Green building has become a catch phrase of the construction sector and a core component of companies’ public relations strategies. It is a frequently discussed subject that has yet to gain any real traction on the ground.

It is vital that the mandate to develop a green building comes from the project owner or developer

The key factor is the price of energy-efficient building materials and very little has been done to make the case for increased adoption of this technology. Part of the problem is the difficulty in creating a base case, against which energy savings can be measured. Each building is designed differently and so creating a benchmark to assess the cost effectiveness of green materials is virtually impossible.

Energy services companies (escos) may have an easier time making the case for retrofit with energy-saving measures, as they have a base against which operational cost comparisons can be made. Even then, they remain in business because the esco model requires them to put up the initial capital for investment in green building materials. They earn their return from energy savings over a period of time, typically one to five years.

Economic case

With new-build, it is harder to make the economic case for adoption of green building materials. This is especially true for off-plan residential projects, where the operational savings would be made by the end-users. In these cases, developers and contractors are not interested in spending more on green technology during the construction phase. Greater sensitivity to operational costs is seen in the retail and hospitality space, where the developer is responsible for the management of the property over its lifetime.

It is vital that the mandate to develop a green building comes from the project owner or developer. Without this, the players along the value chain will lack the impetus to retain the more expensive energy-efficient elements of the building through the processes of value engineering and product procurement.

Regulatory push

To replace the absent mandate from project developers, some governments in GCC countries have established green building regulation. This provides the initial incentive for developers to educate themselves about the long-term benefits of adopting these materials.

The most advanced of these in the region is Estidama’s pearl rating system in Abu Dhabi, under the jurisdiction of the Abu Dhabi Urban Planning Council. The system offers a technical guideline that specifies the target energy efficiency for each product, such as air conditioners, glazing and lighting, at each rating level. Developers conduct a cost assessment within the system, which will allow them to match budgetary constraints with the desired level of energy efficiency for the project.

Ranging from one to five pearls, all private developments in Abu Dhabi are required to achieve the minimum rating of one pearl, while all public sector projects are required to achieve a minimum two-pearl rating. Without meeting these requirements, building owners cannot obtain the necessary permits to commence operations.

Estidama offers a database of products in the market to assist developers in quickly identifying products and brands that comply with their specifications. Greater support is required in identifying a broader range of products and manufacturers, detailing their contents and points of origin, as well as facilitating supply in the market to protect consumers from price exploitation.

While there may be limitations given its recent inception, the pearl rating system offers a strong starting point and a benchmark for governments in the region.

The only other ratings system in the region is Qatar’s global sustainability assessment system (Gsas), developed by the Gulf Organisation for Research & Development (GORD).

Green code

Additionally, the Dubai Municipality launched a green building code in January 2014. While this is not a ratings system in itself, it serves as a guideline for developers and contractors to incorporate more sustainable elements into the construction of the building.

All of these have been designed largely using global ratings systems such as Leed, Breeam and Ashrae as guidelines, while making the necessary adjustments to customise them to the climatic conditions and lifestyles of the region. The most significant difference is the emphasis placed on water conservation, which constitutes up to 24 per cent of the total points under Estidama and 16 per cent under Gsas, while only comprising up to 2.5 and 5.5 per cent of Breeam and Leed, respectively.

Broadly, international ratings systems are considered far more stringent than local systems. Charles Blaschke, general manager at UAE-based esco Taka Solutions, says that “to realise true energy savings, you have to benchmark against an international ratings system such as Ashrae.” The current regulatory framework is a means to broach the concept to market players, with the potential to gradually increase standards as the market matures.

The challenge is in mapping investment in green building materials to the amount of savings each product generates

The regulation outlined in these systems has not been the first move in the region to improve building energy efficiency. In 2005, the Dubai Municipality pushed ahead with regulation to increase insulation levels in buildings, thereby minimising heat transmission through walls. Many property developers in the market recognise the long-term benefits of this and have become receptive to new techniques to improve the energy efficiency of buildings. This provides the first step in changing the mind-set of market players, creating a greater degree of awareness and sensitivity to the issue.   

Holistic approach

To achieve a green building rating, at the very granular level this has meant using building materials considered green, such as double-glazed windows, energy-efficient air conditioners, LED lighting and increased insulation, among others. While the adoption of these materials on an individual basis will be effective in reducing total energy consumption, to maximise energy savings a holistic approach is required.

The focus on individual products has fostered a product-oriented culture in the green building market, placing less emphasis on developing green building solutions. “People start selling products instead of selling solutions,” says Sarfraz Dairkee, secretary to the board at the Emirates Green Building Council and general manager at MAHY Khoory.

This reorientation can take place through the process of integrated design. The process entails considering synergies between different building elements at the design phase, to determine the optimal use and positioning of green building materials to maximise energy savings.

Veda Baglia, sustainable and energy associate at WSP Group, explains that “through this approach, people will inevitably end up experimenting with multiple options for combinations of materials and systems that gives them the actual outcome desired.”

Cost savings

Estidama, recognising the importance of this step, has assigned a weight of 7 per cent to the Integrated Design Process within its point system. Dairkee estimates that this would increase initial costs by 5-7 per cent, but sets the stage for greater cost savings over the life of the project.

The challenge is in mapping investment in green building materials to the amount of savings each product generates. For instance, a reduction in air conditioning costs can be brought about not only by improving the energy efficiency of the air conditioner, but also by using windows with a lower heat transmission and by increasing insulation in walls.

Various elements of a green building reinforce each other to collectively reduce energy consumption in greater amounts than they would if applied individually. To be truly sustainable requires a re-engineering in the way these products are thought about and applied.

Melanie Noronha is a Senior Analyst at MEED Insight, the research and consulting arm of MEED