Memorandum submitted by the Institution
of Civil Engineers
INSTITUTION OF
CIVIL ENGINEERS
The Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) is
a UK-based international organisation with over 75,000 members
ranging from professional civil engineers to students. It is an
educational and qualifying body and has charitable status under
UK law. Founded in 1818, ICE has become recognised worldwide for
its excellence as a centre of learning, as a qualifying body and
as a public voice for the profession.
INTRODUCTION
The ICE welcomes the opportunity to present
the following statements and evidence as part of the inquiry.
1. General Comments—The Importance
of the Construction Sector in Delivering Sustainable Procurement
1.1 Any effort to introduce more sustainable
procurement across UK government should have a strong focus on
the construction sector. On a narrow definition the construction
sector contributes circa 5% of UK GDP and comprises 170,000 firms.
However a more realistic broader definition including professional
services, manufacture of building materials and the quarrying
of raw materials, the sector comprises 350,000 firms and contributes
10% of UK GDP.[1]
In addition studies have suggested that the construction industry
consumes 420 million tonnes of material resources per year and
the energy equivalent of 8 Million tonnes of oil.[2]
The Construction Industry Council estimates that the public sector
is responsible for circa 40% of all UK construction procurement.
1.2 Construction procurement also underpins
the government's ability to deliver on its commitments in other
areas crucial to its overarching sustainable development policy
eg renewable energy, waste & recycling, public transport,
sustainable communities and the energy performance of buildings.
Performance in all of these areas will also have a significant
impact on the drive to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases as
part of the UK's Kyoto and unilateral climate change commitments.
2. Progress to Date—Is Setting Targets
Enough?
2.1 The Institution has been broadly supportive
of a range of initiatives to integrate sustainability criteria
into public construction procurement, stretching back to the Government
Construction Clients Panel Sustainability Action Plan in 2000.
However, whilst we have not conducted our own research into the
impact of these initiatives our perception is that they have not
had a significant impact and were therefore unsurprised that the
Sustainable Development in Government Report 2004 found that only
3 of 147 new build construction projects had reached the BREEAM
"excellent" rating, that had been laid down as a requirement
since March 2003.
2.2 Our response to the question, "Is
setting targets for sustainable public procurement enough?"
is that targets are only of any meaning if those affected understand
the consequences of achieving/not achieving them. If there are
no consequences they are not likely to be effective. Government
therefore needs to concentrate on processes as well as the targets.
These processes must also create a genuinely level playing field
for all participants. Industry confidence will be soon be lost
if high sustainability performers are seen to lose advantage to
less responsible competitors. Restraining demand. Currently growth
is at 2% per annum—we must find effective ways of delivering
year on year reductions in usage. Energy efficiency and conservation
must become a central platform.
2.3 In this context we welcome the commitment
that government and its agencies will use the forthcoming Code
for Sustainable Buildings (which will set minimum standards
for energy and water efficiency, waste management and use of materials),
where they are involved in funding arrangement for new housing.
However we note the recommendations of the Sustainable Buildings
Task Force which is producing the code that:
— government should also impose a condition
on the contract sale of land brought from the public sector so
that new housing must apply the code
— the code should be incorporated into
Regional Spatial Strategies
— central government must act to encourage
local government to adopt the code
2.4 Whilst housing is not direct public
procurement, this is a good example of how central government
powers could be used to improve practice in a major sector of
construction. In addition the scale of house building envisaged
under the ODPM's Sustainable Communities Plan must make the performance
of this sector a priority.
2.5 Furthermore the code as proposed does
have the advantage of being based on BREEAM, a widely used and
understood standard. Similar extant tools in other sectors, notably
the CEEQUAL scheme for civil engineering projects could also be
adopted as peformance standards for government projects. We note
that the Central Procurement Directorate of the Northern Ireland
government has had success in promoting the use of CEEQUAL for
major projects including the Newtonstewart bypass and the Greyabbey
and Kircubbin waste water treatment works.
3. Examples of Best Practice—The ICE
Demolition Protocol
3.1 The ICE developed the Demolition Protocol
with its partners London Remade and Envirocentre as part of our
commitment to sustainable construction. The Protocol has been
incorporated in LB Brent's supplementary planning guidance and
implemented on a major project in the Wembley area by the developer
Quintain. The only complete case study from this project has shown
significant cost savings, mainly through the project team's considerations
of recycled aggregates for the new build. Further details of this
case study are available at
http://www.aggregain.org.uk/demolition/demolition
new_build_best_practice/case_studies/wembley.html
3.2 In developing the protocol we were aware
that sections of the industry have seen the incorporation of sustainability
issues into projects (over and above legal compliance) as an additional
cost which lacks a compelling business case. This perception has
been a barrier to the implementation of initiatives to improve
the sustainability performance of construction. The Protocol is
therefore deliberately constructed as a tool that only applies
where the impacts are cost neutral or cost beneficial. Under the
protocol procedure, assessments are made of the potential to recover
material at the demolition stage of a project and to procure recovered
and recycled material in new build. Where the procurement of recovered
materials and the recovery of demolition materials would lead
to higher costs then the protocol's procedures would not require
that course of action to be implemented. In this and other areas
the protocol presents a flexible, non-prescriptive approach that
sets out a framework of methodologies for more resource efficient
demolition and procurement of construction materials. The Protocol
does not dictate a final approach but requires all parties to
demonstrate that recovery options are being considered and planned
for. As an example, the range of materials to be considered can
be set at a level which is thought to be representative of the
potential for recovery in the area in question. In some areas
the reprocessing industry may not be established for plasterboard,
glass, plastics etc. As a result it may be prudent to only consider,
for an appropriate period of time, the recovery of hard materials
and the procurement of recycled aggregates.
20 October 2005
1 The Social and Economic Value of Construction,
nCRISP 2003. Back
2
The Construction Industry Mass Balance, VIRIDIS 2002. Back
| 
