4. Recommendations 4.1. Recommendations for application
»
The recommendations included in this report will be beneficial, not only for the European authorities, but also for many players across different industries relevant to the building value chain, such as business associations, real estate developers, constructors and manufacturing companies, training centres and technical faculties. All of them will play an important role in raising awareness of the importance of the EU Taxonomy criteriafor the building industry.
«
Carlos Valdés, Independent ESG Consultant
4.1.1 DEVELOPING DIGITAL BUILDING DATA
For years, the construction and real estate sector has been grappling with issues surrounding building data and information, hindering a whole life cycle approach to data capture and management. However, as the analysis in chapter 3 shows, it is not as if there is no data. After all, data is generated at every stage of the life cycle for different purposes. The real issue is data accessibility. Often it is only possible to source data through third parties and/or through investing a considerable amount of time and effort. Research published by the UNEP-led Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction (GlobalABC) confirmed that the most challenging aspect of adopting a more consistent approach to building data and information management is not a lack of data but rather the lack of a central data and information storage option, leading to data being scattered across organisational departments, or being misled and lost and certainly not shared. Therefore, current efforts by various stakeholders across Europe and beyond to develop and roll out whole life cycle building data and information repositories should be stepped up and supported by governments and the industry.
Taxonomy Study | 22
Notable initiatives are the GlobalABC Building Passport, the European Commission’s Digital Building Logbook and at local level the so-called Woningpas in the Flemish region of Belgium. Having a central data repository where all relevant life cycle building information could be stored or tagged in a standardised way, would increase market participants’ in-house capacity for capturing and subsequently managing data needed for reporting against the EU Taxonomy and increase market buy-in, both at single asset as well as at portfolio level.
4.1.2 IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF ENERGY PERFORMANCE CERTIFICATES
The Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) is a well-established policy instrument that is used across all EU Member States. As such and given its market penetration it has to be regarded as a core element within the EU’s strategy to improve the energy efficiency performance of the European building stock. However, EPCs vary greatly across countries, making comparisons impossible. Regarding reputation and reliability, the study acknowledges the low reliability of EPCs as a common theme, with insufficient levels of quality assurance requirements and quality control, and a qualification for experts which varies across different countries. Regarding public acceptance, a relatively high percentage show interest, but in fact it seems that the general public does not understand or does not trust the information. Furthermore, EPCs can vary in their type, being either consumption-based or demand-based EPCs. Even though consumption-based EPCs might be available more frequently, due to their convenience in preparation, asset owners must realize that demand-based EPCs depict the energetic potential of buildings and must be made available to banks.
