareness, finding access to funding, building networks and partnerships, and providing benchmark information relevant to developing countries. However, numerous sustainable development and construction strategies have been developed, yet we are seeing very little impact of these strategies for a number of reasons (Milford, 2004). Chief among these reasons are a lack of integration with mainstream decisionmaking systems, few links between policy and on-theground realities, a very narrow base of participation, and the fact that many strategies are little more than wish lists, lacking clear priorities or achievable targets (see Bass and Dalal-Clayton, 2002 and Dalal-Clayton, 2003). From this understanding, it is clear that a meaningful strategy for sustainable construction in developing countries cannot be formulated by a small group of experts cloistered in a conference room. It can only come from a dialogue between the different levels of government, the broader construction industry, universities and research centres and civil society at national, regional and international levels. Such a strategy will require a consultation process similar to that used in the formulation of the Earth Charter to determine global and regional strategy, as well as a process at national level that situates the global strategy in a local context and responds to local needs and priorities. The first steps at regional and international coordination are being taken through a series of regional conferences on sustainable building and construction took place in 2004 and the early part of 2005. One of the aims of this conference series is to recommend a stakeholder plan of action for each region that can act as a starting point for identification and prioritisation of the enablers that need to be developed. The results of these conferences were presented for further discussion at the World Sustainable Building Conference in September 2005 in Tokyo.

76 References Barbier, E.B. (1987) The concept of sustainable economic development. Environmental Conservation, 14(2), 101–10. Bass, S. and Dalal-Clayton, B. (2002) Bridging the Knowledge Gap in SD strategies: Research Partnerships for Sustainable Development, IIED Opinion Paper, available at http://www. iied.org/pubs/pdf/full/11037IIED.pdf (accessed 10 April 2006). Bourdeau, L. (ed.) (1999) Agenda 21 on Sustainable Construction, CIB Report Publication 237, CIB, Rotterdam. Capra, F. (2002) The Hidden Connections, HarperCollins Publishers, London. CIB (2004) 50 Years of International Cooperation to Build a Better World, CIB, Rotterdam. Dalal-Clayton, B. (2003) The MDGs and sustainable development. The need for a strategic approach, in Satterthwaite, D. (ed.) The Millennium Development Goals and Local Processes: Hitting the target or missing the point?, IIED, London, available at http://www.iied.org/Gov/mdgs/ documents/MDG-ch5-pdf (accessed 10 April 2006). Du Plessis, C., et al. (2002) Agenda 21 for Sustainable Construction in Developing Countries, CSIR Report BOU/ E0204, CSIR, CIB & UNEP-IETC, Pretoria. Earth Charter Commission (2001) The Earth Charter, available at http://www.earthcharter.org (accessed 10 April 2006). Esty, D.C., Levy, M., Srebotnjak, T. and De Sherbinin, A. (2005) 2005 Environmental Sustainability Index: Benchmarking National Environmental Stewardship, Yale Centre for Environmental Law & Policy, New Haven. Girardet, H. (1996) The Gaia Atlas of Cities, Gaia Books, London. Hawken, P., Lovins, A. and Lovins, L.H. (1999) Natural Capitalism, Back Bay Books, New York. Hill, R.C. Bowen, P.A. (1997) Sustainable construction: principles and a framework for attainment. Construction Management and Economics, 15(3), 223–39. Huovila, P. (1998) Sustainable construction in Finland in 2010, Report 2 in CIB, Sustainable Development and the Future of Construction. A Comparison of Visions from Various Countries, CIB Report Publication 225, CIB, Rotterdam. Huovila, P. and Richter, C. (1997) Life cycle building design in 2010, in Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Engineering Design ICED 97. Tampere University of Technology, 19–21 August, Vol. 2, pp. 635–43. IIED (2001) Reconciling the ‘Green’ and ‘Brown’ Agendas for urban environmental improvement, Briefing Paper 6 in Urban Environmental Improvement and Poverty Reduction, IIED Human Settlements Programme, London.

du Plessis Irurah, D.K. (2001) Agenda for Sustainable Construction in Africa. An Invited Contribution to CIB’s Agenda for Sustainable Construction in the Developing World and Agenda 21 on Sustainable Construction, available at http://www.sustainablesettlement.co.za/policy (accessed 10 April 2006). John, V.M., Agopyan, V. and Sjo¨stro¨m, C. (2001) An Agenda 21 for Latin American and Caribbean Construbusiness. A Perspective from Brazil, available at http://www.sustainablesettlement.co.za/policy (accessed 10 April 2006). Lanting, R. (1998) Sustainable construction in the Netherlands, Report 9 in CIB Sustainable Development and the Future of Construction. A Comparison of Visions from Various Countries, CIB Report Publication 225, CIB, Rotterdam. McGranahan, G. and Satterthwaite, D. (2000) Environmental health and ecological sustainability: reconciling the Brown and Green Agendas in urban development, in Pugh, C. (ed.) Sustainable Cities in Developing Countries, Earthscan, London. McDonough, W. and Braungart, M. (2002) Cradle to Cradle, North Point Press, New York. Milford, R. (2004) Re-valuing sustainable construction. Paper for CIB World Congress 2004, Toronto, Canada, 4 May. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Living Beyond our Means: Natural Assets and Human Well-being, Island Press, Washington, DC. Prescott-Allen, R. (2001) The Wellbeing of Nations: A Countryby-Country Index of Quality of Life and the Environment, Island Press, Washington, DC. Rees, W.E. (1999) Achieving sustainability: reform or transformation?, in Satterthwaite, D. The Earthstar Reader in Sustainable Cities, Earthscan, London. Schwartz, P. and Randall, D. (2003) An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security, Pentagon Research Unit, Washington, DC. United Nations (2000) United Nations Millennium Declaration, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 55/2, 18 September 2000, United Nations, New York. UNCED (1992) Agenda 21: The United Nations Programme of Action from Rio, available at http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/ documents/agenda21/index.htm (accessed 10 April 2006). UNCHS (1996) The Habitat Agenda, available at http:// unchs.org/unchs/english/hagenda/index.htm (accessed 10 April 2006). WCED (1987) Our Common Future, Oxford University Press, Oxford. WSSD (2002) The Johannesburg Plan of Implementation, available at www.johannesburgsummit.org/html/documents/ summit_docs/2309_planfinal.htm (accessed 10 April 2006).