Green Building Rating Systems´approach to CO2 emissions´mitigation. A case study of the Philippines by Kathia Roman

Master of Science Resource Efficiency in Architecture and Planning

GREEN BUILDING RATING SYSTEMS’ APPROACH TO CO2 EMISSIONS’ MITIGATION. A case study of the Philippines

Kathia Vanessa Román Reina

Cover picture: Makati, Metro Manila, The Philippines Romรกn, 2018

Master of Science Resource Efficiency in Architecture and Planning Master Thesis

GREEN BUILDING RATING SYSTEMS’ APPROACH TO CO2 EMISSIONS’ MITIGATION. A case study of the Philippines

Student: Kathia Vanessa Román Reina Matriculation number: 6037082 Supervisors: Prof. Martin Wickel and Cathrin Zengerling Date: January 2019

Declaration of authorship / Affidavit This declaration has to be submitted together with the thesis for the study file

Name:

Román Reina

Vorname:

Kathia Vanessa

Matrikelnummer:

6037082

Studiengang:

Resource Efficiency in Architecture and Planning

Hereby I declare that I have written this thesis with the tittle:

GREEN BUILDING RATING SYSTEMS’ APPROACH TO CO2 EMISSIONS’ MITIGATION. A case study of the Philippines without any help from others and without the use of documents and aids other than those stated above. I have mentioned all used sources and cited them correctly according to established academic citation rules. In case of group work, the explanation refers to the part of the thesis I worked on.

Hamburg, January 8th 2019 Place and Date

To be filled by the examination office. The Thesis was submitted on:

Signature - Student

Entry stamp Infothek Students Administration I Examination Office

ACKNOLEDGEMENTS

To Mami, Papi, Mimi, Ana and Josue for always support and encourage me to follow my dreams. No matter the physical distance, we are always together as a family. To Alex for all his help, patience, comprehension and love gave since the moment that I decided to apply for the REAP master. To his family as well for taking care of me here in Germany. To all the professionals I interviewed in the Philippines and Germany, especially to Mr. Ranell Dedicatoria form ICLEI, Mario Suelpo from the GBC Philippines and Rachel Naciongayo from Pasig City. All of you were fundamental to undertand the Philippinesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; context. Thanks for your support even from far away. To my UNFCCC former working colleagues, who shared valuable information, training and experiences in the field of climate change and CO2 emissionsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; mitigation. To my advisors, Prof. Martin Wickel and Cathrin Zengerling, for supervising and guiding me in this dissertation. To my REAP master friends, which certaintly made this journey more exiting, happy and international.

CONTENT

ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................ IV LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................... IV LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................ VI ABSTRACT and KEYWORDS.................................................................................... VII CHAPTER I 1- INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................1 1.1 Background Information ................................................................................4 1.1.1 Climate Change and CO2 Emissions: Facts and Figures ..................4 1.1.2 Urban Growth and Climate Change: Facts and Figures, Status Quo and Challenges ...............................................................6 1.1.3 Construction Sector and CO2 Emissions: the Gap between them ....................................................................................9 1.1.4 Green Building Rating Systems: Facts and Figures ........................10 1.1.5 Case Study: The Philippines - Facts and Figures ..........................13 1.2 Green Building Rating Systems: Case Studies’ Selection .........................24 1.3 Problem Identification .................................................................................25 1.4 Research Questions ...................................................................................28 1.5 Methodology ...............................................................................................28 CHAPTER II 2- LEGAL TOOLS’ CRITICAL REVIEW .....................................................................32 2.1 Climate Change International Legal Tools and the Integration of the Construction Sector within this Scenario .................................................32 2.2 Green Building Rating Systems ..................................................................36 2.2.1 International Level: Case Study LEED ...........................................36 2.2.2 National Level: Case Study BERDE ................................................42 2.2.3 Local Level: Case Study Pasig City .................................................46 2.3 Legal Framework in the Philippines .......................................................5050 2.3.1 CO2 Emissions’ Mitigation Strategies and Climate Change .........5050

2.3.2 CO2 Emissions’ Mitigation Strategies and the Construction Sector .......................................................................... 57 CHAPTER III 3- ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................. 61 3.1 LEED x BERDE – A Comparison Between CO2 Emissions’ Mitigation Approach ................................................................. 61 3.2 LEED x BERDE – the Status Quo Regarding Climate Change and Sustainable Construction Legal Framework Integration ..................... 67 3.3 Mitigation Strategies from the Construction Sector: How Are They Mainstreamed in the Philippine’s Climate Change Legal Tools? ............... 68 3.4 Understanding the Gaps ............................................................................ 69 3.4.1 Gap One: Incompatibility ................................................................. 69 3.4.2 Gap Two: Mitigation as a Function of Adaptation ............................ 71 3.4.3 Gap Three: Building and Construction Mitigations – the Detached Sector of the Climate Change Policies ............................ 74 3.4.4 Gap Four: Parallel Regimes: How to Bring Them Closer? .............. 75 3.4.5 Gap Five: Unsatisfactory Tailored Approach ................................... 77 CHAPTER IV 4- DISCUSSION .......................................................................................................... 81 4.1 Results’ discussion ..................................... Erro! Indicador não definido.81 4.1.1 LEED and BERDE scorecards’ analysis results .............................. 81 4.1.2 LEED and BERDE alignment with climate change and sustainable construction legal framework ......................................... 83 4.1.3 The Philippine’s climate change legal tools and the CO2 mitigation strategies from the construction sector ............................. 86 4.2 Closing the Gaps: the Search for solutions ............................................... 89 4.2.1 General Gap: Reducing carbon footprint through Green Building Certification Systems .............................................. 89 4.2.2 The Philippine’s Gaps: Pushing Mitigation to the Right Track in the Different Spheres ................................................................. 100

CHAPTER V 5 - CONCLUSION .....................................................................................................112 5.1 Answering the Research Questions.........................................................112 Research Question 1 ............................................................................112 Research Question 2 ............................................................................114 Research Question 3 ............................................................................118 5.3 Outlook.....................................................................................................119 5.2 Personal Note ..........................................................................................120

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ ANNEX Figures of the Text Scorecardsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Analysis

ABBREVIATIONS ADB

Asian Development Bank

ASEAN

Association of Southeast Asian Nations

BAU

Business as Usual

BBB

Build Back Better

BERDE

Building for Ecologically Responsive Design Excellency

BERDE-NC

BERDE New Construction

BERDE-OP

BERDE Operations

BERDE-NC

BERDE Renovations

BREEAM

Building Research Establishment’s Environmental Assessment Method

CASBEE

Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Environmental Efficiency

CBD

Central Business Districts

CCC

Climate Change Commission

COP

Conference of Parties

CO2

Carbon dioxide

CO₂e

Carbon dioxide equivalent

DENR

Department of Environment and Natural Resources

DGNB

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen

EAM

Environmental Assessment Method

EDGE

Excellence in Design for Greater Efficiencies

ENSO

El Niño Southern Oscillation

EPA

United Stated Environmental Protection Agency

GABC

Global Alliance for Building and Construction

GBCI

Green Building Certification Institute

GBRS

Green Building Rating Systems

GDP

Gross Domestic Product

GHG

Greenhouse Gases

grEEEn

Geared for Resiliency and Energy Efficiency for the Environment

HAVC

Heat, Air Ventilation, and Cooling

HDI

Human Development Index HDI

HK-BEAM

Hong Kong Building Environmental Assessment Method

HQE

Haute QualitĂŠ Environnementale

IACCC

Inter-Agency Committee on Climate Change

ICLEI

Local Government for Sustainability

ICLEI SEAS

ICLEI Southeast Asia Secretariat

IEA

International Energy Agency

IFC

International Finance Corporation

IGBC

Indian Green Building Council

IMCCC

Inter-Ministerial Committee on Climate Change

INDC

Intended Nationally Determined Contribution

IPCC

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

ISO

International Organization for Standardization

KRAs

Key Result Areas

LCA

Life Cycle Assessment

LCCAP

Local Climate Change Action Plan

LEED

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design

LEED AP

LEED with specialty

LEED GA

LEED Green Associate

LEED BD+C

LEED Building Design and Construction

LEED ID+C

LEED Interior Design and Construction

LEED ND

LEED Neighborhood Development

LEED O+M

LEED Building Operations and Maintenance

LGU

Local Government Unit

LUCF

Land-Use Change and Forestry

MPR

Minimum Program Requirements

NAMA

Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action

NBCRC

National Building Code Review Committee

NCCAP

National Climate Change Action Plan

NCR

National Capital Region

III

NDC

Nationally Determined Contribution

NFSCC

National Framework Strategy on Climate Change

NGO

Non-Governmental Organization

NUA

New Urban Agenda

PGHGIMRS

Philippine Greenhouse Gas Inventory Management and Reporting System

PHILGBC

Philippine Green Building Council

PGBI

Philippine Green Building Initiative

POPCEN

Census of Population

ppp

Parts per million

PSTLES

Public Sector Taking the Lead in Environmental Sustainability

SDG

Sustainable Development Goal

SWOT TRACI

Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats

UNEP-SBCI

UNEPâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Sustainable Buildings and Climate Initiative

UNFCCC

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

UN HABITAT

United Nations Human Settlements Programme

UNISDR

United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction

UNSDG

United Nations Sustainable Development Goals

VOC

Volatile Organic Compounds

USGBC

US Green Building Council

WRI

World Resources Institute

WRI CAIT

World Resources Institute Climate Analysis Indicators Tool

Tool for Reduction and Assessment of Chemicals and Other Environmental Impacts

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1- Thesis triad ............................................................................................ 3 Figure 2- CO2 concentration timeline .................................................................... 5 Figure 3- Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Gas .......................................... 5 Figure 4- Global CO2 Anthropogenic Emissions by Economic

Figure 5- Urban Growth 1970 – 2030 ................................................................... 7 Figure 6- World Map of the Global Climate Risk Index 1997–2016 ...................... 8 Figure 7- Share of global energy-related CO2 emissions by sector in 2015 ........................................................................................ 9 Figure 8- Buildings sector energy-carbon intensities by country

Figure 9- Urban, architectural and social contrasts of Metro Manila .................. 14 Figure 10- The Philippines' map with the 18 administrative regions .................... 15 Figure 11- Percentage of population in urban and rural areas in the Philippines .................................................................................. 16 Figure 12- Percentage of urban population by region and subregion in the Philippines ................................................................................. 16 Figure 13- Urban population by size class of urban settlement in the Philippines .................................................................................. 17 Figure 14- Philippines map of Köppen climate classification ............................... 18 Figure 15- Average Impacts of major natural hazards in the Philippines .................................................................................. 19 Figure 16- Philippine exposure map on climate change ...................................... 20 Figure 17- Philippine’s GHG emissions by sector in 2012 ................................... 21 Figure 18- Comparison between cities’ carbon footprints per capita ................... 21 Figure 19- Population density of the National Capital Region in 2015 ................. 22 Figure 20- Political map of Pasig City .................................................................. 23 Figure 21- Ortigas Central Business District in Pasig City ................................... 23 Figure 22 –Thesis’ approach visual representation ............................................. 30

Figure 23- Scope of NDCs and building policies by policy type and emissions coverage ..............................................................33 Figure 24- Green building & the Sustainable Development Goals .......................34 Figure 25- LEED rating levels ..............................................................................37 Figure 26- LEED V4 Categories ...........................................................................38 Figure 27- LEED V4 allocation points MCA .........................................................41 Figure 28- LEED V4 Example Associations in Weightings Tool ..........................41 Figure 29- LEED V4 allocation points result .........................................................41 Figure 30- BERDE logo ........................................................................................42 Figure 31- BERDE V2 awarding categories .........................................................43 Figure 32- BERDE V2 certification process .........................................................45 Figure 33- NFSCC operational diagram ...............................................................52 Figure 34- Philippines policies scenario vs Paris Agreement goals .....................56 Figure 35- Process of application of building permit flow chart vs GB code ..........................................................................59 Figure 36- LEED Scorecard analysis excerpt ......................................................62 Figure 37- LEED and BERDE credits approach to CO2 emissions' mitigation ...........................................................................63 Figure 38- LEED and BERDE potential to include and account CO2 emissions' mitigation .......................................................64 Figure 39- LEED and BERDE percentage of credits targeting CO2 emissions (directly and indirectly) per overarching category ...............66 Figure 40- EDGE Logo .........................................................................................90 Figure 41- Screenshot of EDGE Software ...........................................................92 Figure 42- DGNB logo ..........................................................................................94 Figure 43- DGNBâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s basic structure of the system ................................................94 Figure 44- DGNB awarding logic..........................................................................95 Figure 45- GBRS comparison regarding strategies approach to CO2 emissionsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; mitigation ..............................................................96

Figure 46- GBRS comparison regarding potentiality to include CO2 emissions’ reductions strategies and accountings

Figure 47- GBRS comparison regarding percentage of strategies targeting CO2 emissions’ reduction per overarching category ............ 99 Figure 48- Number and Gross Floor Areas (GFA) of Green Buildings in Singapore until May 2016 ............................................... 103 Figure 49- Singapore’s projected 2020 BAU emissions ..................................... 104 Figure 50- Split of global building related emissions and emissions' reduction potential.......................................................... 108

LIST OF TABLES Table 1 – Demographic data comparison between The Philippines and Germany .............................................................. 17 Table 2 – Climate data comparison between The Philippines and Germany ..................................................................... 18 Table 3 – List of interviews conducted in The Philippines and Germany ....................................................................................... 29 Table 4 – LEED and BERDE overview climate change and sustainable construction legal frameworks .......................................... 67 Table 5 – LEED and BERDE overview climate change and sustainable construction legal frameworks ................................... 68

VII

ABSTRACT and KEYWORDS

This research analyses the approach of several Green Building Rating Systems to CO 2 emissionsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; mitigation. Having the Philippines as case study, it is a multi-level assessment encompassing a critical review of the international, national and local legal frameworks related to climate change and the integration of CO2 mitigationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s strategies within the building and construction sector. The disconnection between the common construction practices and the established global sustainability goals is studied in the light of of the Green Building Rating Systems. Starting point are Green Building Rating Systems of the first generation developed by the private sector. For this, LEED and BERDE were selected to be analyzed. LEED represents the system on an international scale, BERDE on a national as well as on a local scale with Pasig City. The case of the Philippines is an example of a developing country where the climate change legal framework still needs to be improved in order to have a balanced and fair approach towards the international agreements. Due to the countryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s high vulnerability to climate change effects, adaptation is stated as a priority in the main legal instruments. The national government sees mitigation as a task which directly depends of financial and technical aid from the private sector and foreign assistance. This position is reflected in the building and construction sector, where mitigation, minimum decarbonization levels or net-zero buildings are not included in the weakly enforced green building code of the public sector. Five gaps were identified as major problems: one general gap was detected in the selected rating systems, four specific ones regarding climate change legal framework in the Philippines. Along the work, the gaps as well as the reasons for the current situation are analyzed, under an integrated point of view, helping to work out the challenges that need to be overcome. Keeping in mind the characteristics of the studied context, the aim is to propose viable solutions that can be developed and implemented in order to close the gaps.

KEYWORDS Green Building Rating Systems, CO2 Emissions, Climate Change, Mitigation, Legal Framework, The Philippines

VIII

Pasig City, Metro Manila, The Philippines Romรกn, 2018

1- INTRODUCTION

Urban population growth increased - with unprecedented pace - from 746 million in 1950 to almost 4 billion inhabitants in 2015 (Wilmoth, 2015). Projections indicate a number of 5 billion persons by 2030 and by 2050, 66% of the world population will be living in cities (United Nations Statistics Division, 2016). Asia will concentrate 53% of the world’s urban population (United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2014). This rapid process challenges urban settlements’ and governments’ capacities to meet the demands of the constantly increasing population and, at the same time, to ensure a sustainable development and future. This context leads to a construction sector scenario where informal activities, real estate speculation, greenwashing, unsustainable and environmental low-quality buildings arise. This galloping urbanization phenomenon demands a fast, efficient and comprehensive response. Focusing on environmental matters and, specifically, climate change, cities are main actors and contributors to the problems and, at the same time, are highly vulnerable to their impacts. These problems and effects are exacerbated in unplanned urban areas, demonstrating how mitigation and adaptation measures should be included as strategies to ensure the sustainable development of these centers. With regards to CO2 emissions, cities accounted for more than 70% of the world’s emissions in 2014 (UN-Habitat, 2016) and, during the same year, the global building sector produced 39% of the global energyrelated CO2 emissions (Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction, 2017). Sound climate change international legal frameworks are available. However, it is vital to adapt these international guidelines and demands to plausible, tangible and feasible approaches towards national and local contexts. This is a complex process where integrated solutions between horizontal work and vertical support is necessary to encourage cities to embed and implement policies on each level, engage stakeholders and untap potentials. Narrowing down to the construction sector’s state of the art and role developed within this process, it is clear that the sector holds consolidated, market-driven guidelines, which lead to a change of paradigm. Thus, most of these guidelines are not well shaped to this new urgent demand and reality. There is a disconnection between the common construction practices and the established global sustainability goals. Sustainability is integrated, mostly, in Green Building Rating Systems (GBRS), whose vast majority still encompass the same disconnection and gap.

Usually, Green Building Rating Systems aim to preserve natural resources, guarantee human being’s living and working conditions, develop cities with more sustainable strategies and to provide reliable evaluation regarding the assessed projects. Despite the significant amount of certification systems and their influence on the different territorial and governmental levels, the topic of CO2 emissions still remains a secondary issue in most of them and, especially, in the system that is better known worldwide (LEED - Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design). Commonly, the most developed categories in these systems are water, waste, transportation, materials, energy and internal air quality. Nevertheless, when it comes to CO2 emissions and the construction sector’s relation with climate change, there is, in the majority of systems, a diffuse approach: few strategies address such an urgent issue, scatter references and, in most of the cases, also lack specific chapters and parameters dedicated to this concern. This scenario neglected and underestimated the importance of understanding, implementing and encompassing measures to reduce the construction sector’s CO2 emissions. Fortunately, a second generation of certification systems for the construction sector is already developed, aligned with global warming concerns and harmonized with international frameworks, such as the United Nation Sustainable Development Goals. The shifting process between the two generations of systems is still at a slow pace. However, when fully consolidated, these new frameworks (e.g. DGNB - Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen - and EDGE - Excellence in Design for Greater Efficiencies - from the World Bank) will offer a more realistic and plausible approach to CO2 emissions in collaboration with the Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction. With regards to the case studies’ selection, LEED will be analyzed as the international system due to its wide application. Considering the national and local case studies, both take place in the Philippines. The country was selected based on several arguments. First, the Philippine Green Building Council published a voluntary national certification system in 2009, BERDE (Building for Ecologically Responsive Design Excellency), which includes a chapter dedicated to emissions and was developed on the basis of LEED and the Australian system named Green Star (Philippine Green Building Council, 2018). Second, BERDE was adopted for several Philippine local governments and declared mandatory for specific types of buildings. Among these cities, Pasig City, located in Metro Manila, was chosen to be the local study since the current government is engaged in diverse environmental causes and sustainable development initiatives. Third, the process of nationalizing and localizing (in a developing country) an international system created in the United States of America is quite questionable and provides the opportunity to assess it under a critical and integrated point of view. Finally, when focusing on climate change, the Philippines were classified as a country with a higher Climate Risk Index in 2013 (Kreft et al., 2014). Most of the cities of this archipelago are coastal, a location that increases their vulnerability to climate change effects. On one side, cities are not prepared to deal with these effects, on the other, the current practices increase emissions. The government is aware of the problem and is working to change the current scenario. Examples are the Kyoto Protocol as well as the Paris Agreement ratifications, the Climate Change Act of 2009, the Climate Change Commission and the Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC). However, uncertainties, lack of transparency,

incomplete plans, corruption, shortage of qualified professionals and dependence on foreign aid compromise the process of change. For a better understanding of the research triad, the thesis was divided in five chapters. The first chapter, the Introduction, will provide the overview about background information as well as facts and figures of the urban growth and climate change, the construction sector, the rating systems and, lastly, insights about the Philippines. In addition, the problem identification and methodology are explained in this chapter too. The second chapter is dedicated to the legal tools’ review. The first section is a summary of the newest international legal tools regarding climate change and the integration of the construction sector. The second section includes the Green Building Rating Systems selected (LEED and BERDE). The third section focusses on the Philippines. It recapitulates the climate change and construction sector frameworks in the light of the CO2 emissions’ mitigation. The third chapter presents the analysis. First, a thorough examination of the scorecards of LEED and BERDE depicts their approach towards CO2 emissions’ reduction strategies. Based on the previous chapters, this chapter appraises the integration of the international climate change legal framework into these GBRS, as well as how the Philippines encompassed mitigation strategies from the construction sector along the different climate change tools. In the Problem Identification section, 5 gaps were pointed out as the critical points to solve. Therefore, this chapter includes a SWOT analysis of each gap. The fourth chapter refers to the Discussion of the quantitative and qualitative results of the analyses. It explains the findings, limitations and challenges of them. In addition, suggestions to solve the 5 gaps are made. LEED and BERDE confrontation with existent GBRS more aligned with global warming concerns and governmental examples of how to mainstream such strategic actions are displayed. The fifth, and last, chapter answers the research questions which guided the thesis, giving the conclusion and providing outlooks for the work.

Figure 1- Thesis triad Source: Own, 2018

1.1 Background Information 1.1.1 Climate Change and CO2 Emissions: Facts and Figures The world’s climate variated in cycles during the Earth’s history due to natural factors. However, since the last century, a trend in these climate variations was identified, where alterations were faster and more intense, originating the concept of climate change. Human activities have a direct influence on this scenario and the projections for the future. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defines climate change as “any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity” (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007). Climate change is a global problem, representing a great environmental, social and economic challenge. The main evidences of climate change are temperature rise, warming oceans, sea level rise, ocean acidification, shrinking ice sheets, glacial retreat and extreme weather events. The impacts of each one of these evidences are scaling up when the threads to human, biodiversity, natural and financial resources are analyzed. International entities, researches, scientist, governments and civil society groups address climate change in integrated, cross-sectoral and intense ways. The aim is to raise awareness; consolidate legal frameworks; propose and implement strategies according to national and local contexts; minimize the main causes; preserve the natural resources; adapt societies to the current changing conditions; reduce human, environmental and financial loss and damages; and guarantee a better future through sustainable development. Notwithstanding, the pace and results of this complex process are not fast and substantial enough to modify, in a significant way, the current track and consequences. The scientific projections predict scenarios where the negative effects will be stronger, especially if the greenhouse gases (GHG) emission continues to raise. Among the consequences are floods, decrease of water resources availability and quality, increase of water-borne illness, proliferation of disease vectors, raising temperatures, heat waves, droughts, forest fires, extinction of flora’s and fauna’s most vulnerable species, heavy rains, stronger hurricanes, significant damages to infrastructure, agricultural shortage, hunger, increment of social problems and financial inequalities (OECD, 2015). IPCC defines GHG as “gaseous constituents of the atmosphere, both natural and anthropogenic, that absorb and emit radiation at specific wavelengths within the spectrum of infrared radiation emitted by the Earth's surface, the atmosphere, and clouds. This property causes the greenhouse effect” (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007). Some of the primary GHG present in the atmosphere are ozone (O3), water vapor (H2O), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2). Nevertheless, a portion of today’s GHG has a human-made characteristic. Focusing on emissions, according to IPCC, they can be direct or indirect. Direct emissions “physically arise from activities within well-defined boundaries of, for instance, a region, an economic sector, a company, or a process” (Allwood et al., 2014). Indirect emissions are considered “a consequence of the activities within well-defined boundaries of, for instance, a region, an economic sector, a company or process, but which occur outside the specified boundaries” (Allwood et al., 2014).

In addition, GHG emissions are classified in 3 different scopes according to The Greenhouse Gas Protocol, a partnership lead by the World Resource Institute (WRI). Scope 1 indicates the direct emissions. Scope 2 refers to indirect emissions due to electricity, heating, cooling or steam generation. Scope 3 describes the indirect emissions that were not accounted in Scope 2, meaning emissions from transportation, extraction, waste disposal, etc. (WRI, 2004) Zooming into the CO2 anthropogenic emissions, there has been a steady growth since 1950. In 2013, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere exceeded 400 parts per million (ppm). The estimation is, if human activities and unsustainable development continues with the fossil fuel business-as-usual, CO2 level will rise to 1500 ppm (National Aeronautics and Space Administration - Global Climate Change Division, 2017).

Figure 2- CO2 concentration timeline Source: NASA, 2017

Since the pre-industrial time, CO2 Figure 152- Global CO2 Anthropogenic Emissions by anthropogenic emissions contributed Economic SectorFigure 153- CO2 concentration approximately 78% to the total GHG timeline Source: NASA, 2017 emitted from 1970 to 2010. Population and economic growth are considered the main drivers Figure 154- Global CO2 Anthropogenic Emissions by (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Economic Sector Change, 2014). When it comes to the Source: IPCC, 2015 majors emitters, USA, the European Union, and China will be responsible for 20.2%, 17.3%, and 12.1%, Figure 155- Global CO2 Anthropogenic Emissions by respectively, of global temperature Economic SectorFigure 156- CO2 concentration increase in 2100 (Rocha et al., 2015). timeline Source: NASA, 2017 Narrowing down to cities and the building sector, the world urbanization Figure 3- Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Gas level intensified from 29% to 49% Source: IPCC, 2015 Figure 157- Global CO2 Anthropogenic Emissions by between 1950 and 2005, increasing Economic SectorFigure 158- CO2 concentration the CO2 emissions by 500% due to fossil-fuel burning. Cities accounted for more than 70% timeline NASA, 2017 of world emissions in 2014 (UN-Habitat, 2016). During Source: the same year, the global building sector caused 39% of global energy-related CO2 emissions (Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction, 2017). The last IPCC reports state that buildings accounted for a total Global CO2 Anthropogenic Emissions by of 6,4% of the direct emissions and 12% Figure of the159indirect emissions from the global GHG Economic Sector emissions (Figure 4). Based on this overview, it is clearSource: how urgent and strong emissionsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; IPCC, 2015 mitigation strategies need to be integrated, enforced, implemented and monitored in different processes, areas and scales of the building construction activities. Figure 160- Global CO2 Anthropogenic Emissions by Economic Sector Source: IPCC, 2015

Figure 4- Global CO2 Anthropogenic Emissions by Economic Sector Source: IPCC, 2015

1.1.2

Urban Growth and Climate Change: Facts and Figures, Status Quo and Challenges

In the last decades, urban population growth increased with unprecedented pace from 746 million in 1950 to almost 4 billion inhabitants in 2015 (54% of the world’s population) (Wilmoth, 2015). The attributed reasons include working opportunities, access to variate services, better education, improved health care services, housing options, transportation possibilities, cultural variety, recreational offers, social status and rural areas modernization. Projections indicate that 5 billion persons by 2030 and by 2050, a total of 66% of the world population, will be living in cities (United Nations Statistics Division, 2016). According to the World Urbanization Prospects: the 2018 Revision key facts, published by the United Nations, today, 54% of the world’s urban population is concentrated in Asia, followed by Africa and Europe with 13% each one; by 2050, 90% of the urban growth will take place in Asia and Africa. Currently, there are 33 megacities with more than 10 million inhabitants and by 2030, 43 megacities are predicted, located mostly in developing regions (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2018). The rapid urbanization process worldwide, from 1970 to 2018 and the projection for 2030, is illustrated in Figure 5. In general, this rapid process challenges cities’ and governments’ capacities to meet the demands of the constantly increasing population and, at the same time, to ensure a sustainable development and future. Energy, transportation, water, sanitation and housing are some of the sectors more affected in this transition. This unplanned cities’ infrastructure leads to urban sprawl, economic losses, health issues, social problems, environmental threats and, in the specific case of the construction sector, informal activities, real estate speculation, greenwashing, unsustainable and environmentally low quality buildings

(United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2014). On one side, cities demand the main share of resources’ consumption: 70% of urban land is used for housing and more than 70% of the global energy demand is caused by cities. The global demand for energy and water is expected to grow up to 40% and 50% by 2030. Moreover, the estimated investment to support urban growth and infrastructure amounts to US$ 57 trillion between 2013 and 2030. On the other side, cities account for 80% of the global GDP (UNHabitat, 2016). The urbanization phenomenon offers new opportunities to innovate, improve dwellers’ life quality, increase cities’ resilience and enhance not just a sustainable but also an inclusive and fair development. Through a set of integrated actions, such as disaster risk reduction strategies, capacity building, response measures, monitoring, early warning, land use planning, building regulations and codes, cities can step up and master the challenges.

Figure 5- Urban Growth 1970 – 2030 Source: United Nations, DESA, Population Division, 2018

Zooming into environmental matters and climate change, cities are main actors and contributors to the problems and, in parallel, are highly vulnerable to their impacts. These problems and effects are exacerbated in unplanned urban areas, demonstrating the importance of strategic and long-term measures to ensure the sustainable development and continuity of these centers. Cities need to work urgently on three fronts: (1) mitigation strategies to reduce the GHG emissions, looking forward to limit global warming and to a decarbonized economy, (2) adaptation strategies, aiming to increase their resiliency, and (3) disaster risk reduction to prepare them for the forecasted events. Ironically, the most affected areas are the ones that contributed the least to the current situation and the ones with least financial and technical means to thrive in the process (World Resources Institute, 2017). Worldwide, most of the cities are in coastal zones and in developing countries, increasing their vulnerability to climate change disasters (Figure 6). Coastal zones concentrate 13% of the world’s urban population (UN-Habitat, 2016).

When analyzing the international legal framework, existent mechanisms and initiatives related with climate change and the connection with cities, there is a broad range of agreements, programs, agendas and goals. The main ones (and explored in the Legal Tools) are: UNFCCC Paris Agreement together with the documents, projects and activities that support it (e.g. Nationally Determined Contributions, Talanoa Dialogue), UN Sustainable Development Goals and New Urban Agenda. All of them are interrelated, offering an umbrella to cooperate, innovate, establish roadmaps and tackle actions. However, it is vital to adapt these international guidelines and demands to plausible, tangible and feasible approaches towards national and local contexts, realities and possibilities. This is a complex process where integrated solutions between horizontal work and vertical support are necessary to encourage cities to embed and implement policies on each level, engage stakeholders and untap potentials

Figure 6- World Map of the Global Climate Risk Index 1997–2016 Source: Germanwatch, 2017

The United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN HABITAT) compiled in the World Cities Report 2016 – Urbanization and developing emerging Futures - the four broad environmental challenges that urban areas are facing.    

“providing public services in an equitable manner; addressing environmental risks, from pollution to climate change impacts; minimizing the negative impacts of land transformations in the use of resources, biodiversity and ecosystems; responding to the global call for decarbonization and rationalizing the use of resources.” (UN-Habitat, 2016)

In the light of these demands and challenges, the report illustrates the following things: how climate change is a global concern; how good governance is vital in the process; how current urbanization patterns need to be modified; how urbanization can be tailored to be a transformative force, improving life quality in multiple facets. Such illustrations strengthen the importance of the current research

1.1.3

Construction Sector and CO2 Emissions: the Gap between them

Based on the urban scenario described, it is possible to narrow down to the construction sector. To cope with the demand and projections of the growing urban population and cities, this sector plays a key role within the sustainable development process as well as in achieving the ambitions of the Paris Agreement. It is clear that (even though it holds a consolidated, market driver and mindsets changer guidelines) most of them are not well shaped to this new urgent demand and reality. There is a disconnection between the common construction practices and the established global goals and agreements. Sustainability is implemented, mostly, in green building rating system from the private sector, whose vast majority still encompass the same disconnection and gap (UN-Habitat, 2016). If the construction sector continues in the same track and pace, it will be harder to accomplish the agreements goals. According to the Global Alliance for Building and Construction (GABC), a United Nations Environment initiative and collaborative umbrella launched during COP21 (Conference of Parties 21), construction activities and existent buildings consume 36% of the global final energy use. Figure 7- Share of global energy-related CO2 emissions by sector in 2015 Moreover, this sector is Source: Global Alliance for Building and Construction, 2017 responsible for 39% of energy-related CO2 world emissions (Figure 7). Also, 82% of buildings’ final energy consumption was provided by fossil fuels in 2015. From 2010 to 2016, the sector’s emissions arose 1% per year, global floor area is projected to increase 2.3% per year and energy use per m2 will raise 1.5% per year. In the next 20 years, a massive new building construction is expected, from which 60% will take place in countries where building energy codes are not mandatory. Finally, by 2060, an increase of 230 billion m2 of new constructed area is projected. The main rapid grows will take place in the Asian and African region (Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction, 2017). Additionally, the building sector has a direct impact on other environmental fields due to resource intensive activities. On a global scale, the building industry consumes 30% of fresh water and generates 30% of the wastewater along the whole life-cycle (Bardhan, 2011). Worldwide, there was an increase of 60% of the materials extracted, harvested and used since 1980. From this quantity, non-renewable resources accounted for 2/3. For example, construction minerals’ extraction increased 80% during the mentioned timeframe (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2015). In addition, the sector produces 40% of waste and employs 10% of the workforce (United Nations Environment Programm, 2016). Moreover, in the last two decades, the construction sector GPD grows 1% per year, accounting for 13% of the worlds’ GDP. This pace is expected to be maintained (Global Construction Perspectives and Oxford Economics, 2015). Finally, other

impacts such as noise pollution, air contamination, land demand and demographic shifts are consequences of this industry. On a global scale, there is plenty of room for CO2 mitigation strategies in the building and construction sector. The downside is that most of them remain untapped due to unforced effective policies, unclear roadmaps, promotion of less efficient technologies, weak investments, financial and operational myths, lack of interest from the main stakeholders and users’ behavior.

Figure 8- Buildings sector energy-carbon intensities by country Source: Global Alliance for Building and Construction, 2017

1.1.4 Green Building Rating Systems: Facts and Figures Green building rating systems (GBRS), certifications, labels, codes and standards for the construction market are widely used nowadays. Developed since 1990 (Yusoff and Wen, 2014), they are present on different levels, embedding several building typologies and tackling environmental, social and economic categories. These tools, in general, aim to evaluate natural resources preservation, guarantee human being’s living and working conditions. GBRS target, as well, to develop cities with more sustainable strategies, provide reliable evaluation regarding the projects assessed, constitute benchmarks, innovate across the private markets, inspire the construction sector and provide a tool in order to compare the edifices. Confronted with the business as usual constructions, green buildings endeavor in the sustainability’s triple bottom line. Green buildings outstand in the market by alleviating human’s negative impacts, in different environmental scales and components, through promoting efficient and conscious consumption of natural resources. Green buildings increase users’ wellbeing and productiveness, lower the edifice maintenance and provide financial benefits (Khamidi, Idrus and Rahardjati, 2011).

Green building rating or certification systems can be defined as “… a system that rates or rewards relative levels of compliance or performance with specific environmental goals and requirements“ (Vierra, 2016). These rating systems request an integrated design process to embrace the entire edifice’s life-cycle and assure the environmental responsibility of the multi-attribute addressed. Ideally, a rating system’s should be science-based, transparent, objective and progressive. Usually, the GBRS are structured with a checklist, which attributes credits or points according to the strategies implemented in different categories (Khamidi, Idrus and Rahardjati, 2011). Depending on the final number achieved, a building sustainability and performance is rated and able to be compared with other buildings. A GBRS can be prescriptive, performance-based or outcome-based. The main difference between the green building rating systems and the green building codes is that these last ones are mandatory (Vierra, 2016). The Building Research Establishment’s Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) was the first GBRS developed. Created in 1988 and launched in 1990 by the BRE Global Sustainability Board, it targeted initially the United Kingdom’s construction market. The Environmental Assessment Method (EAM) underpinned environmental impact, water use, energy consumption, materials, access to public transportation and innovation features. The objectives of providing an environmentally credible tool, transparent when comparing buildings, being able to improve the edifice’s standards mandatory by legislation and triggering the demand for a sustainable construction market guided its consolidation process (Aubree, 2010). Without a doubt, the importance as a pioneer within the field and the capacity to inspire the establishment of many other rating systems is remarkable. But this foremost characteristic did not guarantee its preeminence. Outside of UK and Europe, BREEM did not thrive as much as its follower (LEED). According to Adegbile (2013), the reasons are the complex weighting system, the highly accurate requirements and the market profile aimed to tackle (Adegbile, 2013). In 1993, the US Green Building Council (USGBC) was founded. With financial help of the US Department of Energy, a pilot rating and evaluation tool was initiated. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) was tested in 1998 and 1999 in around 50 projects (Yudelson, 2007). Based on BREEAM, LEED proposed a voluntary scheme that encompassed the different phases of high performance and sustainable building. Design, construction and operation were the phases tackled through 5 overarching categories: water efficiency, sustainable sites, energy and atmosphere, indoor environment quality and materials and resources (Nguyen and Altan, 2011). Following a point-based system, the real estate developments are classified in 4 categories: certified, silver, gold and platinum. Across time, market demands, new technologies and lessons learnt turned the driving forces of LEED’s evolution process. Thanks to its forceful marketing, clear message, flexibility to comply with the requirements, amount of open access information available in different languages, variety of guidelines (Adegbile, 2013), professional accreditation program and regular events hosted to promote the best practices and most challenging cases, LEED consolidated as a worldwide market leader (U.S. Green Building Council, 2018b). Nevertheless, diverse critics and weaknesses surround the rating system’s technical and functional issues, such as American-based guidelines and standards, high costs, volume of demanded documentation, lack of third-party audit for the assessment or

a life cycle assessment exclusion. Since LEED is part of my case study, a deeper analysis about it takes place in the following chapters. After LEED, and its market success, various other rating systems, codes, tools and methodologies to assess and compare sustainability among buildings were launched since the 1990 decade. A total of 600 green certification systems is estimated worldwide (Vierra, 2016). Some of the most used systems today are: Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Environmental Efficiency (CASBEE) from Japan, Green Globes System from Canada, Green Star from Australia, Indian Green Building Council (IGBC) Green Homes Rating System, Hong Kong Building Environmental Assessment Method (HK-BEAM), German Sustainable Building Council (DGNB -Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen), Haute Qualité Environnementale or High Quality Environmental standard (HQE) from France, WELL Building Standard from USA, Estidama in the United Arab States and Excellence in Design for Greater Efficiencies (EDGE) from the World Bank. A number of these systems established a partnership with LEED, sharing requirements, parameters and qualified professionals. This strategy allows to certify a building under several systems in the cheapest, fastest and easiest process. Examples of these possibilities are LEED and EDGE or LEED and WELL. Hence, with the aim of developing a strong network of Green Building Councils, as well as to unify them, the World Green Building Council was founded at the end of the 90’s. Today, 73 countries and more than 49,000 members are organized in 5 Regional Networks (World Green Building Council, 2018). The GBRS started to focus on new buildings and expanded with a wide range of options, scaling up to an urban level. Presently, guidelines and awarding categories are available for new constructions, existent buildings and neighborhoods. Moreover, each one of these main options can be subdivided according to the buildings’ typology. Examples for these typologies are historical buildings, hospitals, commercial areas, interiors, schools, universities, warehouses, museums etc. Adding the phases of renovation and deconstruction to the analyzed construction stages marked another important development. It is undeniable that the GBRS have the strength to transform the market, to trigger the development of greener products, to add value to real estate projects, to influence thousands of professionals and to disseminate in different geographic and administrative scales. Yet, the GBRS are surrounded by critics and disadvantages. First, the national and local use of GBRS, designed under another context, is quite questionable (Gou and Lau, 2014). The disadvantages of “transferring” a system become visible when cultural aspects, climatic features, vernacular architecture, regional material and techniques are excluded of the guidelines. This neglects and eliminates regional characteristics, downgrading architecture quality as well as ignoring solutions such as passive architecture, which require less energy consumption, for example. Furthermore, the GBRS approach to climate change international framework falls short to tackle the actions urgently demanded (mitigation and adaptation). According to Scofield (2013) “…LEED certification is not yielding any significant reduction in GHG emission by commercial buildings. At best it can be concluded that LEED certiﬁcation has resulted in more efﬁcient buildings that neither save energy nor reduce GHG emissions.”(Scofield,

2013). Greenwashing is added to the concern’s list. The certified buildings’ energy performance and efficiency is questioned mainly by the fact of the few open source information available (Scofield, 2009). Narrowing down to the thesis topic, despite the significant amount of rating systems and their influence on the different territorial and governmental levels (the World Green Building Council until now has certified 1.24 Billion m2) (World Green Building Council, 2017), the topic of CO2 emissions still remains a secondary issue in most of them and, specially, in the system that is better known worldwide (LEED). Usually, water, waste, transportation, materials, energy and internal air quality are the most developed categories, embedding well defined strategies, parameters and solid products developed by specific markets to attend the requirements. In addition, it is possible to find remarkable studies, analyses, researches and theses related with them. Nevertheless, when it comes to CO2 emissions and the construction sector’s relation with climate change, there is, in the majority of systems, a diffuse approach: few strategies address such an urgent issue, scatter references and, in most of the cases, lack specific chapters and parameters dedicated to this concern. This scenario neglected and underestimated the importance of understanding, encompassing and implementing measures to reduce the CO2 emissions from the construction sector. Considering the green building rating systems’ role as modifiers of the construction market, the users’ preferences, the real estate investors’ requirements, the cities’ shape and demands, CO2 emissions mitigation strategies played, until few years ago, a minor role as drivers within these sustainable development tools. Fortunately, a second generation of rating systems for the construction sector is already developed, aligned with global concerns and harmonized with international frameworks, such as United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. The shifting process between the two generations of systems is still in a smooth pace. However, when fully consolidated, these new frameworks (e.g. DGNB Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen - and EDGE - Excellence in Design for Greater Efficiencies - from the World Bank), will offer a more realistic and plausible approach to CO2 emissions and the ambitious targets from the Paris Agreement.

1.1.5 Case Study: The Philippines - Facts and Figures With the aim to understand how the international legal framework – related with climate change and with the construction sector – is implemented on a national and local level, the Republic of the Philippines was selected to be the case study of this thesis. The reasons for this selection were based on the country’s vulnerability to climate change effects and provisions taken against it, interest in studying a country where I lived before, the national framework approach to CO2 emissions in the construction sector and, lastly, the existence of a voluntary GBRS (BERDE) developed inside the country. This section provides general information, such as demographic, geographic and economic data, as well as climate change facts and challenges regarding the country and the local case study.

Figure 9- Urban, architectural and social contrasts of Metro Manila Source: Own, 2018

Geographic and Demographic Data The Philippines is an archipelagic country located in Southeast Asia. The total land area of approximately 300,000 km2 is spread along 7,641 islands (Philippine Statistics Authority, 2016a), surrounded by the Philippine Sea in the east and by the Chinese Sea in the west. The islands are organized in 18 administrative regions, which are divided in 81 provinces (Figure 10). According to the last POPCEN (Census of Population), the countryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s population in 2015 was 100,981,437 and the density was 337 persons/Km2. This means, when compared with the year of 2000, a growth of 25 million inhabitants and an increase of 9,4% in density. Together, the 3 main populated regions (Calabarzon, National Capital Region and Central Luzon), all of them located in the north, concentrate 38.1% of the national population. Finally, four of the 33 highly urbanized cities have more than one million dwellers (Philippine Statistics Authority, 2016a). Zooming into the capital, in Manila and its surrounding region, the National Capital Region (NCR), the average density of 20,785 2 persons/km is 60 times higher than in the national one. Out of the 18 cities located in the area, Manila was the most densely populated with 71,263 persons/km2. 8 other cities surpassed the average regional density as well (Philippine Statistics Authority, 2016b). According to the World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2018), in the year of 2030, the percentage of the Philippine urban population will be higher than in the rural areas (Figure 11). This projection is below the average of the Asian region and of the Southeast Asian subregion (Figure 12). The same document compares the evolution of national urban population among the different sizes of urban settlements (Figure 13). To illustrate the magnitude of these numbers, the data was compared with Germany and Hamburg (Table 1).

MANILA

Figure 10- The Philippines map with the 18 administrative regions Source: Own adapted from Google Images, 2018

However, the Philippine’s data is quite questionable due to the existent amount of informal settlements and slums as well as the high percentage of population living under these conditions (38.3% of the total urban population in 2014) (The World Bank, 2015). These types of urban configuration hinder the accuracy and reliability of the information collected by official numbers. For example, slums’ houses are not officially register under a zip code; therefore, their dwellers are excluded in the government’s data. In the Human Development Report 2016 of the United Nations Development Programme, the Philippines was classified in the group of Medium Human Development. The country’s Human Development Index (HDI) was ranked on 116 out of 118 states evaluated (0.682). In 2015, 21.6% of the Filipinos were considered poor, almost 4% less than in the last 5 years (United Nations Development Programme, 2016).

Urban Rural

Figure 11- Percentage of population in urban and rural areas in the Philippines Source: UNDESA, 2018

The Philippines South Eastern Asia Asia

Figure 12- Percentage of urban population by region and subregion in the Philippines Source: UNDESA, 2018

Economic Data Considered as an emerging market and newly industrialized nation, shifting its economic main means from agriculture to services and manufacturing, the Philippines was the 3rd largest economy in the ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) and the 13th in Asia (International Monetary Fund, 2018) in 2017. In 2016, the national GDP was US$ 304.91 billion (World Bank, 2018) and the GDP per capita, in the first quarter of 2018, was 37,047 (Philippine Statistics Authority, 2018). In the last 7 years, the GDP has been growing at an average of 6.8% per year and in 2016, the unemployment was the lowest in history (4.7%) (The World Bank, 2017). All these numbers are included in the already mentioned Table 1.

This prosperous time is attributed to the government’s commitment to invest in public infrastructure, private investments and a dynamic young labor force, which managed to adapt to the current trends. Slowly, the traditional export products (fruits) are being substituted by electronic and transport products. Nevertheless, the economics’ positive growing pace is vulnerable to political stability, corruption, climate change disasters, bottlenecks such as … and external markets. 10 million or more

Focusing on the construction sector, 5 to 10 million according to the Asian Development 1 to 5 million Bank (ADB), 4 out of the top 5 500,000 to 1 million contractors/suppliers under loan and 300,000 to 500,000 million grant projects during the last 5 years Below 300,000 in the country were from the Figure 13- Urban population by size class of urban construction and infrastructure sector settlement in the Philippines (Asian Development Bank, 2018). In Source: UNDESA, 2018 , 2018 addition, household acquisition is projected to increase, busting the poverty reduction pace (The World Bank, 2017). Table 1 – Demographic data comparison between The Philippines and Germany

The Philippines

Germany

300,000

349,360

337

237

71,263 (Manila)

2,388 (Hamburg)

38.3

77,3

21.6

304.91

3,700.6

HDI (rank out of 188 countries) 4

113

CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita)

1.05

9.47

Country area (Km2)1 Country density (persons/Km2)

City density (persons/Km2) 1 Urban Population (% of total)

Poverty (population %)3 National GDP (bn US$)

Source: 1- Philippine Statistics Authority, 2016a; (German Federal Statistical Office, 2017a) 2- (The World Bank, 2017b) 3- Philippine Statistics Authority, 2016a;(German Federal Statistical Office, 2017b) 4- (United Nations Development Programm, 2018b);(United Nations Development Programm, 2018a) 5- (The World Bank, 2015a); (German Federal Statistical Office, 2017a)

Climate Data The Philippines has four types of climates under the Köppen-Geiger classification (Figure 14): subtropical highland (Cwb), tropical rainforest (Af), tropical monsoon (Am) and tropical savanna (Aw) (Rubel and Kottek, 2010). The National Capital Region is in the tropical monsoon climatic zone. These four climate classifications allow to visualize the challenges when it comes to define a green building rating system on a national scale, or implement the ones developed abroad (LEED) for types of climates such as: humid subtropical (Cfa), hot summer mediterranean (Csa), cold desert (Bwk) and hot desert (Bwh). Looking forward to building’s users’ comfort, climate adaptive architecture and environmental resources conservation, the GBRS must be flexible to tailor construction techniques and materials to each different context.

MANILA

In general, the county’s climate can be summarized as tropical and maritime with intense rainfall, high humidity and high temperatures. Figure 14- Philippines map of Köppen climate classification Source: Rubel and Kottek, 2010 Two clear seasons can be identified as well, the rainy season (June – November) and the dry season (December – May)(Philippine Atmospheric Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration, no date). Table 2 compares the Philippine climatic data with the German one.

Table 2 –Climate data comparison between The Philippines and Germany

The Philippines*

Germany**

26.6 oC

6.6 °C

January 25.5 oC

January - -11.9 °C

May - 28.3oC

July - 22.3 °C

Average Humidity

71-85%

60%-80%

Average Rainfall

965mm - 4,064mm

729 mm

Average Temperature Coolest month Warmest month

Source: * Philippine Atmospheric Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration, N.D **Deutscher Wetterdiesnt, 2018

Climate Change

As an archipelagic country located in the ring of fire and in the most cyclone-prone region, the Philippines is exposed to several natural hazards (e.g. typhoons, landslides, earthquakes, droughts, volcano eruptions). Most of these hazards have their frequency and magnitude exacerbated due to climate change effects. Natural and geographic characteristics, like lack of natural barriers, regional currents and wind patterns, contribute to the country’s vulnerability. These conditions, plus the fact that the population’s majority lives in coastline cities, turn 74% of the inhabitants and 60% of the land area exposed to multiple threads (Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery, 2011).

Figure 15- Average Impacts of major natural hazards in the Philippines Source: (Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery, 2011)

In the Climate Risk Ranking, the Philippines is positioned as the 6th most affected country from 1996 to 2015 (GermanWatch, 2017). During this time, the country has been experiencing drought periods due to El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), an increase in the average Figure exposure mapevents, on number of tropical cyclones per year, at least 9 landfalls per918yearPhilippine due to heavy rain climate changeFigure 919- Average Impacts the doubled amount of storms category 4 and 5 and La Niña events (United Agency for of major natural hazards in the Philippines (Global Facility for the Disaster International Development, 2017). As one example for Source: these violent events, Typhoon Reduction and Recovery, 2011) Haiyan in 2013 caused approximately $2 billion in damages, 4 million displaced citizens and over 6,300 lost lives. Other 7 of the 10 most severe storms were responsible for more than 1,000 dead each (Philippine Atmospheric Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration, 2018). The higher share of affected population corresponds to the poorest Figure 920exposure inhabitants. Commonly living in provisional shelters along the Philippine river basins or inmap theonhills, climate change they are extremely vulnerable. Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resource, 2013

The projections predict a temperature increase of 1.8°-2.2°C by 2050, 0.48-0.65 m rise in sea levels by 2100, wetter wet season and drier dry season. This mix will affect the sectors of agriculture, water resources, energy production, coastal ecosystems, human health, Figure Development, 921- Philippine exposure on infrastructure and service (United Agency for International 2017).map Focusing climate changeFigure 922- Average Impacts on cities and the building sector, the consequences foreseen are: in25% of coastal of major natural hazards the Philippines Source: (Global supply Facility for Disaster to a municipalities will have saltwater intrusion in their aquifers; energy restriction Reduction and Recovery, 2011) specific timeframe along the day, once hydropower production will be reduced; water and sanitation facilities damage, increasing endemic vectors and waterborne disease; urban infrastructure threat by sea level rise in 25 cities, forcing migration (DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, 2013). Figure 923- Philippine exposure map on climate changeFigure 924- Average Impacts According to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Fifth Report, the of major natural hazards in the Philippines scenarios and trends to the country are preoccupying.Source: The Philippines located (Global Facilityisfor Disasterin the Reduction and Recovery, Asian part where current temperatures approach critical levels for rice crops, 2011) lowering its

Figure 925- Philippine exposure map on climate change Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resource, 2013

productivity and Cluster I – extreme heating events, sea level rise directly affecting the main Cluster II– extreme rainfall component of the events, sea level rise, ClusterX – extreme disturbed water budget regional diet, heating events, increasing ocean temperature, increasing hunger MANILA extreme rainfall events Cluster III- disturbed and social water budget, sea Cluster IX – extreme disparities. The level rise heating events, extreme livelihood assets rainfall events, sea level Cluster IV – rise of coastline-based extreme heating events, sea level dwellers will be rise Cluster VIII – extreme heating heavily impacted events, extreme Cluster XI –sea by the increasing rainfall events, level rise sea level rise amount and strength of the Cluster VII – Cluster VI– extreme extreme heating typhoons. By rainfall events, sea events, level rise increasing ocean 2100, an annual temperature basis loss of 2.2% Cluster VI –sea level rise of the national GDP is expected. Figure 16- Philippine exposure map on climate change Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resource, 2013 This loss is higher than the one projected for the world’s economy by 2100 (0.6% per year) (Barros et al., 2014). In their report Climate Change Adaptation: Best practices in the Philippines, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), identified specific risks for 11 different zones (Figure 16). In general, 5 main risks are pointed out: extreme rainfall events, increasing ocean temperatures, sea level rise, disturbed water budget and extreme heating events (DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, 2013). Climate change in the Philippines as well as the legal framework, initiatives, mitigation and adaptation strategies, milestones and relation with urban planning and the construction sector are explored in Chapter 2. CO2 Emissions When it comes to CO2 emissions in the Philippines, there is a lack of updated national official data. The country published just 2 GHG inventories (1994 and 2000) and is currently working on the third one. Once these numbers do not reflect the reality, this section is based on data collected, analyzed and published by reliable international organizations. There are slightly differences among them, product of different calculations methodologies or sources. However, all are in the same track. In the international scenario, until the year 2013, the country emitted 0,39% of the world’s total GHG, meaning 171.6 Mt CO₂e. The emissions per capita were 1.63 tCO₂e, 76% less than the average world emission per capita. In the time frame between 1990 and 2000, the Philippines increased emissions up to 53%, 13% more than the world average increase (World Resources Institute, 2016).

Concentrating on the national scenario, the GHG inventory from 2000 showed 4 main sectors responsible for the emissions: energy (49%), agriculture (33%), industry (11%) and waste (7%). Nevertheless, as stated by the World Resources Institute Climate Analysis Indicators Tool (WRI CAIT), in 2012, the emissions’ share was similar with the previous Energy Agriculture Industrial Waste Land-Use ones (Figure 17). Energy ……………………… …… .Proceses Change and Forestry increased its share to 54%. Agriculture and waste Figure 17 - Philippine’s GHG emissions by sector in 2012 Source: CAIT 2.0. World Resource Institute, 2017 contribute the same percentage. Industrial process reduced its contribution. The land-use change and forestry (LUCF) sector absorbed more emissions than it releases, functioning as a carbon sinker (World Resource Institute, 2017) Analyzing the energy sector, the main drivers of the emissions’ increase are electricity generation, heat production and transportation. The first two accounted for 45% of the total emissions of the sector. Electricity production tripled to comply with the national demand. Renewable energy played an important role in this process, supplying 28% of the total energy (World Resource Institute, 2017). Concerning cities and buildings, the percentage of national households supplied by electricity reached 77% in 2012. The current governmental plans aim to increase this number to 90% in 2018 (United States Agency of International Development, 2016). The emissions per capita of the electricity and heat subsector was 0.48 tCO₂, increasing 350.80% when compared whit values before 1990. Manufacturing and construction sub-sector emissions per capita increased 33.59%, reaching 0.14 tCO₂ (World Resources Institute, 2016). Focusing on Manila, the following graphic exemplifies the country’s small share of the global emissions as well as how the capital’s inhabitants’ emissions are double than the national average.

City per capita carbon footprint (metric tons) National average carbon footprint (metric tons) Figure 18- Comparison between cities’ carbon footprints per capita Source: UN-Habitat, 2016

The Local Case Study Region: Metro Manila The National Capital Region, commonly referred as Metro Manila, was established in 1978 through Presidential Decree No. 1396 (Republic of the Philippines, 1978). Composed by 16 cities encompassed in 619.57 Km2 (Philippine Statistics Authority, 2016a), the region is consolidated as the educational, cultural, economic and political core (Figure 19). Metro Manila has 12% of the countryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s population and account for 47% of the national income (UN-Habitat, 2016). Four Central Business Districts (CBDs) or main financial centers are spread in the NCR: Makati Central Business District (City of Manila), Bonifacio Global City (Taguig City), Alabang (Muntilunpa City) and Ortigas Center (Pasig City). The last one is the local case study of this research.

PASIG CITY

Figure 19 - Population density of the National Capital Region in 2015 Source: Census of Population 2015, Philippine Statistics Authority, 2016b

The CBDs initiated as private developments in the 1930s and 1940s. Across time, they evolved into anchors of the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s economy and spatial structure. Their network polarizes services, transportation linkages, landmarks and influences the local, regional and national government to create land use policies, building codes, city services and traffic infrastructure to accommodate them and to attend their requests (Corpuz, 2012). It is important to highlight that, like in most of the Philippine cities, there is a strong presence of mixed-use areas. Areas are planned, constructed, incorporated and owned by private corporations, such as SM Prime Holdings, Megaworld Corporation and Ayala Corporations. These developments, mostly located in CBDs, concentrate large shopping centers, private parks, skyscrapers, residential and office buildings. Having in mind the small percentage of public spaces suitable for recreational activities (Gulsrud, 2014), these areas are magnets during leisure time. In addition, when it comes to urban development, these private initiatives catalyze the surroundings and attract investments from different sectors (Shatkin, 2008). Besides the problems and challenges faced as a capital from a developing country, such as social and economic inequalities, high density, informal settlementsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; proliferation, a weak public transportation system, traffic congestion, waste management, violence, air pollution, contaminated natural resources, health and sanitation, climate change events threaten the region too. The NCR geographic characteristics, semi alluvial floodplain surrounded by the Manila Bay in the west and in the east by the Laguna de Bay, made flooding and landslides the most common and dangerous events.

Pasig City The case study for the local level takes place in Pasig City. The former rural settlement was converted into a city through the enactment of the Republic Act 7829 in 1994 (Pasig City Government, 2010). Today, it is classified as Highly Urbanized City, comprising in an area of 31 km2 a population of 755,000 inhabitants (Philippine Statistics Authority, 2016c).

ORTIGAS

The central business district of Ortigas is located whitin the city. Commonly know as Ortigas, the area have only 1 km2. Like the other CDBs, its development started in 1931 when a private investor, Ortigas & Company, acquired the area. More information about the city is provided in Chapter 2. Figure 20 - Political map of Pasig City Source: Own, modified from Google images, 2018

Figure 21 - Ortigas Central Business District in Pasig City Source: Own, 2018

Figure 1744- Ortigas Central Business District in Pasig City Source: Own, 2018

Figure 1745- Ortigas Central Business District in Pasig City Source: Own, 2018

1.2 Green Building Rating Systems: Case Studies’ Selection Narrowing down to the GBRS case studies’ selection, LEED will be analyzed as the international system due to its wide application across 165 countries and territories: more than 92,000 buildings are under certification or already certified (U.S. Green Building Council, 2018b) and until 2016, LEED accredited more than 203,000 total LEED professionals (including me) (U.S. Green Building Council, 2017b). These numbers clarify the magnitude of the system created in California in 2000 (U.S. Green Building Council, 2016) and the importance regarding today’s sustainable building panorama and achievements. Considering the national and local case studies, both take place in the Philippines. Apart from the general reasons explained before, other specific ones justify the selection. First, in 2009, the Philippine Green Building Council (PHILGBC) published the first version of a voluntary national certification system named BERDE (Building for Ecologically Responsive Design Excellency). This system includes a dedicated chapter to emissions and was developed on the basis of LEED and the Australian system named Green Star (Philippine Green Building Council, 2018b). Second, BERDE was adopted by several Philippine local governments, making its application mandatory for specific types of buildings. Among these cities, Pasig City, located in Metro Manila, was selected to be the local study due to its current government being engaged in environmental causes and sustainable development initiatives. Third, the process of nationalizing and localizing (in a developing country) an international system created in the United States of America is quite questionable and provides the opportunity to assess it under a critical and integrated point of view. Besides, when focusing on climate change, the Philippines was classified as a country with higher Climate Risk Index in 2013 (Kreft et al., 2014). On one side, cities are not prepared to deal with the climate change effects, on the other, the current practices increase emissions. In general, the cities face fast urban growth and problems related to this unplanned process such as traffic, energy supply, wastewater treatment, waste management and informal settlement proliferation. The government is aware of the problem and is working on changing the current scenario. Examples are the Kyoto Protocol ratification, the Climate Change Act of 2009, the National Climate Change Action Plan 2011-2028, the Climate Change Commission and the emissions pathway towards 2030 proposed in the Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) of 2015. However, uncertainties and lack of transparency surround this process. Issues such as not publishing emissions baseline scenario, quantification methodology, the announcement of 10 GW coal-fired power plant capacity construction by 2025 (Climate Action Tracker, 2017), and the current political instability and position towards climate change can be mentioned. In light of this explanation, the objective is to conduct a research, in which two topics, broad explored in separate ways (green building rating systems and CO2 emissions), will be assessed together. The initial aim is to understand the context and process of how LEED and BERDE were designed, looking forward to finding the reasons for this unsatisfactory

approach regarding CO2 emissions and the consequences of it. In addition, the compliance of these systems with international, national and local legal frameworks related to climate change and mitigation strategies in the Philippines will be appraised as well. Lastly, an analysis of second-generation certification systems will be elaborated. It is expected to extract suggestions of how to harmonize LEED and BERDE with global demands in order to be strategic tools to pursue a sustainable development in different territorial scales.

1.3 Problem Identification As explained before, there is a disconnection between the first-generation of green building rating systems and its approaches to CO2 emissions. This gap is evident when analyzing the rating systems’ compliance and engagement with international legal frameworks regarding climate change and CO2 emissions’ mitigations. These building sector certification systems embed sustainability, natural resources’ efficiency, environment protection and humans’ wellbeing in other fields. Usually organized by categories, these fields have well defined parameters to limit (according to each case) maximum consumption, production or extraction. As a baseline, the parameters have international known guidelines (e.g. ASHRAE), improving the building performance in most of the times. Water, wastewater, materials, transportation, energy, waste and indoor air quality are the most tackled categories. Even though the building sector plays a key role on a global scale regarding mitigations’ potentials, as well as in reaching the ambitious goals of the Paris Agreement, the opportunities remain untapped or neglected. The current pace, business-as-usual strategies and policies’ state of the art fall short to offset CO2 emissions, to scale up measures and to deploy quick and efficient changes. According to the Energy and Technologies Perspectives 2017 report from IEA (International Energy Agency), if stronger measures addressing low carbon outcomes are not enforced or implemented, CO 2 emissions from the building sector will increase 10% by the year of 2060. This means that the sector will emit 415 GtCO2, the equivalent to 50% of the remaining carbon budget to achieve the 2oC goal of the Paris Agreement (International Energy Agency, 2017). Focusing on the case study, there is a combination of facts that lead the building and construction sector from the Philippines to play a minor role when it comes to CO2 mitigation strategies. First, there is a disconnection between the legal framework tools. For example, the National Framework Strategy on Climate Change 2010-2022 includes mitigation in the building sector as one of the Key Result Areas (KRAs) (Republic of the Philippines, 2010). Included under the Sustainable Infrastructure KRA, green building codes and energy efficient human settlements are part of the strategic priorities. However, the following legal instruments fail to include, enforce or implement such strategic priority. The National Determined Contributions (NDC) illustrates the status quo. The NDC do not specify how it will reach the mitigation goals. Furthermore, the construction and building sectors are not explicitly targeted. Withal, the database used for emissions and mitigation calculations is outdated. The last GHG inventory is from 2000. Even though since 2014, the country had committed to conduct and publish new GHG inventory annually, 4 years later not even one inventory

was presented. Finally, based on what is stated in the official documents reviewed, the country’s priority is adaptation. The main reason is the high level of vulnerability and urgent demand to tackle loss and damage. Moreover, once the nation’s contribution of CO 2 emissions is minimal, when compared to other countries, the mitigation strategies are undermined and commonly misinterpreted. In contrast to this disordered situation, the green building rating systems from the private sector thrive in the Philippine’s market. LEED is the most applied system. Besides holding an international well know market and better practices than the regular constructions, the consolidated rating system is supported by the local construction sector. Through materials, techniques and courses for qualifying professionals, the American rating system dominates the south east Asian building field. The main construction companies (Ayala, Ortigas & Co, SM, Landmark) adopted to follow this private code, looking forward to project themselves in an international context (Suelpo, 2017). As an attempt to tailor LEED, the Philippine Green Building Council developed BERDE. The initiative is considered already an advance within the action of providing the country with a certification system more aligned to the national demands and context. Thus, the first version of BERDE was developed having LEED and Green Star as guidelines (Suelpo, 2017). This situation opens the space for questions and critics of the real share of tailored measures. In 2015, the Philippine Green Building Code was established. The lack of enforcement, incomplete information, unsatisfactory implementation and weak monitoring from the public administration towards the Philippine Green Building Code contributed to beneficiate the promotion of both private green certification rating systems. Although the PHILGBC assures that this national code was included in the second version of BERDE, the strategies are not fully aligned. Finally, it is urgent to shift the traditional approach and market-based development of the GBRS from the private sector to tactics aligned with climate change global concerns and efforts. To fully cope with their goal of promoting best practices and being recognized as outstanding sustainable examples, these rating systems must feature clear strategies, concrete aims, baselines and ambitious purposes interrelated with CO2 mitigations’ emissions. They need to work hand in hand with the climate related international, national and local frameworks. Otherwise, these rating systems will turn into one more example of greenwashing, pretending to work toward an aim while hindering its process and success. Looking forward to understanding the weaknesses, five main key gaps were defined. They summarize the concerns above and guide the research. Each of the gaps encompasses different levels, scales and sectors that are suggested to be analyzed. Finally, it is expected to propose plausible, integrated and cross-sectorial recommendations to close the gaps. General Gap: 1. Incompatibility. LEED and BERDE, first generation of private green building rating systems, are not aligned with the CO2 emissions mitigation goals on a global scale (e.g. Paris Agreement and the ambitious goal of limiting global warming to 2oC).

Philippines: 2. Disconnected and inconsistent legal tools. The country has different mechanisms within the topic of climate change. Thus, there is a disconnection and heterogeneities between the goals, the addressed sectors, how to address mitigation strategies and how to implement them. Furthermore, incomplete, outdated and controversial information surrounds the tools. Among the climate change related legal framework, one of the most significant is the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC). This importance derives from the fact of being the last official document that has been published, as well as being the link between the international goals of the Paris Agreement and the measures that will be implemented on a country level to comply with it. Likewise, the NDC does not provide information regarding specific mitigation actions of how to achieve the established goal of reducing 70% of emissions, when compared to BAU, by 2030. In addition, government announcements of a coal-fired power capacity increase by 2040 and the enhancement of coal-based electricity generation are inconsistent with the aims of the NDC. Furthermore, the document’s database used as baseline is outdated. The country’s last GHG emissions inventory was published in 2000. Assumptions substituted the missing recent data (Day et al., 2016). 3. Building and construction sector policies disparities. Zooming into these sectors, the lack of continuity along the different tools is exemplified. When focused on the emissions, the uncertainty of how they are expected to be tackled or if they will be tackled in the future remains unknow. The lack of a sound strategic framework hinders the sector and locks-in it potential. Continuing with the example of the NDC, the building and construction sectors are expected to be included in 2 out of the 4 sectors mentioned (energy, transport, waste, forestry and industry sector). Nevertheless, there is no guarantee about it. The incertitude is even higher considering the country’s priority towards adaptation due to its high vulnerability (Asian Development Bank, 2016). 4. Parallel regimes. On one hand, the public regime created a national legal framework (The Philippine Green Building Code) not well enforced. On the other hand, the frequently implemented market-based initiatives (LEED and BERDE) are not harmonized with the national framework, leading to an incongruence which attempts to turn these private schemes senseless and to constrain the implementation of national legal instruments. 5. Unsatisfactory tailored approach. The process of how BERDE was created is quite questionable when it comes to the Philippines’ context and demands. Having, as a starting point, strategies from international green building rating systems resulted in a poor national and local tailored approach to BERDE (Suelpo, 2017). This is reflected in the technologies and facilities demanded (e.g. cooling systems), the neglection of climate responsive architecture, international parameters replicated and forced to comply with. The problem is exacerbated at the moment

when local governments decided to use BERDE as mandatory to certain building typologies (e.g. Pasig City).

1.4 Research Questions 1- Which reasons are behind the disconnection between LEED and BERDE green building rating systems and the CO2 emissions’ mitigation legal framework? 2- How can the Philippines develop a strategic framework able to strengthen the building sector performance regarding CO2 emissions’ mitigation measures on a national and local level? 3- How BERDE can contribute with this strategic framework of the building sector?

1.5 Methodology This research was conducted with the aim to explore and integrate two of my main working and educational areas (green building rating systems and CO2 emissions’ mitigation), which, until today, I approached separately. I look forward to answer the research questions in a consistent and sound way through qualitative and quantitative methods. Therefore, the methodology section was structured according to 4 questions: What do I need to know? Why I need to know? How I need to know? What is the expected outcome? 1- What I need to know? For being able to provide a satisfactory answer to the research questions and the five identified gaps, the necessary information should include: (I) a general overview and (II) specific facts related to the case studies’ topic and the Philippines. Therefore, the data collection was organized in different layers, which narrow the topic down: First, the current scenario, causes and effects of global urbanization. Second, the projections of climate change effects to the environment and its connections to the cities. Third, geographic, demographic, economic, climate related and urban data from the Philippines. Fourth, an overview of the international legal framework regarding climate change and the role of the building sector. Fifth, the climate change framework of the Philippines. Sixth, the Philippines’ approach regarding the building and construction sector and the CO2 mitigation legal framework. Seventh, the importance and impacts of the two parallel regimes regarding sustainable construction in the Philippines. Eighth, the road paved by the first generation of green building rating systems, its achievements, challenges, weak points and how the second generation of green building rating systems is improving the approach to climate change and local needs. 2- Why I need to know? After understanding my needs, a reflection of the information’s importance takes place. The general data regarding global urbanization, climate change and cities is essential to set a realistic and updated groundwork. In addition, by having a holistic overview, it is more likely

to identify possible connections, synergies and solutions to the five mentioned gaps. Talking of the Philippines, a summary of the country’s main data is mandatory to grasp the context of the case study. The country’s state-of-the-art towards climate change legal framework and its implementation in the building sector gives the base to a critical analysis. Concerning green building rating systems, studying their history, evolution, approach to CO2 emissions’ mitigation strategies and regimes’ interaction in the Philippines is vital to be able to suggest a clear and substantial approach of BERDE towards climate change. 3- How I need to know? With a clear picture in mind, it was possible to decide which methods could support the research. In regard to qualitative methods, a literature review including primary and secondary sources was selected. In addition, several structured interviews with representatives from different key institutions based in the Philippines and in Germany were conducted (Table 3). They are considered to be an asset for the research; not just because of the clear and valuable information obtained through them, but also because of the possibilities to further collaboration. Besides, the experience gained by living in the selected country was an asset to understand cultural facts that directly influenced the process. A SWOT analysis is done to get a better understanding of the five identified gaps. The quantitative data is approached in the analysis chapter. One section appraises the percentage of credits from LEED and BERDE that embed mitigation actions. After obtaining and understanding the aimed data, an analysis focused on the inclusion of CO2 emissions’ mitigation strategies in the legal tools is elaborated. Table 3 – List of interviews conducted in The Philippines and Germany

Obs: The interviews are available in the complementary file or directly with the author.

Figure 1775 –Thesis’ approach visual representationObs: The interviews are

4- What is the expected outcome? The following analysis, results’ discussion and conclusion have the goal to obtain recommendations to each five gaps. These recommendations should be the outcome of a critical, integrated and cross-sectoral approach, as illustrated in Figure 22 of the Conclusion chapter.

Figure 22 –Thesis’ approach visual representation Source: Own, 2018

Figure 1855 –Thesis’ approach visual representation Source: Own, 2018

Figure 1856 –Thesis’ approach visual representation Source: Own, 2018

Figure 1857 –Thesis’ approach visual representation Source: Own, 2018

Fischers’ village, Mindanao Island, The Philippines Román, 2018

2- LEGAL TOOLS’ CRITICAL REVIEW

This chapter is divided into three main sections. The first one is dedicated to the selected Green Building Rating Systems’ case studies. The international case study is LEED. BERDE is considered as the national and local case study due to its enactment in Pasig City. Understanding and describing the main characteristics, requirements, overarching categories, punctuation system, certification process, approach to climate change and CO 2 mitigation strategies provide the basis for the analysis and discussion chapters. The second section deals with the specific legal framework from the Philippines regarding green construction, CO2 emissions and climate change. A state-of-the-art critical overview concerning these legal tools’ integration as well as its continuity, implementation and compliance with the international legal framework will take place. Moreover, the application of these guidelines by the construction sector will be analyzed as well. The third section focuses on the international level and a possible integration of the GBRS in the topic of mitigation. It provides an overview of the connection between the existent tools, cities, construction sector, climate change and CO2 mitigation. The UN SDGs, the New Urban Agenda, the GABC roadmap are included.

2.1 Climate Change International Legal Tools and the Integration of the Construction Sector within this Scenario The year of 2015 can be considered a turning point regarding international agreements, which envision actions to combat climate change causes and effects. The Paris Agreement was adopted by UNFCCC’s members during the COP21 (Conference of Parties). It has the main and ambitious goals to maintain the global temperature under 2°C above pre-industrial levels as well as to limit global warming to 1.5°C (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 2015). The responsibility to undertake significant and effective actions to support these goals demands a global effort. Therefore, each UNFCCC party needs to define how they will cope with the agreement through the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC). The questions of how each party will curb emissions and how to adapt to the effects of climate change need to be included in the NDC. The document should be transparent, embracing clear targets communicated every 5 years. Until today, 184 out of the 197 parties ratified the agreement and 192 submitted their NDC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 2018).

An existent gap between the NDCs submitted and the built environment undermines the important role of the sector besides turning the low-carbon shifting process more difficult to track. The lack of clear, specific and integrated intended measures in the construction and building sector can be mentioned (Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction, 2017). The Philippines is an example of this situation. From the 192 parties that submitted their NDC, just 132 encompassed the building sector. Out of these 132, 101 highlighted energy efficiency strategies and just 49 supported renewable energy in the sector. Therefore, building related NDCsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; strategies encompass only 13% of CO2 emissions from the sector (Figure 23) (Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction, 2017). The reasons for the disparity between the content of the NDCs and the mitigation strategies within the building sector are diverse. Examples are: lack of standard targets for energy performance, space heating is usually not included, the documents are too general when it comes to the relevant sectors and the specific actions to reach the goals, existent national policies are not reported or integrated as means to achieve mitigation goals. These numbers together with the NDCsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; state of the art illustrate the opportunity and critical need for a turning point with ambitious strategies: a turning point in line with a low carbon transition where the steady growth of carbon-intensive and energy inefficient built environment is tackled, where the global existing building stock improves its energy performance and where it is avoided to lock in counterproductive buildings for the next decades.

Figure 23 - Scope of NDCs and building policies by policy type and emissions coverage Source: Global Alliance for Building and Construction, 2017

In the light of the agreement, the Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction (GABC) was launched during the COP21. The alliance fosters the inclusion of the construction sector in the NDCs and the implementation of the strategies proposed. The purpose is to enhance low-carbon strategies through realistic policies regarding sustainable, resilient and energy-efficient buildings. The GABC includes state and nonstate actors from the sector which share 3 common objectives: communicate, collaborate and solutions. The alliance has five working areas: Awareness and Education, Public Policies, Market Transformation, Finance and Building Measurement, Data and Information. Even though this working areas are still under development, the GABC published two Global Status Reports (2016 and 2017) which provide reliable and updated data in the field (Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction, 2017). The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UNSDG) are part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Published in 2015, they aim for a global partnership in the areas of people, planet, prosperity and peace. They substitute the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) of 2000 and include substantial fields, such as sustainable consumption, economic inequality, innovation and climate change. Although the World Green Building Council considers that there is a synergy between nine goals of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) (Figure 24) (World Green Building Council, 2016), just number 11 and 13 will be described due to the closest relation with this research.

Figure 24 - Green building & the Sustainable Development Goals Source: World Green Building Council, 2016

SDG 11 refers to sustainable cities and communities. This SDG highlights the importance to “make cities inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable” (United Nations, 2015a) to fulfill the demands of the fast urbanization pace, promote a healthy development and reduce cities’ environmental aspects. Five of the ten targets (11.3, 11.6, 11.6, 11.b and 11.c) can be linked to the GBRS and sustainable buildings field. The targets foster, by 2020, an increment of the urban centers’ number which incorporate policies related with mitigation, adaptation and resource efficiency. By 2030, the number of integrated urban planning and managements should increase around the globe. By the same timeframe, it is expected that the environmental impacts per capita minimize within cities. Moving to climate change,

adaptation and mitigation policies must be implemented. Least developed countries should be financially and technically supported in order to achieve sustainable and resilient buildings. SDG 13 refers to climate action. With the general aim of “[taking] urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts” (United Nations, 2015b), this SDG addresses climate change, mitigation and adaptation. Two of four targets (13.2 and 13.3) are related with this work. The targets advocate the integration of climate change actions into the countries’ policies and strategic planning. Additionally, education, capacity and awareness must be fine-tuned towards climate change early warning, impacts, mitigation and adaptation. The SDG Watch is the online channel from the Philippine Statistics Authority. There, information related with the SDG are available and should be constantly updated. Nevertheless, regarding these two SDGs, the last publications were from 2016 (Republic of the Philippines, 2018). In the analysis chapter, the integration within the SDG 11 and 13, LEED and BERDE will be further approached. In 2016, during the United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development (Habitat III), the New Urban Agenda (NUA) was adopted. The document emphasizes its connection with the UN agreements of the previous year, especially the agenda’s contribution to implement the SDGs on a local level. For the next 20 years, the agenda will pave the road for new development standards for cities. The NUA has the vision to promote sustainable and resilient cities, where urbanization activities should leverage resource efficiency, protect the environment and minimize the environmental impacts by modifying current production and consumption patterns. To carry out this vision, it is necessary to guarantee environmental responsible land use and resource usage. Developing countries deserve special attention in the process due to its inhabitants’ high vulnerability to climate change impacts. Thus, commitments such as to integrate climate change mitigation and adaptation into urban development and planning blueprints or to underpin climate action on international, national and local level as well as to nurture cities and its dwellers’ efforts are reinforced. The NUA is designed to be implemented through five main pillars: national urban policies, urban legislation and regulations, urban planning and design, local economy and municipal finance and local implementation (United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development, 2016). A multi-actors participatory process is acknowledged as the key to enable and implement this redefining agenda. Hence, supportive cross-cutting frameworks are the process’ anchor. It is a multi-stakeholders’ cooperation, where national and local governments have a foremost role to implement comprehensive and forceful sustainable urban development legislation. In the New Urban Agenda, buildings are recognized as one of the main drivers for promoting resource efficiency and sustainable urban economy growth. The sector should promote renewable energy, efficient urban mobility, sustainable materials, sustainable water use and management. Construction activities should measure GHG emissions and be resilience-based. These statements open the floor and give the means to incorporate stronger sustainable construction strategies and mainstream climate change related measures into legal tools. Within this context, green building rating systems have the

potential to support NUA’s vision, not just with their inherent construction practices but with shifting mind-sets and standards as well as by seeking and promoting more sustainable urban development mechanisms. After this review, it is perceptible that the initiatives and mechanisms to integrate climate change and the building sector into rating systems in a stronger manner have been taken and are available now. Therefore, each country and the GBRS should leverage these existent opportunities and avoid lock-ins that will take decades to solve.

2.2 Green Building Rating Systems 2.2.1 International Level: Case Study LEED Self-defined as a rating system which “provides a framework to create healthy, highly efficient and cost-saving green buildings” (U.S. Green Building Council, 2018b), the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) is the recognized market leader. This institutional statement demonstrates the system’s priorities and opens the floor to discuss about the approach assessed in this work. Through the years, LEED versions were updated and expanded based on the market experience, demands, adaptations and clarifications. After the first version, LEED New Construction v1.0, four more were introduced: LEED NCv2.0, LEED NCv2.2, LEED 2009 and LEED v4. Early in 2018, a pilot version was introduced. LEED v4.1 is still in the testing phase. All these versions kept out climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies of the clear goals. It is important to clarify that the U.S Green Building Council (USGBC) is responsible for creating LEED’s rating systems, its guidelines and promoting LEED. The Green Building Certification Institute (GBCI) is the second stakeholder and responsible for validating the building certification level as well as for developing the LEED professional credentials exams. There are three levels of internationally accredited LEED professionals: LEED GA (Green Associate), LEED AP with specialty and LEED Fellow. The first one guarantees a general knowledge of the system and green construction. The second level is designed for each LEED rating system. The third is a professional recognition based on an outstanding career, commitment and engagement and can only be reached by nomination. In the last 5 years, the preparatory documents for the tests were translated from English to 9 different languages, increasing the possibilities for interested persons that faced language limitations. Every 2 years, the professionals need to prove their engagement in the green construction sector in order to maintain their credentials. This is possible by taking online courses and tests, voluntary work, attending the GBC conferences or publishing articles. More than 203,000 professionals were accredited worldwide until now (U.S. Green Building Council, 2017b). In general, a project can achieve four rating levels based on earned points (Figure 25). The maximum amount of points is 110. A certified project earned between 40 and 49 points, a silver project between 50 and 59 points, a gold project between 60 and 79 points and a platinum project 80 or more points. According to the system, this classification reflects the level of commitment, engagement and sustainability, not just of the final product, but also of the entire process.

Figure 25 - LEED rating levels Source: USGBC, 2018

With the objective of covering the market demands, multiple building typologies and urban configurations, the certification possibilities expanded with each published LEED version. Therefore, nowadays 6 guidelines are offered, covering 21 typologies: Building Design and Construction (BD+C), Interior Design and Construction (ID+C), Building Operations and Maintenance (O+M), Neighborhood Development (ND), Homes, Cities and Communities (U.S. Green Building Council, 2018a). This research focusses on Building Design and Construction (BD+C) and Building Operations and Maintenance (O+M), since they are the guidelines with equivalents in BERDE. The BD+C rating system is used when a new construction or a major renovation will take place and 100% of the gross floor area will be certified. It is subdivided in: New Construction, Core and Shell, Schools, Retail, Data Centers, Warehouses and Distribution Centers, Hospitality, Healthcare, Homes & Multifamily Low-rise and Multifamily Midrise (U.S. Green Building Council, 2013). Following the similarities with BERDE, New Construction and Core and Shell are the selected ones for further analysis. A building is assigned to the BD+C category New Construction when it does not fit into the other building typologies of the other BD+C categories. Category BD+C Core and Shell is used in cases when the focus is on facades and core systems (electrical, mechanical and plumbing). In addition, it is suitable when more than 40% of the gross floor is unfinished by the time of the certification (U.S. Green Building Council, 2014a). Hence, it works mainly for commercial and offices buildings, where the future rooms’ owners or tenants will finalize and personalize the space. The O+M rating system is selected when a building, with at least one year of full occupation and operation, will go through improvements. The whole building area will be certified. This rating system is subdivided in: Existing Building, Retail, Schools, Hospitality, Data Centers, Warehouse & Distribution Centers, Multifamily. To continue with the similarities with BERDE, the O+M Existing Buildings’ rating systems will be analyzed. It is applied in cases were the building’s primary use is not tackled by the other O+M rating systems (U.S. Green Building Council, 2014a). Independently of the rating system’s subdivision, all of them need to comply with the same Minimum Program Requirements (MPRs). The MPRs are the minimal acceptable conditions to pursue LEED certification. Seven MPRs were introduced with LEED 2009. Following the system’s evolution, LEED v4 reorganized and reduced them to three (U.S. Green Building Council, 2014b). According to the USGBC, some were incorporated as categories’ prerequisites and other ones were concentrated under one single MPR. The current MPRs are:

1. “Must be in a permanent location on existing land”: to reinforce the importance of the project’s connection with the surroundings, every LEED project needs to be built and operated on the same property. 2. “Must use reasonable LEED boundaries”: to appraise the environmental impacts of the project. All the modified land and affected infrastructure is accounted. 3. “Must comply with project size requirements”: according to the rating system selected, a minimal project size is indispensable. E.g.: for BD+C and O+M 93 m2 of gross floor area. The following list summarizes the overarching categories’ core (U.S. Green Building Council, 2013):  Sustainable Sites: This category pursues an integration of the new project into the natural and built surroundings by protecting the ecosystems and incorporating the building to the urban context.  Water Efficiency: It focuses on water conservation under a holistic point of view, including indoor and outdoor water consumption.  Energy and Atmosphere: The credits tackle 3 main areas – renewable energy sources, energy consumption reduction and efficient design.  Materials and Resources: assess the building components’ life cycle and the materials’ extraction impacts. It takes into account extraction, processing, transportation, maintenance and the disposal phase.  Indoor Environmental Quality: Looking forward to protecting the building occupant’s health, it addresses thermal, visual and acoustic comfort as well as indoor air quality.  Innovation: The objective is to award new strategies and features that can be replicated in other projects.  Regional Priority: With the goal to provide a small share of a regional approach, the USGBC chapters listed environmental priorities according to the local situation and demands.  Integrative Process: It considers the connection and synergies within the building systems across the project timeline (just for LEED BD+C).  Location and Transportation: It is strictly related with the project location and the surrounding’s offers regarding existent commercial services, leisure facilities and public transportation.

Figure 26 - LEED V4 Categories Source: USGBC, 2014

The last 3 categories were added in the newest version (v4). Each category is subdivided into credits. To each credit, a certain amount of points is attributed. The idea is that the project team decides which credits to comply with, according to the most feasible, tangible and technically possible strategies. In addition, the credits’ distribution depends on the main characteristics of the rating system selected. The total of 110 points is distributed differently

among these 9 categories across the different scorecards. For example, in the BD+C New Construction, the Location and Transportation category accounts for a maximum of 16 points, while in the BD+C Core and Shell, it accounts for a maximum of 20 points. Besides having credits and points, most of the categories have prerequisites. These are mandatory actions or commitments to comply with. They are not optional, by fulfilling them no point is earned. However, without them, it is impossible to earn points in the categories. In the Analysis Chapter, the scorecard of the selected rating system will be assessed regarding CO2 emissions’ mitigation strategies. Currently, the certification process is divided into four main phases: register, apply, review and certify (U.S. Green Building Council, 2017a). All of them take place in the LEED online tool. During the first phase, it is necessary to select the rating system, pay the standard registration fees as well as to define the team roles (owner, agent and project administrator). A contract is signed with the USBGC. It is recommended that before registering a project, the team ensures the compliance with the MPR. Ideally, the apply phase takes place after all the documentation, technical drawings, calculations, descriptions and simulations are finished. It is expected to submit all the substantial information which accurately demonstrates the compliance with the MPRs, prerequisites and credits selected to pursue. The costs vary according to the project size and rating system. The review phase, conducted by the GBCI, can be done in two different ways: standard or split. In the standard one, all the documents are submitted after the construction is over. In the split version, the designing and construction processes are analyzed separately. In the case of the BD+C Core and Shell, a precertification review is possible. This optional review targets to give market added values to commercial and office projects. The final phase legally proves the certification level and gives the right to promote the project as a LEED one. Except for the LEED O+M, which needs to be recertified every 5 years, the other rating systems do not expire. Today, LEED is mainly a voluntary system, which inspired the proliferation of other ones. However, it is also mandatory to specific types of private and public constructions in some American cities, such as: San Diego, San Francisco, Washington DC, Miami, Chicago, Seattle, Portland, Philadelphia and many more. By municipal building ordinances (Suttell, 2015), the cities have been incorporating specific LEED rating systems and certification levels since 2001. Regarding the approach of LEED to climate change, it is necessary to first understand the points’ allocation methodology evolution across the versions. In the first 2 LEED versions, points were distributed according to the professional understanding and flexibility of the members of the Technical Advisory Committees from each category. This weighting distribution system is not considered to be so transparent and based on quantifiable results. With LEED 2009, the methodology shifted to an analytical framework based on the credits capacity to reduce environmental impacts (Macken et al., 2017). The framework is anchored to the Tool for Reduction and Assessment of Chemicals and Other Environmental Impacts (TRACI) of the United Stated Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), giving a more transparent, solid and measurable point allocation scheme to the GBRS. LEED v4 version modified the framework by adding the so called “Impact Categories”. This result-oriented appraisal focusses on the certification’s economic, social

and environmental goals and how the credits fulfill these demands. The seven Impact Categories are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Reverse Contribution to Global Climate Change Enhance Individual Human Health and Well-Being Protect and Restore Water Resources Protect, Enhance and Restore Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Promote Sustainable and Regenerative Material Resources Cycles Build a Greener Economy Enhance Social Equity, Environmental Justice, and Community Quality of Life

Although some of the categories are inter-related with the topic of climate change and the results of it, the analysis will narrow to the components of the first category. The category targets the climate change key drivers of the construction sector that can be addressed by LEED. The components are: 

    

“GHG Emissions Reduction from Building Operations Energy Use”: approaches the energy consumption reduction of all systems and equipment, including the ones that work with fossil-fuels. “GHG Emissions Reduction from Transportation Energy Use”: tackles the energy consumption of the buildings’ occupants. “GHG Emissions Reduction from Materials and Water Embodied Energy Use”: reduces new materials demands, production, transportation and disposal “GHG Emissions Reduction by Embodied Energy of Water Reduction”: pursues less potable and non-potable water consumption. “GHG Emissions Reduction from a Cleaner Energy Supply”: supports renewable energy. “Global Warming Potential Reduction from Non-Energy Related Drivers”: targets actions that increase climate change without being directly related with energy demand: refrigerants use, heat island, land use, deforestation.

The weighting process is complex and goes through different steps which involve the credits’ scope, influence in the built environment and scale. The phases include a multicriteria analysis (Figure 27), quantitative assessment or qualitative appraisals (depending on the category), and an evaluation of three association factors. The components of each category were analyzed with each credit under the factors of: relative efficacy, duration of the benefits and actor control (Figure 28). Despite the fact that the Impact Category of climate change was acknowledged as the one with higher influence on the LEED goals (35%) (Macken et al., 2017), this finding is not clearly reflected or highlighted in the documents, minimum requirements, parameters or in the certification’s discourse. According to Kats (2017), on one side, there is no economic or market-driven force pushing LEED to step up on climate protection initiatives. LEED’s current profile is enough for their business model. On the other side, there are enough scientific reasons for LEED to be aligned with climate change.

LEED should untap its potential by integrating stronger measures to curb CO2 emissions, by quantifying this reduction, by demanding mitigation strategies aligned with global goals and by demonstrating the certified projects’ CO2 footprints. Therefore, LEED needs to be updated with climate change actions. The credits evaluated as highly related with the climate change Impact Category should emphasize this relation and include GHG and CO2 emissions reduction quantification, just like it has been done with other categories (energy, water and waste). Otherwise, LEED will be irrelevant within this topic. Moreover, it will continue awarding buildings even though they have a weak decarbonization performance, as for example performances with an energy use reduction between 5% and 20%, which is not enough considering the building sector’s world’s current energy demand of approximately 40% (Kats, 2017).

Figure 27 - LEED V4 allocation points MCA Source: Macken et al, 2017

Figure 28 - LEED V4 Example Associations in Weightings Tool Source: Macken et al, 2017

Figure 29 - LEED V4 allocation points result Source: Macken et al, 2017

2.2.2 National Level: Case Study BERDE In 2009, the Philippine Green Building Council (PHILGBC) established the BERDE Program (Building for Ecologically Responsive Design Excellence) with the aim to provide a voluntary certification system tailored to the national context, demands and possibilities. In 2010, the first BERDE Green Building Rating System was launched, aiming at simplifying the Figure 30 - BERDE logo Source: Philippine Green Building Council, 2018 process of a green building, providing a credible marketing tool, enhancing the local construction sector and improving the buildings’ performance when compared with the country’s mandatory codes (Philippine Green Building Council, 2018a). BERDE v1 was developed following the World Green Building Council framework for green building rating tools in developing countries as well as LEED and Green Star (Suelpo, 2017). In the first semester of 2018, BERDE v2 was launched. This new version encompasses significant changes in the certification system, product of the learning process along the 6 years of implementing it (Suelpo, 2018). In general, the main difference lies in the usability of the system. Some of the conflicts from the previous version resulted from the way the credits were written as well as how the requirements were understood by the professionals and project owners. Some parts of V1 were considered subjective. The new version clarifies the documents to be submitted and the minimum information to provide to cope with the credit. According to the PHILGBC, the conflict regarding legal framework was also solved once the v2 demands complied with the national framework for sustainable construction as well. V1 was released in 2013 and the Philippines Green Building Code in 2015. For this reason, BERDE was not harmonized with several of the mandatory measurements. This caused several misunderstandings and complications during the certification process. Additionally, the government collaborated during the drafts’ comment phases and workshops organized to collect feedbacks. The most active agencies were: Department of Energy, Department of Trade and Industry, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Board of Investments from the Department of Finances, Department of Labor for Green Jobs and the National Housing Authorities (Suelpo, 2018). Since the first version, BERDE offers 3 different possibilities for rating systems: New Construction (NC), Operations (OP) and Renovations (RN): 

BERDE NC: is applicable to commercial, vertical residential, clustered residential and educational buildings. It is eligible for buildings in the design or construction phase as well as to the ones finished until 3 years before the registration. 100% of the gross floor



area must be certified, which needs to be at least 5,000m2 (Philippine Green Building Council, 2018c). BERDE OP: was developed for users and systems of existing buildings constructed more than 3 years before the registration. The process assesses the entire building facilities, including individual tenant spaces. It is eligible to any building typology (BERDE Program, 2018b). BERDE RN: should be used when a building goes through operations and design improvements. The second version of BERDE RN is still a draft.

The minimum area to be certified in the BERDE NC is quite high (5,000m2), especially when compared with the analog LEED rating system (93 m2). This condition ends restricting the GBRS application to bigger constructions. For the BERDE OP scheme there is no specification with regards to the building typology or main use. On one hand, this facilitates the decision to certify. On the other hand, having few guidelines turns the process quite open, excluding specific parameters needed in each type of building. For instance, the water treatment from a hospital is different than the one from an office building. However, in cases of different project typology, the PHILGBC offers the BERDE Pilot Program, granting the development of new rating schemes (BERDE Program, 2018a). BERDE is a point rating system, separating the projects into 5 different levels (1 to 5 stars). The maximum amount of points is 100 (Figure 31). Some buildings are certified under LEED and BERDE GBRS v1. Eg: ARYA Residence (Suelpo, 2017).

RATING

SCORE

1 Star

51 to 60

Minimum practice

2 Stars SSStars 3 Stars

61 to 70

Good practice

71 to 80

Exemplar practice

4 Stars

81 to 90

World class

5 Stars

91 and above

World leader

Figure 31- BERDE V2 awarding categories Source: Philippines Green Building Council, 2018

Analogous to LEED, minimum requirements need to be fulfilled in every single rating system (Philippine Green Building Council, 2018d). The requirements for v2 are: Figure 3839- BERDE V2 awarding categories

1. “Compliance with Source: all applicable building and environmental Philippines Green Building Council, 2018 laws, regulations and mandatory standards”: A report summarizing the applicable codes and its conformity must be submitted, building and occupancy permissions as well. Through this requirement, it was possible to solve the conflict with the Philippines Figuresince 3840- BERDE categories Green Building Code, now itV2isawarding mandatory to provide documents that Source: Philippines Green Building Council, 2018 guarantee its compliance. 2. “Distinct and clear boundaries”: in order to specify whether the project is part of a campus or real estate development. Figure 3841- BERDE V2 awarding categories Source: Philippines Green Building Council, 2018

3. “Commitment to sharing resource data”: regarding waste management, energy and water consumption in different stages. The PHILGBC aims to consolidate a database specifically for the certified buildings in the country. 4. “Initial site assessment”: to identify and document ecological, built, hazards, social and cultural characteristic that will directly influence the project. Regarding the overarching categories, they are defined as core framework. Similar to LEED, the amount of credits alternates in the categories across the rating schemes. Each credit has defined purpose, intent, requirements and compliance for stage 1 (design) and 2 (construction). The credit requirements clarify the performance level. The compliances specify the correct documentation that needs to be submitted as proof for the aimed points. The categories are (Philippine Green Building Council, 2018d): 

Energy Efficiency and Conservation: It promotes a mix between passive architecture strategies (natural ventilation and lighting), consumption monitoring and efficient features.



Water Efficiency and Conservation: Tackles potable water reduction in built and open spaces as well as effluents quality



Waste Management: Limited to waste landfill diversion and on-site sorting infrastructure during the construction phase. The category excludes the reflection of the building life cycle and how to reduce the waste generation across different stages.



Management: According to LEED, when a certified professional is part of the project team, credits are awarded. In addition, community engagement and sustainable costeffective strategies are encompassed.



Use of Land and Ecology: It focusses on the impacts and risks a new building will have, according to its location and project characteristics.



Green Materials: Analyzes material procurement and origin, giving the preference to local materials. Green procurement is promoted as a credit. Materials are considered a weakness in BERDE. Once the credits can be attended or not, there is no guarantee that the use of local materials and green procurement principles will take place. There is no mandatory requirement concerning percentage of recyclable or recycled content. It also does not support local cooperatives or business from the recycling sector. There is no guide concerning the use of certified wood.



Transportation: It intends to reduce the vehicles’ impacts in the area by supporting public transportation connection, bicycles infrastructure and low emitting cars.



Indoor Environment Quality: It controls the same features like LEED, with some differences when it comes to parameters and codes to fulfill.



Emissions: This category is one of the reasons for analyzing BERDE. It generally includes greenhouse gas projection, refrigerants reduction and air pollutants reduction.

BERDE certifying process is divided into 3 stages: registration, stage 1 and stage 2 (Figure 32). In the registration phase (besides general information about the project), the aimed certification level, the commitment to comply with the minimum requirements and the project team information need to be provided. Just after the proposal’s approval and payment of fees, a registration certificate is issued. Stage 1 targets the project design, evaluating if the strategies cope with the credits pursued. In general words, the material submitted needs to prove its compliance to BERDE, whether it is by plans, assessment

report by a third-party organization or projects. The PHILGBC understands that there are different ways of documenting the process and the developers should feel free to choose. This modus operandi makes the certification process easier. It is also considered to be an incentive to promote the use of BERDE instead of LEED, where the online tool has mandatory templates and spread sheets to be filled in (Suelpo, 2017). When the stage 1 is approved, a new certificate is awarded as well as recommendations for the last phase. Finally, stage 2 encompasses the construction phase, including documentation assessment and site visit (different than LEED where no on-site assessment takes place). An important requirement is the conduction of commissioning by a third-party organization to ensure the efficiency of the technologies applied. However, commissioning is still problematic to the PHILGBC due to the unprepared local industry and lack of qualified professionals. All necessary documentation along the 3 stages is submitted by email. Certification validity is different than in LEED. The BERDE-NC expires after 5 years and BERDE-OP is valid for 3 years. All the buildings can be recertified under the Renovations or the Operations scheme. BERDE Program offers a Green Building Professional training. Not as frequent and structured as the one from LEED, the trainings aspire to promote the GBRS: qualify local professionals, industry representants and public employees. The BERDE Certified Professionals need to attend different courses and take a test to be accredited. According to the PHILGBC, a total of 36 projects were registered, accounting for 1,129,489.83 m2; 380 professionals were certified (Philippine Green Building Council, 2017).

Registration  Submit project registration application  Prepare BERDE certification proposal  Approve BERDE certification proposal  Pay fees  Issue registration certificate

Stage 1  Conduct kick-off meeting  Conduct round 1 assessment document review  Conduct round 2 assessment  File appeals  Award Stage 1

Stage 2  Conduct kick-off meeting  Conduct round 1 assessment: document review and on-site assessment  Conduct round 2 assessment  File appeals  Award Stage 2

Figure 32 - BERDE V2 certification process Source: Philippines Green Building Council, 2018

The PHILGBC recognizes that, until now, the main challenges are: (I) local adaption: bigger industries push the market to better solutions, so smaller and local ones need to effort more to reach the same level; (II) cultural localsV2 are very conservatives, making it difficult Figure barriers: 3950- BERDE certification process Source: Philippines Green Building Council, 2018 to change technologies, materials and procedures; (III) miscellaneous: uncompleted project registrations and documentation, difficulties to cope with the deadlines. Regarding the Emissions chapter, the PHILGBC understands that BERDE needed a Figure 3951-different BERDE V2 certification dedicated chapter for this topic. When priorities wereprocess identified, carbon dioxide Source: Philippines Green Building Council, 2018 emissions and GHG were always presented separately from water, energy or land use. It

Figure 3952- BERDE V2 certification process Source: Philippines Green Building Council, 2018

was different because the government does not have an established regulation related to how carbon inventories must be done in buildings, in contrast to what it has for energy and water consumption (Suelpo, 2017). The procedures to measure CO2 emissions change according to the governmental department. This heterogeneity hampers the establishment of just one methodology. For this reason, the credits for emissions are very generic. No specific methodology, scheme or procedure is determined in the GBRS. Based on the fact that this credit is very generic, the current submissions are diverse. In general, each developer identifies an existent methodology that suits better and adapts it. For example: procedures from the Department of Energy, the Department of Environment or Credit Carbon Metric. The main requirement is that the methodology demonstrates the procedures and calculations in a transparent way. It is not an easy credit and is not frequently targeted, since it is not a common practice in the construction sector (Suelpo, 2018). Between BERDE v1 and v2, there was just a small improvement in this category. In Version 1, it was demanded to conduct the GHG inventory. In Version 2, it is necessary to define the standards used, submit initial studies and emissionsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; target reports. The PHILGBC faces the lack of governmental tools as an opportunity to gather an ample amount of GHC inventories from the buildings, create an own database, set a baseline for future BERDE versions, prepare own standards and establish an own methodology. The council affirms that it cannot wait for the government, so this is a soft approach to establish an own process for the emissionsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; inventory. Lastly, this approach pushes the industry to be clear on their targets, on their strategies of how to achieve those targets and to be clear on how to document them. Additionally, the PHILGBC collaborates on the Climate Change Commission and the Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMA). Withal, this is the sole strategy taken to address mitigation in the building and construction sector. In fact, just like in LEED, climate change mitigation is not reflected in the documents, requirements, goals or discourse. This characteristic is understandable considering that BERDE inspired itself in other green building certification systems from the first generation: certification systems that failed to address this topic in a clear and strong manner.

2.2.3 Local Level: Case Study Pasig City Narrowing down to the municipal level, Pasig City was selected as local case study. The aim is to understand how a national GBRS, who was inspired by international GBRS, can be implemented as mandatory code on this governmental level. Pasig City converges several environmental strategies which demonstrate the governmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s engagement. According to Ms. Rachel Naciongayo, head of the City Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO), in 2007, the Pasig Green City Program changed the government vision to a more sustainable one, establishing this direction for the next 50 years. This vision is promoted under a collaboration with the major stakeholders in the city (transport sector, construction sector and civil society) (Naciongayo, 2017). Hence, the Local Climate Change Action Plan, the enactment of the green building code, the developing of GHG

management plan and CO2 emissions inventory are tools in this process. In addition, Pasig was selected to be part of several international initiatives which look forward to climate change mitigation strategies, such as Ambitious City Promises and BEA. The first one is a partnership between ICLEI, International Climate Initiative (IKI) and the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB). The project is a community based mitigation, consequently working directly with the population and incentivizing them to participate in low carbon activities, aiming to develop an ambitious climate action plan (Aquitania, 2018). The second one, Building Efficiency Accelerator (BEA), is a private-public partnership coordinated by the World Resource Institute and the UN Environment. It catalyzes the implementation of local efficient building programs and policies, once it considers that major barriers have institutional and behavioral character instead of financial and technical ones (WRI, 2016). GHG Management Framework Plan from 2010 has the vision to promote a sustainable community, able to balance economic growth and environmental concerns. It also has the perspective to place the city on an international level where it can be recognized as low carbon urban settlement and as a leader in the GHG emissions’ reduction. On a national scale, Pasig aims to be a “green example” for other municipalities. To institutionalize this long-term initiative, the city relies on community-based strategies as well as on local, national and international partnerships. Examples are the Sustained Green Police Volunteers Program, the Greenheart Savers Program, climate change orientation seminars on a municipal level, partnerships with water companies (City of Pasig, 2015), USAID, PHILGBC and ICLEI. This vision matches with the city’s green branding used to harness its competitiveness in an international dispute of attracting foreigner investors and institutions (Sciences Po Urban School, 2018). The plan was updated in 2013, proposing to reduce 10% of city’s emissions from 2015 to 2030 when compared to the BAU scenario. This scenario projected an increase of 20% in the next 10 years (City of Pasig, 2015). The idea is to publish a review every 5 years on a city level and a community level. Currently, the city is conducting the CO2 emissions’ inventory for the public buildings on a city level. The first one was released in 2011 with data from 2010, which showed a total of 1,500,000 CO2e emitted (Naciongayo, 2017). To support the plan, the GHG Management Unit was created. The unit identified 8 sectors and the plausible policy options to include mitigation actions. The inclusion of a green building code for new and renovated buildings is one measure of the Industrial and Commercial Establishments sector. According to the Municipality analysis, implementing a green building code is placed in the 4th position of a priority list with a total of 18 measures (City of Pasig, 2015). However, a minimum percentage of emissions’ reduction for each sector was not defined. In 2015, Pasig City released the LCCAP. The Pasig City Local Climate Change Action Plan is denominated as a convergence of mitigation and adaptation for the timeframe between 2016 and 2027, different to what is intended for these local plans in the Climate Change Act. It gives continuity to the GHG Management Framework Plan by defining how the mitigation strategies will be implemented, monitored and evaluated. In the case of the

green building code, the only information available refers to “[a] holistic approach to designing, constructing and operating buildings” (City of Pasig, 2015). Focusing on the construction and building sector, the Philippine Green Building Council took a step forward in the process of supporting the local governments. Since 2015, different cities have been adopting BERDE v1 as mandatory for specific types of constructions and urban development areas. The cities of Santa Rosa, Mandaue, Makati, Quezon and Pasig turned the green building rating system into a mandatory code. According to the PHILGBC, there is a demand of other cities to support them and develop their policies. Unfortunately, in terms of resources, the PHILGBC cannot satisfy this demand at the moment. The council is still pondering how to conduct this process more efficiently. In addition, due to being such a new code, cities are still facing challenges of how to implement the policies, procedures or clarify questions from the developer’s side (Suelpo, 2018). Nonetheless, it is not a PHILGBC’s competence to develop local governments’ policies or how to implement them. As stated by Suelpo, PHILGBC’s technical manager, Pasig City is a very urbanized area of Metro Manila with mainly residential characteristics and very concentrated commercial districts, which it hard to require a 3 stars certification or more in existent buildings. Likewise, it will also be more difficult for Pasig to renovate, which demands heavier investments compared with cities that, at the moment, are developing areas on the basis of BERDE. One example is Mandaue city, a small city in terms of size but with heavy traffic due to the airport and its short distance to the industrial area, ports, shipping industry, furniture and fashion manufactories. Located next to Cebu, capital of the Visaya island, Mandaue is a quite successful city. For this reason, the city is pushing for green policy and development. The investors play an important role in this process, since they are the ones that demand certified projects for hotels, commercial, residential and industrial buildings. Pasig City enacted the Green Building Ordinance in 2016 (City of Pasig, 2016). The BERDE v1 for New Constructions, Operations and Renovations needs to be followed and 1 star needs to be achieved at least. In the case of existing buildings, the certification is voluntary for public and private buildings with a floor area of 10.000m2 or less. In case of bigger areas, the certification is mandatory. In the case of new constructions, it is mandatory for buildings with a floor area higher than 10.000m2. Exemptions are made for cultural and heritage buildings as well as to post-disaster structures and shelters. A highlight is made for the new areas under development, which should become green building focal areas (City of Pasig, 2016). The first 2 years were given as a grace period for attending the ordinance. During this time, just 30 projects applied to BERDE. All of them were located in the financial center of Ortigas Center’s Business district. The number is low, considering that in this district it is possible to find more than 100 buildings with more than 10.000m2 (Naciongayo, 2017). According to the CENRO, the reasons for selecting BERDE were: promote a GBRS developed in and for the Philippines, the possibility offered by the PHILGBC of regular professional trainings, the fact of having a third-part to emit the certification, avoiding internal corruption and lack of capacity.

The ordinance established a municipal structure to support the process and new demands. The Pasig City Green Building Board was created to mentor the participants of the program. Clarifications, recommendations for level performance and engaging new actors are some of the tasks attributed. The board is composed by the city Mayor, officers of the different departments as well as private sector and academic participants. No proportion of each group or type of selection process is referred to. The Green Building Division was introduced to provide technical support. A total of 22 members must be allocated in the new division of the CENRO. Before enacting the ordinance, 2 public hearings were conducted with stakeholders. The first one took place in April 2015 and was assisted by the Philippines Green Building Council. It collected the stakeholdersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; comments regarding level of difficulty, costs, procedures. The major concern was related to the capital investment to afford the process. The second hearing was in June 2015. The results were analyzed by the technical working group from the city hall. This group is multidisciplinary with members from the building permissions office, city planning and waste management. After the ordinanceâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s enactment, environmental awareness was conducted with the group that was directly affected by the new law. The municipality offers incentives to improve the level of BERDE through the Green Building Tax Credit. A progressive discount on the real property tax is granted for 5 years. The discount is proportional to the amount of BERDE stars awarded: 2% for 1 star, 4% for 2 stars, 6% for 3 stars, 8% for 4 stars and 10% for 5 stars (City of Pasig, 2016). These numbers are low compared with other cities which offer higher financial incentives. For example, in Mandaue it is possible to get a discount on local taxes from 5% to 25 % for 3 years (Suelpo, 2018). In case of not attending the ordinance, financial penalties will be applied. Curiously, the amount goes from the equivalent of 40 to 100 Euro. In the process of implementing BERDE, the CENRO considers financial, technical and legal framework issues to be the main challenges (Naciongayo, 2017). Financial aspects include the high costs to install technologies that are not well developed or disseminated in the country. The unexpected costs along the certification increase due to the lack of financial feasibility studies from the City Hall and from the investors. Technical challenges refer to a limited number of professionals inside CENRO allocated exclusively to attend the new demand. At the moment, the environment office has only two persons to assess all the projects. Besides, the special committee is formed by members of different departments and offices, which are not exclusive for this program. Finally, the parallel regimes between the public legal tools and the private rating system delays and complicates the certification. There is confusion between the building investors, since there is a need to comply with 2 laws (BERDE and Philippine Green Building Code). Notwithstanding, BERDE V2 is expected to minimize this disarrangement. The process of turning a voluntary green building certification system into a mandatory code is a mix of a top-down and bottom-up approach. It was a process where the implementation of a national GBRS (based on international ones) was discussed with stakeholders. It has strengths and weaknesses to point out. On one hand, it demonstrates the need and will from a municipality to promote sustainable development and the efficient

use of natural resources in the building sector. It also promotes environmental awareness among stakeholders. It guarantees better working and living spaces for human beings and forces major investors to develop buildings with better sustainable standards. Finally, it supplies a governmental gap, where the Philippines Green Building Code is not well enforced. On the other hand, it is quite questionable regarding its true applicability. As discussed in the section before, BERDE was developed by having LEED and Green Star as a blue print. Therefore, it is clear that several requirements do not reflect the national context and, even less, local realities. In addition, it is mandatory only for a small share of building, excluding the ones with smaller gross floor area.

2.3 Legal Framework in the Philippines 2.3.1 CO2 Emissions’ Mitigation Strategies and Climate Change The Philippines has a short, shy and questionable trajectory regarding embedding climate change concerns and mainstream mitigation strategies into national policies and planning. Lack of transparency, outdated data, incomplete information, contradictions between legal instruments, slow pace, priority of adaptation measures, corruption, political instability, financial constraints, dependency of foreigners’ investments, weak implementation and recent announcements that oppose the targets aimed in prior international commitments expose the reasons for the country’s status quo (Fitriandana and Lagonera, 2018). Even though the GHG emissions’ reduction strategies were introduced in the early 1990s with the creation of the Inter-Agency Committee on Climate Change (IACCC), with the Philippine Agenda 21 of 1996, with the UNFCCC ratification in 1994 and with the Kyoto Protocol ratification in 2003, just the year of 2009 is considered as the turning point towards climate change matters (United Agency for International Development, 2017). Through the 2009 Climate Change Act (RA 9729) enactment, the Climate Change Commission (CCC) was established. The CCC is consolidated as the country policy-making body entitled to mainstream, coordinate, monitor and evaluate climate change concerns across the different government agencies as well as into the development plans (Republic of the Philippines, 2009a). The commission is directly under the President’s office and above all the sectorial departments (e.g. Department of Energy, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, etc.). It has a key role as road paver when it comes to implement crosssectoral measures, vertical and horizontal strategies and to provide the base to new legal instruments. Adaptation, mitigation, disaster risk reduction, investments in climatesensitive sectors, multi-stakeholders’ participation, financial support, information dissemination and most vulnerable groups are targeted (in different ways and weights) under the broad CCC umbrella. Praised as one of the world’s best climate change laws regarding the inclusion of relevant government departments, adaptation, disaster risk reduction and the aim of protecting population rights in harmony with the environment (Smith, 2012), the 2009 Climate Change Act is not as proactive for mitigation. No renewable energy is targeted, no carbon budget is legally bound and no GHG emissions’ reduction is targeted. There is a gap when it comes to enhance national research and support of local techniques, heavily relying on foreign technology and hindering vernacular affordable solutions. Moreover, it has contradictions

with previous policies, which were not reversed after the act’s enactment (Boongaling, 2014), yet evaded by not mentioning critical issues and disparities in the act. The previous laws increase the country’s vulnerability, overwhelm the process to cope with the act, prioritize the private sector over the inhabitant and natural resources. Finally, besides the legal, financial and technical critics, the CCC fails to include all the key stakeholders. Few NGO’s, civil society and grassroots representants are members of the commission. Focusing in the multi-governance structure defined by the CCC, the main outcomes are the National Framework Strategy on Climate Change (NFSCC), the National Climate Change Action Plan (NCCAP) and the Local Climate Change Action Plans (LCCAPs). The National Framework Strategy on Climate Change covers the time frame from 2010 to 2022. Under this framework, the Philippines needs a cross-sectoral approach to establish national and local action plans to increase the country’s resiliency. It also should guide medium- and long-term development plans and investment programs for regional, provincial and local scales. It recognizes the local governments’ vital role to address climate change as front-liners. Following the country obligations under the UNFCCC as well as the country’s needs and potentials, the framework was developed having two main pillars: adaptation and mitigation. However, there is a clear unbalance between these pillars. Adaptation is highlighted as the priority, being the anchor of the document and its deployment. Mitigation plays a second role: “Whenever applicable, mitigation action shall be pursued as a function of adaptation” (Republic of the Philippines, 2010). This citation contradicts and limits the document’s goal of optimizing mitigation’s possibilities. When compared with the CCC, the NFSCC is a step forward regarding key actors. It acknowledges the importance of stakeholders’ diversity. On one hand, it emphasizes the valuable participation of the most vulnerable and marginalized groups. On the other hand, a special remark is made about the private sector, whose participation should be fostered by mechanisms that facilitates it. This privilege is criticized due to the economic-privateinterest-driven policies and incentives enhanced. Masked as climate change solutions and technologies, they harm and increase the existing problems more than providing a real answer to them (Boongaling, 2014). The NFSCC identifies Key Result Areas (KRAs), which target strategic climate sensitive sectors. In the case of the mitigation pillar, the long-term goal is to simplify the low GHG emissions transition towards a sustainable development. Among the 6 mitigation KRAs, the following one is related with the thesis topic:  Sustainable Infrastructure: Functioning as a pivot for the topic of green construction and certification systems, this KRA promotes energy efficient design and materials as strategies to reduce settlements’ carbon footprint. According to the document, the building sector is responsible for 33% of the country’s CO2 emissions. Moreover, concerning primary electric energy, households consume 23%, commercial buildings 27%. As an overall, skyscrapers demand 72% of the electric supply plus 17% of fresh water. In this scenario, a call for implementing green building standards through different strategic priorities is made. These priorities encompass: guidelines for climate-resilient

/ energy-efficient buildings and settlements, support green infrastructure and public awareness. The framework established means of implementation and cross cutting activities as well. Figure 33 is the operational diagram of the NFSCC. It provides a clear and direct overview of how it was structured, how sectors are connected and how it is planned to be implemented.

    

MITIGATION Energy efficiency and conservation Renewable energy Environmentally sustainable transport National REDD strategy Waste management

Figure 3981- NFSCC operational Figure 33 - NFSCC operational diagram diagramMITIGATION Source: National Framework on Climate Change 2010-2022, Republic of the Philippines, 2010  Energy efficiencyStrategy and conservation  Renewable energy  Environmentally sustainable transport The National Climate Change Action Plan (NCCAP) follows the NFSCC and streamline  National REDD strategy adaptation and mitigation agenda for the period between 2011 and 2028. Continuing with  Waste management the importance given to adaptation, it declares that the public investments must prioritize this sphere. For mitigation, it is expected to attract private sector’s participation by 3982NFSCC operational guaranteeingFigure a policy environment able to optimize the strategies’ opportunities (Climate diagram Chage Commission, 2011). For the first time in a document that follows the 2009 Climate Source: National Framework Change Act,Strategy constraints are Change identified. on Climate 2010-Gaps such as lack of capacity when it comes to 2022, Republic of the Philippines, technology transfer, lack of financing mechanisms, weak data management and low 2010 collaboration among the stakeholders are mentioned.

The NCCAP highlights the cooperation and agreement between the national departments and agencies. Figure The collaboration is crucial for the plan’s success, once the strategies of the 3983- Philippines action plan are defined per topics and not per sectors or departments. A convergence of policies scenario vs Paris Agreement goalsFigure different programs is called, as the way to optimize resources and leverage synergies. The 3984- NFSCC operational diagramMITIGATION     

Energy efficiency and conservation Renewable energy Environmentally sustainable transport National REDD strategy Waste management

action plan determines 7 strategic priority programs: sustainable energy, water sufficiency, food security, human security, ecological and environmental stability, climate-smart industries and services, knowledge and capacity development. The activities and outcomes are divided in three time slots: (A) 2011- 2016, (B) 2017-2022, (C) 2023-2028. In regard to mitigation from the building sector, three out of this seven are meaningful for this work topic: ď&#x201A;ˇ

Climate-smart industries and services: It envisions climate resilient and sustainable cities with a minimal ecological footprint. However, it explains the use of climate-smart as a term that refers to adaptive properties, therefore excluding mitigation from it. Narrowing down to the construction sector, the implementation of green building principles as a tool for community development is mentioned too. The fixed objectives are assigned to three time slots and include: 1- Review and implement, under a green perspective, the National Building Code (A); 2- Develop a green building rating system for new constructions and retrofitted ones (A); 3Implementation of the GBRS at a local level, which should focus on carbon neutrality, adaptive design, water balance, local material and indoor environmental quality (A,B); 4- Elaborate an accreditation program for green building assessors through publicprivate partnerships; 5- Formulate, approve and implement incentives to promote green buildings (A). Among these outputs, just one clearly calls for a public-private partnership. Notwithstanding, as mentioned in the previous chapter, just the private initiative copes with it by establishing the BERDE Certified Professionals program. This private sector leadership can be extended to other outputs. One example are the cities that made BERDE v1 mandatory for some type of buildings, instead of using the Philippine Green Building Code. Another example is the emissions chapter in BERDE, which the national code lacks.

ď&#x201A;ˇ

Sustainable energy: It enhances renewable energy development, energy efficiency expansion and energy conservation promotion. Green building standards implementation is heavily encouraged, especially by private sector and community engagement. In order to promote its voluntary adoption, incentives must be applied. Examples of these incentives are the ones applied in Pasig City.

ď&#x201A;ˇ

Knowledge and capacity development: It emphasizes mitigation capacity at the local and community level. It is seen as a comprehensive program able to encompass civil society and government. The foreseen educational activities will be able to create research centers, train po pulation at community level, build a roaster of experts and enhance the development of a national GHG inventory system able to cover different sectors. Nevertheless, these activities are not fully accomplished yet.

The NCCAP defines implementation and financing mechanisms, dividing them in two main levels: national and local. Implementation is divided in the same three periods (A, B, C) of activities and outcomes of the 7 strategic priority programs. The first one called priority

themes (A) refers to incorporating climate change into national policies. The second one, the flagship programs (B), mainstream mitigation and adaptation into an operational level. The last one, the beneficiary of vulnerable group (C), encompasses mitigation and adaptation at a local level. Additionally, it is stated that it must be a guide for the municipalities through the process of drafting the Local Climate Action Plans. Although, not much information and shallow guidance is provided beside: the short description of the activities, generic outputs and timeframe expected to achieve each activity and outcome. Monitoring and evaluation are phases defined to be carried out by the Climate Change Commission. For each strategic priority established, indicators must evidence the stage that has been reached. The issue is: how to evaluate the progress for each indicator if no parameter was defined and no explanation of how to obtain each indicator was provided? This critic situation turns both activities difficult to execute, leads to incomplete results and no meaningful conclusion and increases the vulnerability of subjective appraisals instead of technical ones. Currently, the NCCAP is under review. Moving to the municipal level, the Local Climate Change Action Plan (LCCAP) is the legal tool that should be elaborated by each Philippine local government unit (LGU). The Climate Change Act of 2009 considers the LGUs as vital to formulate, plan and implement an action plan aligned to their context and specific needs. The act states that a vertical collaboration needs to assist the local governments with data availability, activities and technical support. The financial aid is provided by the national government. However, the 2009 act intends to canalize the local action plans to adaptation measures, hindering one more time mitigation. Besides this, not much information is provided. Thus, in 2014, the Department of Interior and Local Government published a guidebook to support the formulation of the LCCAPs and to assign responsibilities (Department of Interior and Local Government, 2014) . In addition, it provided trainings nationwide. The guide defines the LCCAP as science and risk based, which is crafted to be a participatory process. It is expected to reach an outcome where all the parts have the feeling of consensus and are motivated to contribute with through strategic principles. These strategic principles are: (I) raise climate change knowledge and awareness; (II) understand vulnerability to north the decision-making process; (III) engage cross-sectoral stakeholders; (IV) identify and replicate existent successful adaptation cases in order to engage communities in the process; (V) monitor and evaluate the process built up on existent indicators. Lastly, the LCCAPs need to be flexible and need to adapt and update itself along time. This would guarantee that the high level of initial uncertainties will have a lower impact. To have access to the funding from the CCC, the local governments must have the LCCAP. So far, this guide is the most detailed, realistic and complete document analyzed regarding climate change in the Philippines. Unfortunately, just 160 of the 1700 LGUs enacted their LCCAP in 2018 (Recabar, 2018). With regards to GHG inventory, in 2014 the Executive Order N.174 institutionalized the Philippine Greenhouse Gas Inventory Management and Reporting System (PGHGIMRS) (Republic of the Philippines, 2014). Lead agencies were defined to set clear

responsibilities of collecting data and monitoring the process. The sectors to be measured are: agriculture, energy, waste, transportation, industrial processes, land-use and forestry. The CCC has a key role with regards to implementation and engaging stakeholders. Through the document, it is possible to point out gaps which jeopardize the success of this instrument. These uncertainties are related to the processes of collecting and analyzing data and to the activities planned to engage stakeholders. The Executive Order established an annual GHG report. However, at the end of 2018, no national GHG emissions inventory was published. As mentioned in the previous chapter, the only inventories are from 1996 and 2000. According to ICLEI Southeast Asia Secretariat (ICLEI SEAS), the reasons for this delay are the country’s priority to adaptation measures, lack of qualified professionals, no clear roadmap how to do it as well as extra costs for companies and governments (Dedicatoria, 2017). It is expected that this situation will change slowly. Examples are the Manual for Business, which looks forward to assist in the formulation and attract the private sector (Climate Change Commission, 2017b), and the Community-Level GHG Inventory for Local Government Units in The Philippines User’s Manual (Climate Change Commission, 2017a). Both were launched in 2017 by the CCC. Even though the legal tools demonstrated that adaptation is a priority with multi governance characteristic, mitigation is encompassed in the Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs). NAMAs are defined by the UNFCCC as “any action that reduces emissions in developing countries and is prepared under the umbrella of a national governmental initiative” (United Nations Climate Change, 2018). They focus on multi sectoral actions on a national scale or on policies mainstreamed in specific economic sectors that need substantial modifications. The CCC, the Philippine Green building Council and the National Housing Authority signed an agreement to develop a NAMA for the building sector in 2017 (Suelpo, 2018). The aim is, through BERDE, to improve the status quo of the building’s legal framework. The actions proposed included: capacity building activities focused on LGUs and private industry, update the Green Building Code by incorporating BERDE and partnerships with LGUs for developing pilot projects for BERDE. Withal, up to the present, no official document was presented. Scaling up to the Paris Agreement, the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC) were submitted in 2015 and ratified as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) in 2017. The NDC states the goal of reducing 70% of its GHG emissions by 2030, when considered a BAU scenario between 2000 and 2030. The sectors targets are: transport, energy, forestry, waste and industry (Republic of the Philippines, 2015a). The construction and building sectors are expected to be included into the energy and industry sector. But there is no guarantee for that. Uncertainties surround this document. It is not clear how the emissions’ reduction will take place, there is no defined timeline to achieve the reductions and the share of each sector targeted or the process to implement the activities remains unclear as well. Moreover, the mentioned emissions’ projection baseline for the reductions is not public. Furthermore, the construction and building sectors are not explicitly targeted. The mitigation’s envisaged panorama is threatened by the government’s announcement of constructing more than 10GW coal-fired power plants and by the publication of the Coal Roadmap 2017-2040 (Climate Action Tracker, 2017). In addition, as stated by the Philippine government representants during the Bonn Climate Talks 2018,

the Philippines heavily relies on the developed countriesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; support to reach mitigation goals. The support should be in the areas of means of implementation, capacity building, technology transfer and climate finance (Republic of the Philippines, 2018). Currently, the country is considered not to be in the correct track to cope with the NDC goals (Kuramochi et al., 2017). If the country implements its latest policies, just 12% of the emissionsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; reduction will be possible, instead of the 70% aimed (Climate Action Tracker, 2017). Finally, the INDC were promoted to NDC in 2017 without any modifications. Continuing with the commitments to the UNFCCC, it is interesting to see that during the Kyoto Protocolâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s first commitment period (2008-2014), the Philippines voluntarily compromised to reduce 5% of its GHG emission by 2012 (compared to 1990 baseline). Historical emissions, excluding forestry Historical emissions/ removal from forestry Current policy projections NDC (conditional) Planned policy projections

Reference for NDC (CAT assessment)

Figure 34 - Philippines policies scenario vs Paris Agreement goals Source: Climate Action Tracker, 2017

Nevertheless, for the second commitment period (2013-2017), no extra reduction was targeted. The country argues with the incapability to afford low-carbon technologies and mitigation strategies high-costs (United Nations Framwork Convention on Climate Change, 2015). After this review, it is palpable how the Philippines mainstreamed climate change into the different governmental levels. Still, several obstacles like financial, social and institutional challenges need to be overcome. According to a report of the United Nations Development Program of 2013, the CCC is limited to the national level without having a strong presence in the municipalities and lacking an efficient integration into the lower levels (United Nations Development Programme, 2013). Also, the CCC communicates with the cities through different departments and therefore indirect channels, a fact that turns communication in general into a limiting factor. Financially, on one hand, the country depends on external aid to reach its mitigation goals. On the other hand, the diversity of existent financial support, with different requirements, processes, timeframes and cost-sharing sets, turned the management and follow-up across governance levels a bottleneck. Added to this multiple financial aid scenario, corruption is a strong concern (Boongaling, 2014).

Institutionally, the country set up structures focused on policy making and planning, leaving behind means for monitoring and evaluating the progress reached by the new strategies. Staff qualification and quantity, working pace and outcomes are questioned as well. Undoubtedly, the Philippines needs to overcome the horizontal and vertical barriers to improve their track and untap its potentials (Fitriandana and Lagonera, 2018).

2.3.2 CO2 Emissions’ Mitigation Strategies and the Construction Sector As stated in the NFSCC, the building sector in the Philippines is responsible for 33% of CO2 emissions (Republic of the Philippines, 2010). Therefore, this section is an overview of the Philippine’s construction sector legal framework in the light of the CO2 emissions’ mitigation strategies and the compliance with international agreements and programs which tackle the problem. After the independency from United States of America in 1946, the first country building code was created. The National Building Code RA6541 from 1950 and its revision from 1978, the National Building Code PD1096, defined basic standards for structural, facility and architectural features. Environmental issues from construction activities were first approached just in 1978 with the Environmental Impact Statement. The statement focused on projects located in environmental critical zones, required monitoring activities and provided guidelines to water, air and land use minimum quality standards (MagnoBallesteros, 2000). This early division between the building code and environmental concerns deeply interfered with the development of the following building codes, in which environmental matters were not included. In 2009, the Philippine Green Building Act required governmental buildings to introduce sustainable practices and materials, safeguard citizens’ health and environment and to promote UN’s principle of sustainable development. It established fiscal and non-fiscal incentives for the private investors that follow the act. It determines the structure of the Green Building Committee, which will oversee the development of a Green Building Rating and Certification system. The main working areas defined were: a) Planning and design b) Energy efficiency c) Water efficiency and conservation d) Material conservation and resource efficiency e) Environment quality. (Republic of the Philippines, 2009b). This Act does not tackle directly neither mitigation, nor adaptation strategies. Following the Philippine Green Building Act and the Climate-smart Industries and Services strategic priority of the National Climate Change Action Plan, the Department of Public Works and Highways published the Philippines Green Building Code in 2015. The code was developed in cooperation with the International Finance Corporation of the World Bank. Also known as the GB code, the code is as a referral document to the National Building Code (Republic of the Philippines, 2015b). The code is applicable to new constructions or refurbishing activities of different building typologies with a minimum total gross floor area. For hotels, resorts, educational, institutional and business buildings, the minimum area is 10.000 m 2. For malls or commercial centers, the minimum area is 15.000 m2. For condominiums, the minimum area

amounts to 20.000 m2. The code excludes the need of existent buildings to comply with it. The six listed categories are:      

Energy Efficiency: building envelope, mechanical systems, electrical systems Water Efficiency: water fixtures, water management Material Sustainability: non-toxic materials Solid Waste Management: material recovery facility Site Sustainability: site / ground preparation and earthworks, open space utilization Indoor Environmental Quality: minimum fresh air rates, designated smoking area

Each strategy is illustrated by general goals, applicability, requirements and exemptions. Nevertheless, the necessary information to understand the strategies, such as well-defined parameters, minimum standards to follow, minimum performance to achieve or existent national laws from the construction sector to comply with, is not available in the code. In addition, no specification of the type of document, project or analyses required to demonstrate how a building copes with the code is specified. These weaknesses can lead to a subjective, shallow and incomplete evaluation of technical aspects. Another gap is related to the timeline of the process. No information of when it is necessary to start the process to obtain the permission is provided. In order to provide detailed and mandatory information to fulfill the demand, the IFC published the Philippine Green Building Code User Guide in 2016 (International Finance Corporation, 2016). Just with the help of this manual it was possible to clarify and understand the complex process of complying with the code. To GB Code follows the same approval flow like the National Building Code. The Local Building Office is the responsible of granting the prove of compliance with the GB Code. This means that it is not possible to deliver a single comprehensive document including all the categories and strategies. The strategies are decentralized and included in the documents and forms of different disciplines (See Figure 35). Regarding phases, the code focusses more on conceptual and designing steps. The construction phase is weakly addressed through the Site Sustainability category and its two strategies. These two strategies exclude important aspects of this phase, such as natural resources consumption during the construction process, waste production or impacts caused in the surroundings as consequence of the activity. Concerning CO 2 mitigation activities, they are a consequence of the energy efficiency category. However, no emphasis is given to the topic. For example, no measurement of required emission reductions is mentioned or no integration with other strategies to increase mitigation is pointed out.

Furthermore, a succession of misunderstandings surrounds the Green Building Act and Code. The concept, structure, applicability and assessment between a certification system and a code are tangled. The Climate Change Act of 2009 determined the establishment of a GBRS. However, the mandatory code published is a guidance and not a rating system. It has minimum requirements and standards to comply with in order to gain a permission. The point-based awarding structure, main characteristic of a rating system, is not included in the GB Code. Notwithstanding, across the code several sections refer to being a rating system, even though it is not. Moreover, in the objectives it states that “This GB Code is a set of regulations setting minimum standards for compliance and not intended to rate buildings” (Republic of the Philippines, 2015b).

3 1

1. 2. 3.

Documents that prove the project eligibility to must be submitted The architectural checklist and documents that support it must be submitted The checklists for the other disciplines and documents must be submitted Figure 35 - Process of application of building permit flow chart vs GB code Source: Own adapted from the Philippine Green Building Code User Guide, 2018

In 2017, the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) decided to reconstitute the National Building Code Review Committee (NBCRC) as a strategy to increase buildings’ resilience to extreme weather events (Department of Public Works and Highways, 2017). The NBCRC, constituted by representatives of diverse government’s departments and bureaus, including the Department of Natural Resources, currently is collecting recommendations from different groups.

Green Belt, Manila, The Philippines Romรกn, 2018

3- ANALYSIS

This chapter is divided in 4 sections. The first one analyzes LEED’s and BERDE’s similar guidelines regarding the building typology or building main activity addressed:  LEED v4: Building Design and Construction (BD+C) (New Construction and Core and Shell) and Building Operations and Maintenance (O+M)  BERDE v2: New Constructions and Operations. The scorecards of each one of these guidelines are evaluated credit by credit, totalizing five. The scorecards are the tools utilized by LEED and BERDE as a summary of the points earned by a project. The are like a checklist that provides the summary of the credits and prerequisites per category. The aim is to obtain quantitative data able to compare and reflect these GBRSs’ integration of CO2 emissions’ mitigation measures. The second and third sections are dedicated to the legal tools. The second one provides an overview of how LEED and BERDE embedded international and national framework concerning climate change. The third one concentrates on climate change’s legal framework of the Philippines and mitigation strategies of the construction sector. The last part assesses the five gaps, which were pointed out in the problem identification section, through a SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats). All the sections are based on the review of the legal framework, the developing process of the Green Building Certification Systems, their approach to climate change and its mitigation strategies as well as on the interviews conducted.

3.1 LEED x BERDE – A Comparison Between CO2 Emissions’ Mitigation Approach This section deals with the selected scorecards of LEED and BERDE. Initially, the five scorecards were evaluated by creating a table where each credit can be classified as: (D) directly addressing climate change and mitigation in its description, goals, requirements or measures; (I) indirectly encompassing mitigation strategies, meaning when mitigation is a consequence of other decisions (e.g. the credits enhancing public transportation, walkability or bicycles use); (N) as not related or applicable. Additionally to this classification, there is a column (P) pointing out if the credit has potential to include CO2 emissions’ reduction strategies and the accountings of those reductions. Observations support the credit’s classification. A total of 259 prerequisites and credits were analyzed. The Figure 36 is an excerpt of one of the scorecards. To fully understand this section, it is necessary to have an overview of all scorecards and its analysis. Both are available in the Annex section.

Figure 36 - LEED Scorecard analysis excerpt Source: Own based on LEED V4 BD+C New Construction and Major Renovations, 2018

After the scorecard phase, the results obtained were compared through the graphic of Figure 4724- LEED and BERDE credits approach to CO2 emissions' mitigationFigure 4725- LEED Figure 37 The graphic illustrates theScorecard percentage of each one of the 3 classifications. In it, analysis excerpt Source: Own based on LEED BD+C New Construction and Major Renovations, the poor engagement of LEED and V4 BERDE towards climate change issues can2018 be seen. The credits that directly include mitigation measures have a modest share, which goes from 4% to 14%. Yet, approximately half of the credits of all the GBRS contribute to mitigate CO2 in an indirect approach. This high percentage can be explained by the accounting of Figure 4726- LEED and BERDE credits approach to CO2 emissions' mitigation strategies distributed across almost all the exemplifies Source: Own based on categories. LEED V4 and It BERDE V2, 2018how climate change actions have cross-sectoral and integrated characteristics. Moreover, the graphic shows that the guidelines for buildingsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; renovations encompass fewer mitigation activities. Since LEED OM and BERDE OP have different amounts of credits (52 vs 25 respectively), this percentage variates. Withal, each GBRS pursues only 2 CO credits that are directly related Figure 4727LEED and BERDE potential to include and account mitigationFigure 47282 emissions' LEED and BERDE credits approach to CO 2 emissions' mitigationFigure 4729- LEED Scorecard analysis with mitigation. In LEED, these credits accumulate in the energy category: Renewable excerpt Energy andSource: Carbon Offsets. In LEED BERDE, the credits refer to recertifying a previously certified Own based on V4 BD+C New Construction and Major Renovations, 2018 building and to the GHG inventory.

Figure 4730- LEED and BERDE credits approach to CO2 emissions' mitigationFigure 4731- LEED Scorecard analysis excerpt Source: Own based on LEED V4 BD+C New Construction and Major Renovations, 2018

Figure 37 - LEED and BERDE credits approach to CO2 emissions' mitigation Source: Own based on LEED V4 and BERDE V2, 2018

Renovated buildings owns the biggest share of not applicable credits. The reasons are the limitations in several categories that cannot be modified through a certification process. For example: (I) a building location and its surroundings cannot be targeted; (II) the public Figure 4955- LEED and BERDE potential to include and account CO2 emissions' transportation availability is not a parameter to decide whether the building can be placed mitigationFigure 4956- LEED and BERDE credits approach to CO2 emissions' mitigation in a region or not; (III) less flexibility to improvements and new due to spatial Source: Own based on LEED V4 and BERDE V2, features 2018 limitations. An interesting finding is related with the LEED’s prerequisites (BERDE does not include category’s’Figure prerequisites scorecard). Keeping in account mind that the prerequisites 4957- LEEDon andits BERDE potential to include and CO2 emissions' mitigation are Source: Own based on LEED V4 and BERDE V2, 2018 mandatory and the credits are freely selected, the fact that no directly related strategy is allocated as a prerequisite is considered a weakness. In other words, these two GBRS failed to guarantee that the certified projects will cope with the credits that are directly related to mitigation. Figure 4958- LEED and BERDE percentage of credits targeting CO2 emissions (directly

andthe indirectly) per potential overarchingtocategoryFigure LEED andreduction BERDE potential to Moving towards credits’ include CO4959strategies and 2 emissions’ include and account CO2 emissions' mitigationFigure 4960- LEED and BERDE credits the accountings of those reductions, the graphic of Figure 38 provides the results of the approach to CO2 emissions' mitigation scorecard assessment. The new construction guidelines from both GBRS have almost the Source: Own based on LEED V4 and BERDE V2, 2018 same percentage of potential. Certainly, these expressive numbers (64% and 65%) picture the untapped opportunities. The GBRS have the challenging task to include, implement and enforce the process of accounting CO2 emissions in a reliable, solid and transparent Figure 4961- LEED and BERDE potential to include and account CO2 emissions' manner. mitigationFigure 4962- LEED and BERDE credits approach to CO2 emissions' mitigation Source: Own based on LEED V4 and BERDE V2, 2018

It must be highlighted that some of the credits, classified as indirectly related, do not necessarily provide the potential to account for CO2 emissions. A clear example is the strategy related with having on board a certified professional in the GBRS. When a professional (considered an expert in the certification system) is part of the working group, Figure 4963- LEED and BERDE potential to include and account CO2 emissions' mitigation it is more likely to happen Source: that integrated Own based on sustainable LEED V4 andactivities BERDE V2, take 2018part since the early phases. This professional is trained to have a holistic overview and to identify the possible synergies. This type of training can include, in a near future, climate change related Figure 4964- LEED and BERDE percentage of credits targeting CO2 emissions (directly and indirectly) per overarching categoryFigure 4965- LEED and BERDE potential to include and account CO2 emissions' mitigation Source: Own based on LEED V4 and BERDE V2, 2018

strategies (mitigation and adaptation). However, it is not possible to quantify the emissions’ reductions of this indirectly related credit. Considering the comprehensive tactics of the GBRS, it is obvious that several credits do not embrace mitigation in their scope. Examples are the strategies related with: low VOC (Volatile Organic Compound) emitting materials, acoustic comfort, glare control, flood risk management, effluents quality monitoring, water consumption monitoring, rainwater use, indoor air quality, green cleaning policies, tobacco smoke control and other similar ones. These credits protect the environment, preserve natural resources and promote users’ health under other valid perspectives.

Figure 38 - LEED and BERDE potential to include and account CO2 emissions' mitigation Source: Own based on LEED V4 and BERDE V2, 2018

Zooming into the credits that are directly and indirectly related, Figure 39 illustrates the contribution of each one of the GBRS’s overarching themes. The main characteristics of the strategies in both GBRS are: 



Energy: reduce and monitor energy consumption, use energy simulation as a designing tool, promote renewable energy on-site and off-site, carbon offsets, commissioning, efficient cooling systems, automation, maximum use of natural ventilation and lighting. Transportation: incentives to use more public transportation and less private vehicles, provide infrastructure to use alternative fuels’ cars, install bicycle facilities (racks and showers), promotion of walkability, conduction of the transportation impact assessment, reduced parking areas.



    



Location: vegetation compensation, heat island reduction, increase of open space areas, implementation of green roofs and green walls, discourage the use of greenfield, natural habitats and carbon sinkers. Materials and Waste: conduct a LCA tackling global warming potential reduction (GHG) in kg CO2e when compared to a baseline building, use of regional products to reduce transportation emissions, use of reused material from demolition, use of material certified by cradle to cradle to reduce embodied energy, green procurement Emissions: (category just of BERDE) conduct a GHG emissions inventory (including CO2) and recommendations to reduce the emissions. Water: reduce irrigation, therefore reducing the need of providing electricity to the necessary infrastructure. Indoor Environmental Quality: ensure daylight, provide individual control of thermal gadgets and daylight views. Management: integrate a designing process, create guidelines for future users, have a certified professional on board. Regionality: (category just of LEED) according to the list provided by the USGBC, six existent credits are eligible as Regional Credits for the Philippines. Among them, three are indirectly related with strategies to reduce CO2 emissions (U.S. Green Building Council, 2018d): optimization of the energy performance, reduce outdoor water consumption. Innovation: (category just of LEED) LEED v4 has pilot credits, which can be accounted as innovation credits. Currently, 38 pilot credits are being tested for LEED BD+C NC, 51 for LEED BD+C CS and 41 for LEED OM. For LEED BD+C, six of the pilot credits are directly related with CO2 emissions, climate change and resilience to extreme weather events. The credits include: passive survivability and back-up power during disruptions, informing design using triple bottom line analysis, integrative analysis of building materials, design for enhanced resilience and assessment and planning for resilience.

A total of 128 credits and prerequisites, classified as directly or indirectly related, were analyzed. Six categories (out of 10) are applicable in the five GBRS. As expected, energy is the category with a higher impact on each GBRS (average of 28%). Material and waste come in a second place with an average of 17,6%, followed by transportation with an average of 14.4%. Location remains in the fourth position with 12,7%, indoor environmental quality in the fifth position with 10,3%, followed by management with 4.6%. Unfortunately, emissions is a category just of BERDE. It is one of the categories with less credits. In BERDE v2, just three credits are part of it. Between them, only the credit of “Greenhouse gas projection” is related with the topic. The other ones refer to the refrigerants options to reduce the ozone depleting substances (not CO2) and to emissions’ control of stationary sources (sulfur oxides, particulate matters and nitrogen oxides).

Figure 39 - LEED and BERDE percentage of credits targeting CO2 emissions (directly and indirectly) per overarching category Source: Own based on LEED V4 and BERDE V2, 2018

3.2 LEED x BERDE – the Status Quo Regarding Climate Change and Sustainable Construction Legal Framework Integration Based on the legal tools’ review chapter, Table 4 provides an overview of the status quo regarding the integration of these tools within LEED and BERDE newest versions. In case of LEED, the assessment focuses on v4 (2013) and on the pilot credits of version v4.1 (2017), which is currently tested. Table 4 – LEED and BERDE overview climate change and sustainable construction legal frameworks

Legal Tool

Scale

LEED V4 (2013) / V4.1 (2017)

BERDE V2 (2018)

Paris Agreement (2015)

International

GABC (2015) SDG 11 (2015) SDG 13 (2015)

International

The agreement is not mentioned directly in the new version. However, the credit demanding GHG inventory can be considered a step forward in the mitigation field. No reference in the new version

New Urban Agenda (2016)

International

NDC (2016) Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (under development)

National

For timing reasons, v4 does not include it. However, some of the pilot credits of the currently tested version v4.1 refer to climate change. No reference in the pilot version. No reference in the pilot version. No reference in the pilot version. Mentioned in the International Brief 2018 No reference in the pilot version. Mentioned in the International Brief 2018. N. A

National

N. A

Philippines Green Building Code (2015)

National

N. A

In 2017, the CCC, the PHILGBC and the National Housing Authority signed an agreement to develop a NAMA for the building sector. The aim is, through BERDE, to improve the status quo of the building’s legal framework. This fact is not mentioned in BERDE’s new version. The PHILGBC guarantees (in the interview conducted) that the new version was aligned with the code, yet, not 100%. To start the certification process, a document ensuring that the code is being pursued must be presented. When the strategies are the same for both tools, BERDE demands higher achievements than the Green Building Code. Examples are the daylight views or natural ventilation. In the GB Code, it is

International International

No reference in the new version No reference in the new version

No reference in the new version

necessary to provide at least 10% of the permanent occupied areas with both of the strategies. In BERDE, the minimum percentage is 50%. An interesting fact is that just in the BERDE energy category, it is written which credits have to follow what was established by the GB Code. For the other categories, no reference is made. This confirms that the whole new version is not totally harmonized with the law. Source: Own based on the Legal Tools’ Review Chapter, 2018

3.3 Mitigation Strategies from the Construction Sector: How Are They Mainstreamed in the Philippine’s Climate Change Legal Tools? This section is a compendium of the path followed by the Philippines in the field of legal instruments related with climate change. It is an exercise to picture how mitigation strategies from the construction sector were included across the years. Table 5 comprises the national tools organized in chronological order. Local tools from Pasig City complement the research as an example of how the actions are implemented on a municipal level. Table 5 – LEED and BERDE overview climate change and sustainable construction legal frameworks

Legal Tool

Scale

Mitigation strategies in the construction sector

Climate Change Commission (2009)

National

National Framework Strategy on Climate Change (2010)

National

National Climate Change Action Plan (2011)

National

Local Climate Change Action Plan (2014)

Local

Adaptation and disaster-risk reduction are the priorities. Mitigation comes second. No renewable energy is targeted, no carbon budget is legally binding and no GHG emissions’ reduction are aimed. The construction sector is not clearly included. Mitigation is understood “as a function of adaptation”. Through the Sustainable Infrastructure Key Result Area, a call for implementing green building standards through different strategic priorities is made. These priorities encompass: guidelines for climate-resilient / energyefficient buildings and settlements, support green infrastructure and public awareness. Adaptation continues to be a priority. Mitigation depends on the private sector’s engagement. The strategic priority programs (climate-smart industries and services, sustainable energy and knowledge and capacity development) encourage: the review of the National Building Code, the development of a GBRS for new constructions and retrofitted ones and the implementation of the GBRS at a local level focusing on carbon neutrality. The Climate Change Act of 2009 considers these plans as front-liners to combat climate change. On a national scale, the LCCAP should canalize the local action plans to

Philippine Greenhouse Gas Inventory Management and Reporting System (2014)

National

Nationally Determined Contributions (2017)

National

Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (under development) Pasig City GHG Management Framework Plan (2014)

National

Local

Pasig City Local Climate Change Action Plan (2015)

Local

Pasig City Green Building Ordinance (2016)

Local

adaptation measures, hindering mitigation for one more time. The construction sector is not explicitly targeted as one of the mandatory sectors to account for the GHG emissions. Yet, it can be included in the energy and industrial processes sectors.

The NDC drafts the goal of reducing 70% of its GHG emissions by 2030 when considered a BAU scenario between 2000 and 2030. The sectors targeted are: transport, energy, forestry, waste and industry. The construction and building sectors are expected to be included in the ones for energy and industry. But there is no guarantee for that. In 2017, the CCC, the PHILGBC and the National Housing Authority signed an agreement to develop a NAMA for the building sector. The aim is, through BERDE, to improve the status quo of the building’s legal framework. The plan proposes to reduce 10% of the city’s emissions from 2015 to 2030 when compared to the BAU scenario. Mitigation is approached in 8 different sectors. The document also plans to introduce a green building code for new and renovated buildings (as one measure of the Industrial and Commercial Establishments sector). This plan implements the GHG Framework Plan, converging adaptation and mitigation strategies. The green building code should have “a holistic approach to designing, constructing and operating buildings” The tool made BERDE mandatory for certain types and size of buildings. The GBRS includes a chapter dedicated to emissions, where GHG emissions’ inventory is a credit. Still, the mitigation potential of the system remains untapped.

Source: Own based on the Legal Tools’ Review Chapter, 2018

3.4 Understanding the Gaps The last section of the analysis chapter goes back to the Problem Identification section. The five gaps disclosed as main constraints are assessed through the SWOT methodology. The precedent chapters and sections lay the groundwork for understanding the problems. The first gap was classified as a general one from the Green Building Rating Systems. The following four are classified as problems of different sectors and scales in the Philippines.

3.4.1 Gap One: Incompatibility LEED and BERDE, the first generation of private green building rating systems, are not aligned with the CO2 emissions’ mitigation goals on a global scale. STRENGTHS

  

       

GBRS are consolidated as third-party reliable certifications on an international scale. Certified buildings are considered benchmarks. GBRS pushes the market to develop and innovate more ecofriendly building systems, materials and construction techniques. These innovations comply with the parameters established by the certifications. The rating systems’ umbrella offers a broad range of certifications for different building typologies. Natural resources are preserved when compared to buildings with no sustainable strategy (e.g. water and energy consumption reduction). A sustainability triple-bottom line is encompassed. Strong marketing on a global scale. The World Green Building Council is present in 73 countries. LEED: significant number of professionals trained around the world. LEED: climate change was considered an “Impact Category” in the development of the last version. BERDE: a chapter dedicated to emissions (GHG, refrigerants and particulate matters).

WEAKNESSES 

   



The first generation of GBRS is not clearly aligned with climate change and sustainable development global concerns (e.g. Paris Agreement, UNSDG). Even though LEED contains climate change as “impact category” and BERDE as a chapter dedicated to emissions, both systems do not express their concern in a transparent, concrete and strong manner. In these GBRS, it is not mandatory to measure CO2 emissions’ reductions. Certification is awarded to buildings with low decarbonization profile (between 5% and 20% of energy reduction) (Kats, 2017). LEED: mandatory to use air conditioning to achieve certification. Natural ventilation is a pilot credit at the moment. The first generation of GBRS had a slight evolution regarding the assessed overarching categories (water, energy, waste, materials, location, indoor quality). Categories such as transportation, innovation and regionality were added in the last versions. Systems transferred to countries, regions and cities with different climatic characteristics and social context. American parameters are used to assess buildings on a global scale.

OPPORTUNITIES   

Create new versions aligned with the world’s climate change mitigation and adaptation concerns. Making clear statements about these new commitments in the documents and discourse. Set mitigation strategies as minimum program requirements, prerequisites and credits.



  



 

Include strong actions to guarantee that each certified building reaches meaningful levels of decarbonization. Tie the certification award to minimum levels of CO 2 emissions’ reduction. Include recommendations from the roadmaps which published by entities included climate change global concerns (e.g. Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction) Learn with the second generation of GBRS (EDGE, DGNB). Engagement of the World Green Building Council per country, assisting the governments and the private sector in the decarbonization process. An example is the Philippines where the PHILGBC signed a cooperation to collaborate with the NAMA of the construction sector. Improve the certified professional and educational programs by including climate change. This could be realized by giving monthly free webinars (as already done with other environmental issues). LEED: include credits that support each country NDC in the regional category. BERDE: develop a result-oriented cooperation for decarbonization within the NAMA for the construction sector.

THREATS  

 

LEED: was developed before the Paris Agreement, the UNSDG and the New Urban Agenda. No market-driven reasons to lead a profound modification of the GBRS towards climate change. Just scientific-driven reasons, which most of the private investors are not keen to comply with, are not enough for both GBRS. The first generation of GBRS will soon be outdated if no significant reformulation and no stronger commitment with climate change issues take place. The “International Framework for Socio-Economic Factors for Green Building Rating Tools in Developing Countries” (2013) from the World GBC does not include climate change concerns, mitigation or adaptation strategies (World Green Building Council, 2013).

3.4.2 Gap Two: Mitigation as a Function of Adaptation The country has different mechanisms regarding the topic of climate change. Thus, mitigation is not stated as a priority in the foremost legal tool: The Climate Change Act of 2009. This originated from a law-abiding echelon where mitigation is disconnected or unenforced from the strategic activities. The goals, the addressed sectors as well as how to address mitigation strategies and how to implement them are not clear. Furthermore, incomplete, outdated and controversial information surrounds the tools.

STRENGTHS 

The country ratified the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement.



 



Establishment of the Climate Change Commission in 2009. The commission detains a key role to implement cross-sectoral measures, vertical and horizontal strategies and provides the base for new legal instruments. The commission is established directly under the President’s office and above all the sectorial departments. The National Framework Strategy on Climate Change guides the development plans and investment programs on a medium and long term for regional, provincial and local scales. It recognizes the value of engaging a multi-stakeholder group. It identifies Key Result Areas to target strategic climate sensitive sectors. In the case of mitigation, the long-term goal is to simplify the low GHG emissions transition towards a sustainable development. The National Climate Change Action Plan is the first document to identify the gaps in the climate change national framework. It calls for a cooperation among the national departments and agencies, once the strategies of the action plan are defined per topics and not per sectors or departments. The NCCAP defines implementation and financing mechanisms divided into national and local categories. Mitigation should be mainstreamed at a local level. The Local Climate Change Action Plan is recognized as forerunner to fight climate change. The Philippine Greenhouse Gas Inventory Management and Reporting System defined the sectors to be measured: agriculture, energy, waste, transportation, industrial processes, land-use and forestry. The Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMA) are under development.

WEAKNESSES  



The country created just 10 years ago the main policy and decision-making body for climate change matters. ’s turning point towards climate change is The government omits its responsibility of thriving in the mitigation field by transferring this responsibility to other stakeholders (private sector and international cooperation). The country heavily relies on the developed countries’ support to reach its mitigation goals. The support should be in means of implementation, capacity building, technology transfer and climate finance. The Climate Change Commission established adaptation as a country priority due to the high level of the country’s vulnerability. The commission communicates with the cities through the different departments, turning this indirect channel a weak and vulnerable contact. The commission fails to include all key stakeholders (few NGO’s and civil society and grassroots representants are members). The National Framework Strategy on Climate Change enhanced the economic-privateinterest-driven policies and incentives, which was heavily criticized by environmental activists. The National Climate Change Action Plan prioritizes public investments’ destination to adaptation. It transfers the responsibility of monitoring and evaluating to the Climate Change Commission without defining parameters. It provides a spineless guideline to support the LGUs to elaborate their LCCAP. Currently, the NCCAP is under review.

 

   



The Local Climate Change Action Plan follows the Climate Change Act by enhancing adaptation. Mitigation is not part of the strategic principles. Not well enforced Philippine Greenhouse Gas Inventory Management and Reporting System, after 4 years any inventory was presented, even if it should be a yearly document. The INDC was elevated to NDC without any modification or clarification. The country established a high mitigation goal without specifying how it will be achieved. Outdated data base: the last GHG emissions’ inventory was conducted in 2000. Recent governmental announcements of a coal-fires power capacity increase by 2040 as well as a rise of coal-based electricity generation. The country set up structures focused on policy making and planning, leaving behind means for monitoring and evaluating the progress reached by the new strategies (Fitriandana and Lagonera, 2018). Lack of capacitated professionals to work within the field of climate change (Suelpo, 2017).

OPPORTUNITIES      

 



Leverage international organizations assistance. E.g.: ICLEI, United Nations Secretariats, LEDS, Asian Development Bank, USAID. Enhance participation regarding mitigation in the organizations and boards. For example. Review the climate change mechanisms. Update them and mainstream mitigation on the same high level as adaptation. Promote community-based programs to integrate the population. Boost nationwide programs that are able to prepare professionals for the topic of climate change from diverse stakeholders’ group. Foster the development of national solutions and technologies that address mitigation (bottom-up approach) to curb the dependence of foreign help, lower prices and provide financial means to Filipinos. Improve the communication between the Climate Change Commission and the local governments. Commit to provide more transparent and realistic documents. For instance, the NDC should thoroughly explain how the reduction of 70% of GHG will be conducted, or the GHG inventory should have a bigger time spam which suits to the country’s situation and capacity. Exchange experience, constraints and solutions with national governments from the Southeast Asian region or other developing countries, which have more successful mitigation legal tools.

THREATS 

Corruption in all governmental levels.



 

Different requirements, processes, timeframes and cost-sharing sets of the available international financial means heavily complicate the processing and turn the management and follow-up across governance levels into a bottleneck. The relatively small contribution of the Philippines to the global warming and the high level of vulnerability. Extra costs for the private sector to conduct the yearly GHG emissions’ inventory.

3.4.3 Gap Three: Building and Construction Mitigations – the Detached Sector of the Climate Change Policies As a developing country, the Philippines offers fresh opportunities to shape a legal framework capable of embracing climate change concerns, environmental protection and sustainable development. Yet, when focused on the building and construction sector’s emissions, the uncertainty of how they are expected to be tackled or if they will be tackled in the future remains unclear, exemplifying the lack of priority towards mitigation. Having in mind the fast urbanization growing pace and the projections for the Philippines, the sector should be clearly addressed as a priority. Buildings and policies should envision a path towards a low-carbon or net-zero (Asian Development Bank, 2016). Thus, the deficiency of a sound strategic framework hinders the sector and locks in its potential. STRENGTHS 



The National Framework Strategy on Climate Change included mitigation from the construction sector under the Sustainable Infrastructure Key Result Area. It promotes green building standards and energy-efficient constructions. The National Climate Change Action Plan includes mitigation from the building sector in three strategic priority programs. It has the following expected outputs: the review of the National Building code, developing an implementation of GBRS at local levels, knowledge and capacity centers for empowering the community level. It defines the timeframe and steps for implementing such initiatives. The Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions for the construction sector - currently under development - with assistance of the PHILGBC.

WEAKNESSES      

Short history of building’s regulations. A National Building Code from 1978, where environmental causes are not included. The sector is not explicitly targeted in the Philippine Greenhouse Gas Inventory Management and Reporting System. The Philippine Green Building Act and the Philippines Green Building Code do not include mitigation. The Climate Change Commission and the Climate Change Act, foremost legal tools within the country, do not clearly address the sector. The NDC does not specifically include the building and construction sector.

OPPORTUNITIES    



  

Review the legal tools of the national and local level, looking forward to include the sector as a clear and mandatory target to reach the country’s decarbonization goals. Learn with successful cases from other countries where buildings are officially considered part of the global warming solutions. Search for support of international cooperation (e.g. GABC). Collect the scattered strategies of the existent framework and leverage them. E.g. update the Philippine Green Building Code by including decarbonization levels and by defining methodologies to conduct an emissions’ inventory. The development of the Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions for the construction sector can reformulate the approach of the Philippine Green Building Code and embed climate change mitigation actions in a clear and strong manner. Offer financial incentives to include such strategies in new and retrofitted buildings. Promote social awareness. Include climate change topics into educational programs. Initiatives such as internships or summer schools can approach the topic and engage students at an early stage.

THREATS      

An uninterested or not committed private sector to cope with mitigation, once the market does not demand such strategies. Unorganized and unsustainable new buildings, which will increase the emissions from the sector. Perpetration of a national framework for green buildings which do not address climate change. Shortage of international financial aid and capacity transfer. Greenwashing of the sector. Lack of professionals from the construction area, who are aware of the problem, qualified and engage in proposing and implementing solutions.

3.4.4 Gap Four: Parallel Regimes: How to Bring Them Closer? On one hand, the public regime detains a national legal framework (The Philippine Green Building Code) that is not well enforced. On the other hand, the frequently implemented market-based initiatives (LEED and BERDE) are not well harmonized with the national framework. This incongruence attempts to turn these private systems senseless and hamper the implementation of national legal instruments. Therefore, both regimes need to be aligned, need to cooperate and to extract their best experience with the goal of promoting a sustainable, low carbon and climate resilient buildings’ stock. STRENGTHS  

Existent market for green buildings due to PHILGBC’s work. The private regime has local qualified professionals.



 



Even though BERDE is not perfectly fitting the country’s reality, the fact of having the concern of developing a GBRS tailored to the Philippines is already a first step towards more sustainable buildings and urban settlements. When applicable, BERDE v2 started to comply with the Philippine Green Building Code as a certification requirement. Partnerships between the PHILGBC and some local governments to enforce BERDE for being mandatory to certain type of buildings. It demonstrates how the municipal level is eager to improve the quality of the edifices. Further support for this process is needed. Mandatory code for new bigger investments.

WEAKNESSES 

      



BERDE is applied to buildings with a minimum gross floor area of 5.000 m2, the GB Code to buildings with a minimum gross floor area of 10.000m2, excluding small constructions The regimes do not state their concerns towards climate change. Therefore, no mandatory strategy to reduce global warming is included. Timing: BERDE was developed idealized before the Philippine Green Building Code. Different categories and parameters are tackled since BERDE is based on LEED and Green Star. The Philippine Green Building Code does not include mandatory strategies to existent buildings. The Philippine Green Building Code focuses more on the design phase and is barely addressing the construction phase. The Philippine Green Building Code has a more subjective approach and less rigorous parameters than the new version of BERDE. The Philippine Green Building Code follows the same approval process as the National Building Code. The approval is not conducted by one department. This impedes the possibility of presenting a single document which highlights all the strategies accomplished in the different building systems. Currently, each department of a local level oversees the approval of the different strategies (energy, water, waste, etc). The lack of a specialized and well qualified office, which is able to understand the synergies and to make a holistic approach of a green building code, overloads the local offices.

OPPORTUNITIES   

Review the Philippine Green Building Code including global concerns and alliances for climate change. Turn mandatory decarbonization levels compatible with the emissions from the building sector. Incorporate comprehensive strategies for the construction phase in the Philippine Green Building Code, setting the ground for minimum standards.



 



The national code should comprise strategies for existent buildings and define a plan to cope with it. For example, the governmental Energy Efficient Building Label in Brazil (PROCEL Edifica in Portuguese) was launched in 2012. The first two years were voluntary. From 2014 on, all new and retrofitted buildings of the public sector on a federal level needed to comply with it. Real estate projects are voluntarily complying with it. BERDE needs to include vernacular architecture solutions and smaller constructions. The way it is designed now, it is suitable for bigger constructions, such as skyscrapers, neglecting other building types and scales. Establish an alliance between the government Green Building Committee and the PHILGBC, looking forward to unify their basic goals. The national code should work as a baseline with high and realistic standards. The private regime should award the projects which really managed to step-up. Include other existent GBRS in the country, such as EDGE from the World Bank. With a different approach, cheaper fees and an easier approval process, this second generation GBRS supplies the demand and needs of smaller investors and buildings. Since the National Building Code Review Committee was reconstituted in 2017, the PHILGBC should be included as a member of it. Redefine the approval flow of the Philippine Green Building Code. Perhaps the Green Building Committee could be enforced by empowering regional and local representatives who are able to centralize, verify and grant the approvals of the Philippine Green Building Code demands. When necessary, consultations to other specific government sectors can be done. Currently, the Green Building Committee is responsible just for overseeing the development of the code and the Local Building Official for granting the approvals. However, most of these local offices do not have qualified and available professionals to carry on this task. Qualify public employees to assume this new task.

THREATS   

National legal tools do not consider mitigation as priority. The construction sector is not clearly included in the climate change legal tools. The market gives preference to attending the private regime due to its international recognition and projection for the country.

3.4.5 Gap Five: Unsatisfactory Tailored Approach The process of how BERDE was created is quite questionable when it comes to the Philippines’ context and demands. Originating from international green building rating systems, BERDE proved to have a poor national and local tailored approach (Suelpo, 2017). This is reflected in the technologies and facilities demanded (e.g. cooling systems), in the neglection of climate responsive architecture as well as in the international parameters replicated and forced to comply with. The problem exacerbated at the moment when local governments decided to make the use of BERDE mandatory to certain building typologies, as illustrated in Pasig City.

STRENGTHS  



   

BERDE addresses the lack of an enforced national framework for sustainable construction. The PHILGBC supports local governments to fulfill their demands and initiatives for a mechanism able to guarantee green buildings in their regional and administrative governance. Under some points of view, this type of partnership is a win-win situation. For the PHILGBC, it means expanding and promoting the GBRS created by them. For the local governments, it represents a safe path to project their cities as green urban settlements, attract investors and protect municipal natural resources. The PHILGBC have educational programs to certify professionals. In Pasig City, before enacting the Green Building Ordinance, consultation with the main stakeholders took place. In Pasig City, the minimum standard achieves one BERDE Star. For the projects that achieve more than one Star, a financial incentive is granted. Existent and new buildings are encompassed in Pasig City Green Buildings Ordinance.

WEAKNESSES 



 



BERDE is not 100% suitable for a local reality, since it is only applicable to a minimum gross floor area of 5.000 m2. It fits to a small share of buildings, specifically the ones located in the central business districts, which are mainly skyscrapers. This is the case of Ortigas in Pasig City. The consultations conducted by the CENRO of Pasig City did neither discuss BERDE certification system, nor its categories or process. They discussed the type of incentives to be provided to the investors, the timeframe to declare the GBRS mandatory and the minimum BERDE level to be reached (Naciongayo, 2017). By turning BERDE mandatory on a local scale, the construction sector multiplied international architecture styles and solutions, neglecting vernacular ones. BERDE’s new version does not encompass mitigation guidelines and goals for the construction sector. It keeps awarding constructions with weak decarbonization profiles, just like LEED. Once climate change is not clearly mentioned in BERDE as a concern, this disconnection with global threats is transferred and institutionalized on a local level. BERDE is mandatory for Pasig City. Yet, the Green Building Ordinance declared it mandatory just for edifices with a minimum gross floor area of 10.000 m2. Hence, the major part of the city is excluded of this sustainable development mechanism. Lack of financial feasibility studies from the City Hall and from the investors (Naciongayo, 2017). Local governments do not have enough staff to be fully dedicated to the new demand. Consequently, there is a shortage of qualified employees to assess and monitor the certification process. The construction phase is not broadly approached in BERDE and therefore not in the local governments as well.

OPPORTUNITIES 



After reviewing BERDE and the alignment between the national regime and the private regime, the GBRS can include a category or a guideline fully dedicated to local governments. It could be harmonized not just with the Philippine Green Building Code but also with international concerns (UNSDG, NUA). This BERDE guideline or category for local governments should be able to promote regional technologies, including environmental and social impacts of the construction phase. The PHILGBC can establish partnerships with EDGE in the same way that the USGBC recently established one with EDGE.

 THREATS    

Mitigation relies on foreign cooperation. A complex multi-governance level in Metro Manila (Sciences Po Urban School, 2018). High costs for the certification process. Pasig City considers the prices of technologies needed for certified buildings to be high. This is exacerbated by the fact that no financial feasibility study was conducted before the enactment of the ordinance.

Ortigas Business District, Pasig City, The Philippines Romรกn, 2018

4- DISCUSSION

The Discussion chapter is divided in two main sections. The first one provides the author’s understanding of the results obtained in the Analysis chapter regarding the assessed scorecards and the constructed tables. Findings, limitations and further opportunities are included. The second section suggests solutions for the five gaps that have been pointed out in the Problem Identification section. The purpose is to demonstrate how is possible to be proactive and innovative to solve the weaknesses found. Existent examples are recommended, due to be considered better is decarbonization strategies, local approach and governance. For the general gap of the certification systems, a comparison of LEED and BERDE with Green Building Rating Systems of a second generation is made. In the case of the gaps of the Philippines, a comparison with the climate change legal framework of Singapore, the initiatives of the German Sustainable Building Council and proposals to follow the steps of the Roadmap Towards Low-GHG and Resilient Buildings from the Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction (GABC) takes place.

4.1 Results’ Discussion 4.1.1 LEED and BERDE Scorecards’ Analysis Results Findings: GBRS poor engagement. The exercise’s outcome confirms the motivation for conducting this research: there is a week engagement of the first-generation Green Building Certification Systems towards CO2 emissions’ mitigation. The credits, which clearly state CO2 emissions’ reduction, correspond between 4% and 14%. Besides this small percentage, the low engagement can be extended to the omission of the global warming concern from the discourse or main aims to be tackled. The guidelines, minimum program requirements and educational programs exclude the topic. Minimum mitigation performance is not mandatory. Decarbonization strategies and levels compatible with the CO2 emissions of the building sector (18,6% global emissions – IPCC, 2015) are not obligatory. For example, the credit Green Power and Carbon Offset from LEED’s Energy category required all the international projects to purchase CERs (certified emission reduction) of CDM approved projects. This strategy supports the Kyoto Protocol. However, since it is a credit and not a prerequisite for the category, there is no guarantee that projects will decide to comply with it. Finally, the different awarding levels are detached from the mitigation performance. Since both of them are point-based

systems, the consequence is that buildings with low decarbonization profile are awarded due to the amount of points achieved as a sum-up of all the categories. Potentiality. The high averages (between 48% and 65%) of the current credits and prerequisites that can be modified by including the CO2 emissions’ reductions’ accounting, do not reflect the real capability of the GBRS. There are several strategies which are pursued in LEED and BERDE in the same way. The difference relies on the required minimum performance. For example, the lighting control in LEED needs to have a minimum of 90% of the permanently occupied spaces. In BERDE, there is no minimum defined. Therefore, these types of uncertainties can significantly modify the results. Cross sectoral strategies. The credits which account for the indirectly related strategies are spread in different categories. This reflects how the integration of different fields and the cooperation among them is necessary to thrive in the process of fighting climate change. Renovated buildings have less chances to include decarbonization strategies. When an existing building is renovated, based on LEED or BERDE, it has limitations to achieve an outstanding mitigation performance due to the small range of offered strategies aligned with climate change concerns. Different strategies, same categories. LEED and BERDE adopted diverse strategies for the topic. However, energy, materials and waste are the main categories in both systems that contribute to reduce CO2 emissions. Greenwashing or partially fitted to environmental purposes? To classify LEED and BERDE as greenwashed mechanisms depends on the point of view and the scope. Based on the Oxford Dictionary, greenwashing is defined as “Disinformation disseminated by an organization so as to present an environmentally responsible public image” (Oxford English Dictionary, 2014). In the fields of climate change, adaptation and mitigation, these two systems are viewed as being greenwashed, since no mandatory strategy takes place and no minimum decarbonization level is obligatory. On a more holistic approach, considering natural resources’ protection and efficient use, the GBRS cannot be assessed as a greenwashing mechanism, since its use results in environmental benefits, such as water and energy savings or materials diverted from landfills (Yudelson, 2008). There is hope in the LEED Pilot Credits. Each rating system has a significant amount of pilot credits. Some of them encompass climate change in areas as buildings’ resilience. Likewise, there is a higher amount of strategies related with adaptation than strategies related with mitigation. No market-driven or political reason to include climate change. As far as the certification’s consumers or governments do not force LEED and BERDE to cope with global warming concerns, the current business model will continue to exist, delaying the solutions and increasing the problem of the construction sector (Kats, 2017). Responsibility needs to be assumed. LEED shaped other certification systems around the world. At the moment that LEED is used as a base, like it has been for BERDE, this

low engagement towards climate change concerns is spread worldwide. The U.S. GBC needs to review the priorities thoroughly, include mitigation and adaptation as goals and needs to fulfill its responsibility as influencer in the green building sector.

Limitations: Confidential information. It is important to state that this exercise was conducted for educational purposes. It was based on the open source material of LEED and BERDE. The material available can be limited and does not reflect the full process of developing a green building rating system. Information that could provide a bigger support to the research was requested, however it is considered confidential. For example, the percentage of projects that complied with the Emissions category of BERDE was unsuccessfully requested. Another example applies to the weighing methodology of BERDE. The information is not available, the council declares it confidential. Having this position affects the transparency of the methodology and shades its outcomes. In the case of LEED, the example is related with the impact category weighing. More information was requested but denied. Few similar researches. Compared with other overarching categories of the GBRS, especially water and energy, there are not so many studies available encompassing the approach of the green building certification towards climate change mitigation and adaptation. Further possibilities: Deeper studies can be conducted; the results of the scorecards analysis can function as a starting point. For instance, a classification of the directly and indirectly related credits and prerequisites according to the necessary investments could be undertaken as well as a classification regarding the impacts for mitigations and the level of difficulty to conduct the projections of emissionsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; reductions. Consequently, more detailed information and a partnership with professionals from different backgrounds will be necessary.

4.1.2 LEED and BERDE Alignment with Climate Change and Sustainable Construction Legal Framework Findings: Guidelines do not mention the Paris Agreement, the Sustainable Development Goals and the New Urban Agenda. Due to time pressure, LEED v4 does not refer to any of the three legal tools. Thus, the new version of BERDE was published in 2018 and does not refer to the agreements as well. It can be explained by the fact that it was developed on the basis of LEED, the lack of engagement and proactivity of the construction sector in the Philippines (especially concerning climate change related matters) and a national green building code which does not include climate change as a core concern. Yet, it is possible to find peer reviewed articles (Diaz-Sarachaga, Jato-Espino and CastroFresno, 2018) and promotional material (USGBC, 2018) providing reasons why LEED supports the SDGs (even though LEED did not mention the Millennium Development Goals

from the year 2000 in the previous versions). These documents from different sectors exemplify how the USGBC’s current vision, general goals and some specific strategies can be understood as a backing tool. It seems to be more a lucky coincidence, especially since knwoing that the SDGs did not craft the certification system. Additionally, the USGBC justified their engagement through a series of partnerships or programs supported by the council. Examples are other certification systems (EDGE, TRUE and Parksmart) and the Building Efficient Accelerator program. None of them were developed by the USGBC. In the case of EDGE, the partnership is on the educational fields. The preparation courses for being an EDGE can be accounted in the LEED Credential Maintenance Program. Currently, the USGBC offers an online channel where proposals and methodologies of how to include the SDGs into the version under development can be submitted. LEED and BERDE fail to include, though mandatory, most of the previous international agreements. The Millennium Development Goals, Habitat I or Habitat II are not included in the systems’ discourses, even though they were established years before. Thus, with regards to the Kyoto Protocol, LEED had a higher engagement by backing the consumption of CERs from CDMs (Sentman, Del Percio and Koerner, 2008). BERDE does not have any strategy with a clear connection to the CDMs. Domino Effect. Once LEED does not clearly embed climate change as a priority in its guidelines, the systems inspired by it follow this position. LEED process, categories, pointbased award system and market reputation seems to be stronger than science-based agreements and global warming concerns. The domino effect is magnified at the moment when the LEED-inspired voluntary GBRS are turned into laws on a local level. Considering the singularities of each city, there is no guarantee that the American private system will reduce the negative effects of a building sector whose characteristics were not considered in the developing process of LEED (Schindler, 2010). Limited participation of the Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction. LEED and BERDE do not mention the GABC. The alliance, supported by the UNEP, focusses on public policies, codes and NDCs implementation. Philippine’s NDC is left behind. Based on the fact that the official document did not include the construction sector, this position is reciprocal from the PHILGBC. The council does not step up in this matter. It is an action-reaction relation where the consequences of the uncertainties regarding the sector and its embedding in the NDC lock-in the country’s decarbonization path. The new BERDE version does not refer to the NDC and the ambitious target of reducing 70% of the Philippines emission by 2030. Questionable purpose of the under-development NAMA. The agreement between the Climate Change Commission, the PHILGBC and the National Housing Authority to develop the Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMA) of the construction sector seems, at the first moment, to be a first step towards aligning the parallel regimes and paving the way for a cooperation that will initiate the decarbonization process of this sector. The intended agreement between the public and the private sector is a concern since BERDE was chosen to be the tool to improve the building’s legal framework. It is not an agreement for researching, evaluating and enforcing strategies suitable to the national reality or for fitting

to the vernacular architecture and construction methods. It is an agreement to extend BERDE’s comprehensiveness which does not consider CO2 emissions’ mitigation as a central part of the system. BERDE fails to include adaptation. Having in mind the high vulnerability of the Philippines, the system falls short of this aspect too. Surprisingly, even though adaptation is the country’s priority in the field of climate change, BERDE v2 does not mention it. No credit encompassed goals which can be achieve, for instance, with nature-based solutions are included. Perhaps, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015) could be taken account of. The voluntary agreement, established by the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, understands that the State shares this responsibility with other stakeholders, including the private sector. LEED is not a role model. In the current context of increasing global warming, a result of unsustainable practices from all society and economic sectors, LEED is not the best example to be followed as a base for a new GBRS. LEED does not add clear values and strategies to the field of climate change or to the process of supporting national and local governments to be aligned with SDGs, the Paris Agreement, GABC or to achieve mitigation goals. This factor scales up when a system is created for a developing country, once LEED cannot be fully tailored to local demands. The developing countries need tools appropriate for their own realities and possibilities (Schindler, 2010). They don’t need a tool from a first world country which can damage more than it can help. Better examples to follow are explored in the next section. LEED can add other assets, such as strong marketing or international prestige.

Limitations: Political. The current administration of the United States of America believes that climate change is a hoax. The country withdraws its participation from the Paris Agreement in 2017 and never ratified the Kyoto Protocol. Although the U.S.GBC is an independent body, the council could benefit from a national position more supportive to global warming concerns. However, the national regulations comply with an American system. This neglection towards climate change could impinge on other countries where LEED is applied, affecting national development and interfering in countries which ratified both agreements. International scale. The solid reputation and marketing of LEED are a challenge to overcome when it comes to the selected certification to be followed as role model for new GBRS. Other GBRS, such as EDGE, will fit better to developing countries. However, it is still new in the market and less known. National scale. First, it is not clear whether NDC and the CO2 mitigation goals will be defined for the building and construction sectors on a national level. Second, no document was published after the NAMA partnership was signed in 2017, hence no goals, plans or guidelines have been published It is impractical to work towards a goal when this goal has not been established yet.

Further possibilities: Since the USGBC is currently open for suggestions to LEED v4.1, general findings regarding mitigation and climate change will be submitted as contributions. A closer collaboration between the World Green Building Council and the GABC for international matters will be proposed. The plan for integrating the national Green Building Councils as active stakeholders into the NAMAs will be proposed too. Additionally, the real impact of the American government on climate change, its discourse, on LEED goals as well as the worldwide consequences of the US government position have to be observed.

4.1.3 The Philippine’s Climate Change Legal Tools and the CO2 Mitigation Strategies from the Construction Sector Findings: Mitigation is not a country’s priority. The Climate Change Commission defined adaptation and disaster risk reduction as a priority. As the country’s policy making body, it created a multi-governance structure, which continued to classify mitigation as second level goal. The National Framework Strategy on Climate Change (NFSCC), the National Climate Change Action Plan (NCCAP) and the guidelines for Local Climate Change Action Plans (LCCAP) perpetrated “mitigation as a function of adaptation”. The Philippine’s concerns about agricultural and economic losses due to its high vulnerability to natural disasters are reasonable. Nevertheless, an unbalanced approach towards the two main sectors of climate change is a mistake. Both should have the same weight. The consequences of such a disregard have high capillarity would have negative effects on the economic and social sectors. It puts the country in a situation where GHG emissions ramp up and global warming increases. Hence, the amount of climate threads is exacerbated, the population’s vulnerability is increased and the need for adaptation mechanisms is raised. Mitigation, a problem to be solved not by the public sector. Due to financial constraints and lack of capacities, the Philippine government neglects to work on mitigation. Neglecting the commitment to reduce CO2 emissions within the country’s boundaries leads to transferring the responsibility to the private sector and international cooperation. For example, the NFSCC promotes mechanisms which foster the participation of the private sector. This economic-driven incentive is criticized because of the climate change solutions and technologies proposed. They are disconnected of the local reality. High prices limit the access to most to them, consequently, not solving the problem (Boongaling, 2014). BERDE is an example of how the private sector leads in one economic sector the fields where the government is uncapable to do it due to the unenforced legal tools (the GB Code in this case). BERDE is not a good solution in terms of encompassing national and local realities, however, it shows what strategies are available and thriving. 2010, the legal starting point for green building. From this year on, sustainable construction permeates legal tools in the Philippines. The NFSCC is the first one to consider green construction and certification systems as part of the solutions of the

mitigation pillar. The Key Result Areas (KRAs) of Sustainable Infrastructure gives attention to these systems as well. The GBRS are presented as an option to reduce energy consumption, CO2 emissions and fresh water use. The GBRS are not included under the NFSCC’s adaptation pillar. Following, the NCCAP (2011) clearly includes GBRS in 3 of its 7 Strategic Priority Programs. The phases and timeframes to review the current building code, to develop a GBRS and implement it on the local level as well as to define capacity building initiatives are settled. The community level gains notoriety in the action plan through the needed engagement to encompass mitigation activities. Climate smart cities are envisioned through the lens of adaptation, excluding mitigation from this smartness. BERDE and the Philippine Green Building Code were created after the NFSCC. The legal frameworks included green buildings in the strategy and in the action plan. Nevertheless, these plans wait for being fully implemented or enforced until today. The construction sector is not forced to account for its emissions. No enacted law or enforced framework imposes the sector to measure and provide the emission’s data neither the ones created by the Climate Change Commission, nor the specific ones of the sector. Worse, the Philippine Greenhouse Gas Inventory Management and Reporting System and the NDC do not mention the sector. No mitigation goal is established. Today, emissions are accounted in a city level, if the local government considers it as important (Dedicatoria, 2017). Perhaps this lack of incentives and obligation is modified with the future resolutions of the NAMA. But there is no assurance to this. Thereupon, currently, GHG and CO2 emissions inventories rely on the interest and good will of private sector’s initiatives and cities’ administrations. The green shades of Pasig City. In the race to attract international investors, several Asian cities sell themselves as green areas (Gulsrud, 2014). Pasig is not excluded from this trend (Sciences Po Urban School, 2018). With the slogan “Pasig, the green city”, the municipality describes itself as an environmentally friendly, resource conscious, social fare and economically promising urban settlement. Yet, according to ICLEI SEA, Pasig is an exception in the Philippine’s context due to the concentration of different drivers (Dedicatoria, 2017). The first one is the green city branding strategy, which deployed actions to different urban fields. Examples are an e-fleet connecting the main commercial center to suburban areas, a bicycle sharing program, waste segregation at source promotion, an organic waste composting program and the use of solar energy for public lighting. The second driver is the engaged political and governmental staff. The Major and CENRO employees actively promote community-empowerment activities and established different partnerships with international entities and programs. This year, the city was awarded as one of the winners of the One Planet City Challenge from the WWF because of its sustainable mobility and transportation (ICLEI, 2018). Third, the Ortigas Business District is located in the city. As one of the main financial centers in the country, it polarizes public and private investments, functioning as a magnet for diverse social, economic and development interests. Pasig City LCCAP, a Convergence of Mitigation and Adaptation. This local plan’s title indicates the pursued balance between adaptation and mitigation, going further than the

priorities established on the national level. For mitigation, it has the aim to implement the city’s GHG Management Framework Plan and step up in the activities executed. For adaptation, it encompassed the Pasig City Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Plan developed under the Sendai Framework. Still, the mitigation chapter is underdeveloped when compared with the adaptation chapter. The number of legal tools, data available, community engaging projects and sectors addressed are far beyond the ones from mitigation. Besides, the Barangays (smaller administrative level in the Philippines) are included in the adaptation chapter and not in the mitigation chapter. Narrowing to the construction sector, both the GHG Management Framework Plan and the LCCAP clearly included the implementation of a green building code as a short-term strategy. Further strategies are placed as long-term plans: the green roof ordinance and the compliance of all governmental buildings with the Green Building Ordinance, independent of the gross floor area of the edifice (City of Pasig, 2015). BERDE fulfills the demands of a local government. Even though the Philippine Green Building Code is available, BERDE was the selected tool to be implemented in Pasig City through the Green Building Ordinance of 2016. Along this research, several aspects that justify this preference were identified: Green marketing: BERDE fits to the city’s green branding, providing a ranking tool based on international parameters and harnessing the city’s aim of being known as a green city. BERDE is clearly destined for the real estate projects of the Ortigas Business District. (II) Broader Scope: BERDE covers new construction and existent buildings, following the NFSCC. The GB Code just covers new constructions. (III) Operational: the organized structure of the PHILGBC enables them to provide assistance to the local government. The assistance includes workshops, professional trainings, stakeholder engagement and know-how sharing. Additionally, the council manages the whole certification process, being the opposite to the decentralized procedure to obtain the national code. This working flow transferred the responsibility as well as most of the costs from the public administration to the private council. Additionally, it solves the issue of lacking qualified professionals in the governmental body. (IV) Credibility: The certification is granted by the PHILGBC, a third-party entity. In the case of the GB Code, the permission is obtained from local administration offices, being vulnerable to corruption schemes. (V) Existent examples: Pasig is not the first city to make BERDE mandatory. Therefore, other cases proved that it was possible to implement the GBRS as development tools for specific areas with high economic importance for the local administration. (I)

Limitations: Educational background. Due to the author’s education in architecture and urban planning, it is proven that several legal aspects were not identified. This aspect is compensated through the professional experience with green building rating systems and international mitigation projects as well as with an integrated approach of the different sectors appraised.

National position towards mitigation. Putting a high priority on adaptation hinders the country’s potential to understand the causes of its emissions and to set realistic plans to curb them. Assigning this monumental responsibility to other stakeholders delays the Philippine’s capacity to solve its own problems with its own resources and competences. Mitigation officially depends on the good will and dedication of the private sector. Additionally, the amount of partnerships, studies and projects is higher in the field of adaptation. No updated data. The last GHG data provided by the government is from 2000. This means that the sectors need to work with projections, assumptions and depend of international cooperation. The construction and building sector does not know its emissions’ status-quo. Online available information. Unfortunately, not all the necessary information is easy to access. The research was possible to launch just after several visits to the CENRO. Nevertheless, the team is cooperative, also in terms of staying in touch from abroad and exchange information. Further possibilities: The NCCAP is currently under review. Perhaps, based on the international concern and the call for urgent comprehensive strategies, mitigation will be contemplated as critical aspect to be addressed. Pasig City is an example where the LCCAP embedded adaptation and mitigation with equal weight. However, there is still a long way to go in order to truly reach a stage where the national legal framework needs to be modified, where financial and technical resources will be demanded and where the local government will be key players.

4.2 Closing the Gaps: The Search for Solutions Several of the issues related with the 5 gaps were discussed as results of the scorecards and legal tool’s review tables. Therefore, this section splits up the gaps in two main groups according to how they are classified in the Problem Identification section. Having the SWOT results as a base, solutions are proposed to both groups. The first group refers to the gap which addresses a general issue faced by the first generation of Green Building Rating Systems regarding CO2 emissions’ mitigation. The second group of gaps compiles problems of different sectors and scales in the Philippines.

4.2.1 General Gap: Reducing Carbon Footprint through Green Building Certification Systems As proved by quantitative and qualitative methodologies, LEED and BERDE follow a track incompatible with global concerns for climate change. This disfunction is not limited to mitigation, it also extends to adaptation. Backed up by a solid marketing and prestige, LEED enjoys a comfortable position in which preserving natural resources (from other perspectives) seems to be the recipe for a successful Green Building Rating System. This

illusion of success is pursued by national green building councils, which develop new certification systems based on LEED, neglecting regional contexts. Apart from the opportunities provided in the SWOT, the aim is to detect existent cases which could solve the deficit identified in the GBRS of the first generation. According to a research conducted by the Fraunhofer Institute, the first generation of GBRS centers on a “Green-Building approach” based on energy efficiency and environmental accomplishments. The second generation of GBRS learnt with the first ones and understood the broader role of a certification system. They assess the designing and construction process as well as technical, economic, social, cultural and quality aspects. They follow a “Sustainable-Building approach” by considering an overall performance (Essig, 2009). Looking forward to solve the first gap, EDGE and DGNB are the selected existent examples to be analyzed and compared with LEED and BERDE.

Figure 40 - EDGE Logo Source: The World Bank Group, 2017

Excellence Design for Greater Efficiencies (EDGE) was launched by the International Finance Corporation (IFC) from the World Bank Group in 2015. EDGE claims to be a different green buildings’ assessment mechanism by being a “fast and easy to use mass market transformation tool” (The World Bank Group, 2017). EDGE was particularly shaped for emerging markets and rapid urbanization areas, respecting the countries’ financial and climatic peculiarities.

EDGE intentionally has a narrow focus to demonstrate resource efficiency in the three selected fields (energy, water and materials) and climate change mitigation. The IFC believes that green building certification systems with broad targets lead to outcomes which are incompatible with all the categories aimed to target (International Finance Corporation, 2016a). Moreover, the IFC envisions cooperation with governments, looking forward to demonstrate its financial capability to promote green construction and curb GHG emissions. The IFC presumes that this is the path to close the gap between poorly enforced or inexistent green building policies and private certification systems. EDGE is constituted by a certification system, a global standard and an open-source online platform. The certification system is provided by thinkstep-SGS or by the Green Business Certification Inc (GBCI). GBCI provides LEED as well. EDGE covers new construction, existing buildings and buildings undergoing renovation. Concerning eligibility, EDGE is able to certify projects with a minimum area of 50m2 in the Philippines, while with BERDE, the minimum floor area is 5.000m2, with the GB Code 10.000m2. Specific User’s Guides are available for: homes, hospitality, retails, offices, hospitals and education. The process is divided in a design and construction stage. For the last one, an on-site audit is conducted by an EDGE auditor, like in BERDE (LEED has no on-site evaluation). EDGE auditors are trained authorized professionals, who successfully passed obligatory tests. As a strategy to adapt EDGE to different contexts and catalyze green buildings in developing countries, local partnerships are established in most of the countries. In the Philippines, the Philippine Green Building Initiative (PGBI) is in charge. This selection

raised the question: why the PHILGBC was not chosen to be the local partner? The PGBI defines itself as an association of voluntary professionals from the construction sector, which focuses on climate change and global warming. Founded in 2010, the association is currently developing its own GBRS: the Geared for Resiliency and Energy Efficiency for the Environment (grEEEn) will be a national code-based voluntary rating tool (Philippine Green Building Initiative, 2018). In EDGE, the certification process’ fees vary according to the country. This is different to LEED, where the fees are based on the project's rating system and size, independently of the project’s location. In general, EDGE fees are lower than the ones for LEED. As an illustration: in the case of the Philippines, the registration fee is $200. The certification costs vary from $3,000 to $5,000 for projects with less than 5,000m2 to less than 30,000m2. Additionally, residences with less than 200m2 have a registration fee of $100 and a certification fee of $450, while prices for social housing will be discussed (EDGE Buildings, 2018b). In LEED, the registration and certification fees will vary for members and nonmembers. For registration, costs amount to $1,500 for non-members and $1,200 for members. The minimum price for BD+C differs from $2,850 for less than 4.650 m2 to $33,000 for 46.500 m2. Fees for bigger areas need to be discussed. Several extra fees are charged along the process. In case of informal inquiries or credits appeal, extra charges will be applied (from $220 to $800) (U.S. Green Building Council, 2018c). In case of BERDE, the registration fee is the equivalent to $1,000 and the certification fee depends on the project size with an average price of 1,5 EUR/m2 (Suelpo, 2017). The global standards refer to a minimum performance that each project must achieve in three areas. The project needs to reduce, at least, 20% of water use, energy consumption and embodied energy in materials when compared with a building with no sustainable strategies. It is a result-based tool instead of a point-based. Rather than granting credits and certification levels, a classification of pass or no pass is achieved. Under EDGE, approximately 4,300,000 m2 were certified in three years, reducing more than 226,300 tCO2/year (EDGE Buildings, 2018a). The online platform refers to the EDGE Software https://app.edgebuildings.com/ (EDGE Buildings, 2015a). The software is 100% open source and available in English, Spanish, Indonesian, Chinese, Portuguese and Vietnamese. The project’s stakeholders can visualize the impacts of the applied strategies in real time, empowering them to select the most cost-effective options. Instead of points (Figure 41), so-called Key Performance Indicators are displayed, representing the final energy use, final water use, operational CO2 savings, embodied energy savings, base utility costs, utility costs reduction and payback in years. The first step on the software is to provide general information about the project. For example: total floor area, owner’s name, person for contact, country, address, type of building. Second, information regarding architectural details, building orientation, building systems, climatic data and electricity cost need to be calculated in order to obtain the baseline. The EDGE Software has collected on-site data for 140 countries. Through a special requirement, it is possible to add more accurate information of the local situation to the software, allowing a more precise assessment. Beneath, there is information available for

different regions and cities of a country. For the Philippines, eight cities are available, including Metro Manila. Aside from the software, free courses and webinars are available in the Open Learning Campus of the World Bank. The strategies are named “measures”. Each measure has a requirement, intention, approach, potential technologies, synergies with other measures, assumptions and compliance guidance for design and construction phases. Regarding energy measures, the tackled features are: heating, cooling, ventilation, pumps, lighting, renewable energy, carbon offsets and appliances. In the case of water, the measures are related to HVAC, bathrooms faucets, rainwater harvesting and waste water treatment. For materials, the measures are organized under the building systems: floor, roof, external walls, internal walls, flooring, windows and insulation. Similar to LEED and BERDE, an umbrella of options is provided, from whom the project team needs to decide which to comply with.

Figure 41 - Screenshot of EDGE Software Source: EDGE Buildings, 2015

The fact that the software builds the base and provides the energy consumption savings on time allows the project team to exclude the energy efficiency simulation, which is mandatory in LEED and BERDE. By personal experience, this service is time-consuming Figure 5679- GBRS comparison regarding and demands higher financial investments. Sometimes, this mandatory information percentage of strategies targeting CO2 emissions’ discourages smaller project reductionFigure investors to5680pursue Screenshot a green of EDGE building. Software Usually, a third-party is Source: EDGE Buildings, 2015 hired to provide the specialized service. Additionally, the team members do not know the real impact and share of each strategy applied. It is difficult to take project decisions without a fast feedback of the outcomes. 5681GBRS comparison regarding Basic information about mostFigure of the registered and certified projects is available. The percentage of strategies targeting CO2 emissions’ information contains the percentage of savings for the three approached fields and the total reduction per overarching category Source: Own, 2018 of CO2 saving per year. LEED and BERDE do not have this transparency. Such information is handled as confidential, inhibiting the possibility to compare it with other systems. In the Philippines, just one project was certified under EDGE until now. It is a mixed-use tower Figure 5682- GBRS comparison regarding percentage of strategies targeting CO2 emissions’ reductionFigure 5683- Screenshot of EDGE Software Source: EDGE Buildings, 2015

located in the south of the country in a city with no central business district (EDGE Buildings, 2015b). In order to obtain a better comparison between LEED and BERDE scorecards, EDGE for Offices was analyzed under the same methodology (See Annex 2). Figure 45 illustrates the outcomes. In EDGE, 100% of the material efficiency measures are indirectly related with CO2 mitigation. Also, 36 out of 44 measures (82%) are quantified as directly and indirectly related with the reduction of the CO2 emissions footprint. However, just 7% of the measures directly express mitigation. Regarding categories directly and indirectly related with CO2 emissions’ reduction, energy accounts for 83.3% of the strategies and materials for 16.7%. Complementary to these numbers, the findings of the measures’ assessments encompass aspects related to technologies, “user-friendliness” and basic parameters. First, strategies for energy efficiency are more specific. For instance, several systems are explained when air conditioning and heating are used. The clarifications contain available technologies, different resource efficient levels and the integration in other building systems. The umbrella offers sophisticated strategies like air economizers, which depend on external sensors, to the installation of ceiling fans. The point of waste heat recovery is interesting as well. The concept is heavily encouraged to be used, the possibilities include complex and simple strategies, such as heat recovery from exhaust air. Additionally, a project can use just natural ventilation, not being forced to use air conditioning like in LEED. Second, the user guides are for free (LEED ones are paid). A detailed list of materials is available in the guide. Besides, when extra calculation is required before inputting the data in the EDGE Software, the formulas are simple and tables with coefficients are provided in the document. Third, the energy consumption baseline in EDGE has higher standards than in LEED. For example, the strategy of shading devices in LEED is considered inexistent for the baseline. In EDGE, the base are shading devices equivalent to 1/3 of the height and width of the window. This means that less effective strategies from LEED can lead to better performances in the certified project when compared to the baseline. EDGE is a new concept for a building assessment, intending to support a specific niche of urban settlements. It demystifies green building certification being exclusive only for wealthy users by turning it affordable in non-industrialized nations. It has a global minimum performance; however, it respects the countries’ codes, climatic and economic individualities. EDGE is certainly made for a different type of clients compared to the ones LEED targets. Yet, when compared with the previously analyzed GBRS, several issues are left behind in EDGE, as for example internal air quality, social impact, landscape, transportation, building location and social context.

The next second generation GBRS assessed is the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen (DGNB) or German Sustainable Building Council. Founded in 2007, the NGO is divided in three areas: DGNB Academy, the DGNB Navigator and the DGNB System (German Sustainable Building Council, 2018). The first one is responsible for the educational training programs and for the DGNB Registered Professionals. The second one is an informative online platform regarding sustainable products used in certified buildings. The third one is the green building certification system.

Figure 42 - DGNB logo Source: DGNB, 2018

Figure 5790- Number and Gross Floor Areas (GFA) of Green Buildings in Singapore until May 2016Figure 5791- DGNB logo Source: DGNB, 2018

Figure 5792- Number and Gross Floor Areas (GFA) of Green Buildings in Singapore until May 2016 Source: National Climate Action Plan, 2016

Figure 5793- Singapore’s projected 2020 BAU emissionsFigure 5794- Number and Gross Floor Areas (GFA) of Green Buildings in Singapore until May 2016Figure 5795- DGNB logo Source: DGNB, 2018

The German council considers their GBRS unique and aims for the status of a global benchmark. Figure 43 - DGNB’s basic structure of the system When the DGNB developed the Source: DGNB System – New Buildings Criteria Set, 2018 first scheme, they analyzed the existent systems, identifying Figure 5796- Number and Gross Floor Areas (GFA) of characteristics they did not want to adopt in order to position themselves and to create an Green Buildings in Singapore until May 2016Figure 5797DGNB logo own identity. The decision was not to be Figure a prescriptive system, instead anbasic innovative, 6012- DGNB logoFigure 6013-being DGNB’s Source: DGNB, 2018 structure of the system challenging and technology open system (Braune, 2018). The buildings are evaluated by Source: DGNB System – New Buildings Criteria Set, 2018 its entire life cycle regarding further areas from the sustainability triple-bottom line: technology, processes, site and environmental, economic, sociocultural and functional aspects. Part of what distinguishes theFigure DGNB relies on the fact that the three sustainability 5798- Number and Gross Floor Areas (GFA) of Buildings Singapore untilisMay pillars have the same weighting of 22,5%Green (Figure 43).inThe DGNB not2016 a point-based Figure 6014- DGNB logo Source: National Climate Action Plan, 2016 system. Instead, it is a performance index system, which awards according to an achieved Source: DGNB, 2018 percentage (Figure 44). 5799-and Singapore’s projected 2020 BAU The certification system can be applied toFigure buildings to urban districts. Currently, a total emissionsFigure 5800- Number and Gross Floor Areas of 20 building typologies can be certified under newNumber constructions (up tountil 3 years of finished) Figure andinGross Floor Areas (GFA) of (GFA) of6015Green Buildings Singapore May 2016 Green Buildings inAdditionally, Singapore MayPlan, 2016Figure Source: National Climateuntil Action 2016 6016or existent buildings (more than 3 years of finished). when a project’s typology DGNB logoFigure 6017- DGNB’s basic structure of the is not encompassed in any existent scheme, the option of drafting system a new scheme is possible Source: DGNB System – New Buildings Criteria Set, 2018 with under the modalities of DGNB Flex. The system allows to certify constructions starting Figure it 5801Singapore’s projected 2020 BAU 200m2. Regarding the certification process, includes a pre-certificate phase and a emissions certificate phase for buildings. For urbanSource: districts, the process is divided in pre-certificate, National Climate Change Strategy, 2012 certificate infrastructure and urban quarter. The council offers tailored in-house trainings Figure 6018- DGNB logoFigure 6019- DGNB’s basic for governmental authorities. structure of the system Figure 5802of global building related emissions Source: DGNBSplit System – New Buildings Criteria Set, 2018 and emissions reduction potentialFigure 5803Singapore’s projected 2020 BAU emissionsFigure 5804Number and Gross Floor Areas (GFA) of Green Buildings in Singapore until May 2016 Source: National Climate Action Plan, 2016 Figure 6020- DGNB logo Source: DGNB, 2018

When it comes to apply the DGNB on an international scale, three paths are available. The first one is to use the English version of the certification. The second one includes modifications according to the countries’ climatic, cultural and legal framework characteristics. A collaboration takes part with the local organizations named DGNB Community. The third path refers to the DGNB System Partner. This modality allows the development of a 100% adapted system, in which the local partner is responsible for the entire certification. Nowadays, the DGNB is applied in 20 different countries, most of them from Europe. In Southeast Asia, just Thailand has a certified project through the establishment of a System Partner. Until today, more than 850 projects were certified or registered under the national and international modalities (German Sustainable Building Council, 2018). Even though the first publication is from 2008, this appraisal made a mark in the DGNB System – New Buildings 2018 Version. First, the document seems to be complicated and too extensive to understand. However, this length reflects a deep analysis and brings very detailed procedures, requirements, possibilities, documentation etc. There is no space for subjective evaluation. It is the most complete guideline of all four GBRS assessed. An organizational difference is that in this version, all the typologies are included. In each strategy to comply with, the needs or requirement are explained. In the other GBRS studied, each building typology has its own document. The DGNB provides the 2018 version just when a request is considered justified. LEED schemes need to be paid, while BERDE and EDGE can be downloaded for free. The DGNB 2018 version has 37 criteria, which have to be fulfilled to achieve the certification. To each criteria, a percentage named key performance index is allocated. The sum of the percentages will determine if a project is certified and, consequently, its level of awarding. No voluntary credit exists like in LEED, BERDE or EDGE. Through this new version, the council pursues to be consolidated as an international high standard system for sustainability and not as a market leader. The 2018 version is framed by six pillars: circular economy, Sustainable Development Goals, EU conformity, innovation, people focus, design and construction quality. The first three pillars are highlighted as improvements when compared with the other GBRS assessed. Including circular economy, the system assures a cradle-to-cradle approach along the different building phases and measures the impacts of the related strategies. Regarding EU conformity, the council follows the regional legal framework since the first scheme.

Figure 44 - DGNB awarding logic Source: DGNB System – New Buildings Criteria Set, 2018

Figure 6252- DGNB’s basic structure of the systemFigure 6253- DGNB awarding logic

The DGNB is the first green construction system openly including and advocating in favor of the SDGs. In each criterion, the contribution to the SDGs and its specific targets are pointed out. The contribution is classified as significant, moderate or low. Furthermore, the contribution to the German Sustainability Strategy is highlighted in every criterion. Since the system was launched in 2018, it is early to analyze how fruitful this commitment is. Nevertheless, it is a precedent that it is possible to find synergies between the Green Building Certification Systems and international legal framework. It is a blueprint that should inspire other systems to follow the same track, always taking the countries’ specific possibilities into account. Following the assessment methodology, the DGNB criteria were analyzed as well (Figure 45). To be able to compare the DGNB areas with the overarching categories of the other GBRS, it was necessary to reclassify DGNB’s criteria. Therefore, two new categories were added: economy and community. This exercise is suitable of changes, since it accounts only the number of criteria related to each overarching category. This is a different methodology than the base of DGNB, where each criterion has a different percentage in the entire building performance. This disparity is reflected with the “Building Life Cycle Assessment” criteria, for example. This criteria was classified under the emissions category.

Figure 45 - GBRS comparison regarding strategies approach to CO2 emissions’ mitigation Source: Own, 2018

Following the same methodology used to assess the other GBRS, this criteria represents just one strategy. However, following the percentage concept of the DGNB, it is the criteria with the second higher key performance index (9.5%). Hence, after this verification, two Figure 6494- GBRS comparison regarding strategies approach to CO2 emissions’ mitigation types of assessments were conducted for the DGNB. Source: Own, 2018 The first one is the same point-based methodology used for all the GBRS. The second type is aligned with how the DGNB weights its criteria. Instead of points, percentages are attributed to the criterion. An asterisk (*) is used to mark this assessment. Figure 6495- GBRS comparison regarding strategies approach to CO2 emissions’ mitigation The following findings correspond to the first applied methodology. From 37 criteria, 25 are Source: Own, 2018 directly or indirectly related with CO2 emissions’ mitigation (67%). Nevertheless, just 5% of

Figure 6496- GBRS comparison regarding strategies approach to CO2 emissions’ mitigation Source: Own, 2018

the numbers of criteria openly express mitigation as a target. Management is the category with the highest number of criteria related to mitigation. Location comes in second place and Indoor Environmental Quality in third. Regarding the second type of assessment, there are significant differences in the outcomes. Emissions is the category with higher impacts, despite having just two criteria under it. The economic category is in the second position, having just two criteria as well. Management has eight criteria and is placed as third one. In opposition to other GBRS, energy is one of the less influential categories in the DGNB. These results reflect how the German system encompassed and gave importance to other subjects besides energy efficiency. In the light of this methodology, DGNB has a stronger approach to climate change mitigation. For example, the two directly related criteria make 12% of the building performance. The indirect related criteria are responsible for 63%. Despite these numbers, supplementary findings reinforced the different characteristics of the German system. First, all criteria from the economic quality are indirectly related to mitigation actions. The main focus of the three of them is how to expand the building’s lifespan by being easy to adapt and commercially interesting. This way, the need to construct new edifices is reduced, avoiding a high share of resource consumption and negative environmental impacts. Besides, it supports circular economy in the construction sector. Second, the management category compiles pivotal strategies to guarantee the applicability and continuity of the selected sustainable strategies. Compared with the other GBRS, it is the only system where such position is assumed and implemented. Third, particular criteria are included too. For instance, the criteria “Safety and Security Promotion” as well as the criteria “Designing for All”, which targets persons with physical disabilities. Fourth, adaptation and building resilience are openly included in several criteria. The concerns regarding the constructions’ and urban settlements’ vulnerability guided these measures’ objectives. Fifth, besides the contribution to the SDGs, some of the strategies are part of the “Agenda 2030 Bonus”. This bonus is an extra recognition granted in some of the criteria. It reinforces the commitment of the DGNB 2018 version with the SDGs in categories like climate protection and climate adaptation. Figure 46 and Figure 47 demonstrate how second generation GBRS moved forward in approaching climate change and CO2 mitigation. EDGE clearly addresses the topic with the help of the energy category. The DGNB results differ according to the applied methodology. Yet, both outcomes are higher than the ones of the first generation GBRS. Moreover, to be able to insert the DGNB in this classification, categories needed to be added. This illustrates how holistic concerns lay the groundwork for the new generation of certification systems. On one hand, of all analyzed systems, DGNB is the leading system regarding the approached fields. It has the most solid core issues, most aligned with global concerns and contains the most detailed guidelines. On the other hand, this sound methodology can limit its application just to the German context or enlarge it to the European level. Firstly, the system awarding concept of Key Performance Indicator is not as easy to understand as the other ones. It is not point based and not a pass/no pass classification. Sometimes the system is not well accepted by investors, since it is easier to have a list and check the boxes where the credits are attended (Braune, 2018). Secondly, by being in conformity

with the EU standards, it is difficult to meet these requirements if the first certification path is followed, especially for developing countries.

Figure 46 - GBRS comparison regarding potentiality to include CO2 emissions’ reductions strategies and accountings Source: Own, 2018

Finally, in 2017, DGNB and EDGE decided to establish a cooperation. By doing this, DGNB does a neutral recognition of EDGE. This means, when the project has achieved DGNB, EDGE will be an easy applicable tool. The German council acknowledges EDGE’s user Figure 6525- GBRS comparison regarding potentiality to include CO2 emissions’ reductions friendly, interactive and open toolstrategies as biggest asset in international context. Additionally, the and accountings DGNB recognizes that EDGE enhances Source:sustainable Own, 2018 construction with this tool, since not every investor or every country can afford an expensive certification system with specialized consultants. An illustration are the prices for the experts’ training. In DGNB, it costs around 1200 Euro, while EDGE amounts to $150. Figure 6526- GBRS comparison regarding potentiality to include CO2 emissions’ reductions strategies accountings Based on this extensive quantitative and and qualitative review, it is concluded that no existing Source: Own, 2018 GBRS is suitable to be used around the world in all markets and legal contexts. Each case needs to be analyzed separately. All GBRS pursue environmental protection, differentiating in the comprised spheres and methodologies applied. This results in systems with higher acceptance according to the clients’ aims. For instance, LEED satisfies the needs of Figure 6527GBRS comparison regarding potentiality to include CO 2 emissions’ reductions investors and governments that strategies want to and be accountings perceived as sustainable on an international Source: Own, 2018 scale, being willed to go through a long and expensive process. BERDE appeals to the investors, who look for the credibility of a system based on foreigner standards and, at the same time, foster a national product. The support and capabilities of the Philippine Green Building Council are advantages for BERDE. EDGE is a methodology with solid economic Figure 6528- GBRS comparison regarding potentiality to include CO2 emissions’ reductions and sustainable development concerns, shaped to have a high penetration rate and to strategies and accountings improve non-industrialize markets.Source: DGNBOwn, is 2018 not guided by revenues. It is guided by environmental achievements, excellent recognition and innovation on a legal sphere.

Figure 6529- GBRS comparison regarding potentiality to include CO2 emissions’ reductions strategies and accountings Source: Own, 2018

However, such high standards are decoupled of the realities of the third world countries, where governments still struggle to provide basic human needs in a decent way.

Figure 47 - GBRS comparison regarding percentage of strategies targeting CO2 emissionsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; reduction per overarching category Source: Own, 2018

A comparison among the systems is not a simple equation involving percentages of consumed resources or point-based rankings. The comparison is more complicated since it includes systems of the tworegarding generations. Differences in targeting the groundwork, such as basic Figure 6556GBRS comparison percentage of strategies CO2 emissionsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; reduction per overarching category parameters or weight allocations, make the task more complex. Issues such as strategies Source: Own, 2018

Figure 6557- GBRS comparison regarding percentage of strategies targeting CO2 emissionsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; reduction per overarching category

100

with the same name and different targets need to be overcome as well. For instance, thermal control is a measure which LEED solves by providing the HAVC control to the users. BERDE promotes the use of natural ventilation, while EDGE does not target this topic and DGNB focuses on building resilience capacity to climatic conditions. Emissions control is another controversial term. In the DGNB, it refers to noise and light pollution in the surroundings. For BERDE, it is related to GHG emissions, refrigerants and ppp (parts per million). Hence, the comparison should be more likely a multi-criteria assessment. Still, the benefits or constraints caused to the intangibles cannot be measured. Yet, the first generation of GBRS can be considered outdated in several topics when compared to the new generation. The results of the comparison between first and second generation of GBRS should instigate certifications like LEED to review the system as an overall, goals, discourse and commitments to comply with. Narrowing to the Philippines’ case study, both national and local level opted for the pointbased systems due to its easy comprehension and green branding. Nonetheless, this does not imply that this choice was the best solution. The country, Pasig City, the PHILGBC and the Climate Change Commission should consider organizing a task-force to review BERDE based on second generation examples or to establish a strategic partnership with the IFC and EDGE to boost green construction as an affordable, accessible and uncomplicated system.

4.2.2 The Philippine’s Gaps: Pushing Mitigation to the Right Track in the Different Spheres The Philippines’ justified concerns regarding its high vulnerability covered the success of mitigation. Since 2009, the country privileged adaptation with the goals of the Climate Change Act. The further legal deployments created a scenario where the state shifted the task of reducing CO2 emissions to other stakeholders. The government’s technological and financial dependence on international cooperation and private sector initiatives decreases its own capability and autonomy to solve national problems or set consistent roadmaps to solve them. The country will not thrive in the sector if the model of development, implementation and monitoring of mitigation is not modified. In the search for suggestions based on real cases from countries of Southeast Asia, Singapore has been selected due to its NDC goals as well as to the organization and implementation of the climate change legal instruments. The Philippines is the country from this region with higher mitigation goals in the NDC. Though no mechanism of how to reach such an ambitious level is explained in the NDC, the entire mitigation goals are dependent on foreign aid. Other countries have lower aims: Cambodia 27%, Indonesia 29% (unconditional) and 41% (conditional), Malaysia 35% (unconditional) and 45% (conditional), Thailand 20% (unconditional) and 25% (conditional), Vietnam 20% (unconditional) and 25% (conditional) (Day et al., 2016). Singapore has the second highest goal regarding reductions (36%) and is expected to overcome this goal (46%) (Climate Action Tracker, 2018). Yet, differences between the Philippines and Singapore can be seen. Income per inhabitant, GDP, country size, administrative organization or industrialized economy can be mentioned. However, instead of searching solutions implemented by first world

101

countries of other regions, a more similar and comparable reference is more likely to have a positive influence and realistic outcomes. Additionally, both are part of ASEAN, which enhance several cooperation programs. Due to the country’s small percentage of global emissions (less than 0.2%) (Climate Action Tracker, 2018), when compared to other nations, mitigation strategies were not well enforced until 2006, the year when the Kyoto Protocol was ratified. Until then, the small island prioritized adaptation, similar to the Philippines. The difference relies on the turning point after assuming the international commitment and mainstreaming mitigation into the national policies. Some reason this behavioral change not just from environmental concerns but also from financial interest in order to sustain the good pace of economic growing (HAMILTON-HART, 2006). The Philippines ratified the Kyoto Protocol in 2003, but just small steps were taken to improve mitigation performance and adaptation continued to be the priority. In 2007, Singapore created the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Climate Change (IMCCC) to guarantee the development and implementation of cross-sectoral policies. Under IMCCC’s guidance, three working groups encompass the actions to be taken: the International Negotiations Working Group, the Long Term Emissions and Mitigation Working Group and the Resilience Working Group (National Climate Change Secretariat, 2018). Since the first measure, mitigation and adaptation are treated equally in the country. Until today, four official communications were made to the UNFCCC (2000, 2010, 2014, 2016), twice as much as the Philippines. Moreover, in the year of 2009, Singapore committed to reduce 16% of BAU emissions until 2020. This goal was elevated to 36% in the INDC in 2015 (Republic of Singapore, 2015). In 2010, the National Climate Change Secretariat was created as part of the Strategy Group under the Prime Minister’s Office. It cooperates with the IMCCC. This direct contact with higher governmental representativeness is also observed in the Philippines. The secretariat is in charge of four main themes: integrate CO2 emissions’ mitigation into all sectors, adapt the country to the climate change effects, tap economic green growth opportunities in the new context and promote social awareness aligned with the national aims. The secretariat defined the National Climate Change Strategy in 2012. It has the vision to turn Singapore into a “Climate Resilient Global City” by implementing integrated, long-term, practical, pragmatical and financially sound measures. The climate change strategy is defined in four chronological activities: curb carbon emissions, prepare for adaptation, leverage an ecofriendly economy and settle cooperation programs. Back then, the document pointed out the main constraints for mitigation. Singapore has more than five million inhabitants in a total area of 710 km2. This highly urbanized small city-state island does not have rural areas to install large wind or solar power farms or hydropower plants. This makes the country dependent on imported fuels. To solve these bottlenecks, it is ruled to develop new technologies, support research, increase energy efficiency levels and untap new climate friendly business models (National Climate Change Secretariat, 2012). To reach the population, the strategy uses the slogan “Small changes, Big differences”. Simple daily actions and its benefits are displayed to engage society in the cause.

102

The National Climate Action Plan of 2016 refers to policies of different economic sectors: industry, transport, buildings, power generation, households, waste and water. Financial incentives are established to assist the sectors in the decarbonization process. For example, the National Environment Agency and Economic Development Board offer programs that co-found up to 20% of retrofitting projects, 50% of energy audits and 50% of energy efficient design workshops (National Climate Change Secretariat, 2016). Another primary strategy develops and enhances national research. Roadmaps were validated by multi-stakeholder groups for techniques in the areas of: industry energy efficiency, solid waste management, e-mobility, green data center, solar photovoltaic, building energy efficiency and carbon capture and storage/utilization. Clear steps for developing new technologies are defined. Before being internationally commercialized, the products are tested in the facilities named â&#x20AC;&#x153;living labsâ&#x20AC;?. These are facilities where researchers and business entities can assess the innovations in existent infrastructures. Finally, the action plan points out the importance of having a public sector that leads the transformation. For example, the Public Sector Taking the Lead in Environmental Sustainability (PSTLES) initiative was started in 2014. With this initiative, green procurement and sustainable management goals need to be defined by each ministry until 2020. Examples of the achievements are the Green Mark certification of 76 new buildings and 62 existent buildings from the governmental level (National Climate Change Secretariat, 2016). Besides the measures established in the reviewed documents, complementary measures to limit climate change causes and effects were identified. For instance, one of the main mitigation strategies of Singapore is the carbon tax that will be introduced in 2019. The collected incomes will support mitigation activities. One of the expected effects of this new tax is an increase in the number of renewable energy projects. Furthermore, communication material is a powerful tool for multiplying knowledge. The National Climate Change Secretariat offers visually attractive and easy reading brochures, videos and posters. This type of high-quality material was not found in the research of the Philippines. Across its legal framework, the country set clear mitigation strategies: improve energy efficiency, drop CO2 emissions from energy generation and support the development of local low-carbon technologies. Currently, Singapore depends of electricity provided by natural gas (96%). Still, in order to reach the Paris Agreementsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; goals, this dependency needs to be diversified and transferred to cleaner sources. For example, waste-to-energy and solar capacity are expected to have a steady growth until 2030. To illustrate, solar energy produced 3MW in 2014, 100 MW in 2017 and is expected to reach 350 MW in 2030 (Energy Market Authority, 2018). As a small island, Singapore is also highly vulnerable to climate change events, which treat basic needs like providing potable water, energy and food to its inhabitants (since most of the alimentary goods are imported). Withal, this was not used as an excuse to limit the efforts in other areas. Different that in the Philippines, mitigation strategies are legally enforced, implemented and monitored. Complementary, the strategies comprise the different economic sectors in the country. Singapore forged ahead in the region, demonstrating how it is possible to set and implement clear and realistic goals within the public administration and how to bring other sectors on board.

103

Based on these facts, more transparent and realistic commitments are recommended to the Philippines. Additionally, official updated data needs to be produced. There is no sense in introducing laws that will not be followed (e.g. the GHG emissions annually report), that do not correspond to the country’s possibilities or that lack stages and strategies in order to reach the ambitious goals (e.g. NDC). The lack of professional capacity needs to be solved urgently. The government needs to be proactive, creative and visionary. It is essential to set sound strategies that are able to tackle the problem and to develop a specialized working force. The easy solution of transferring the responsibility to others to solve mitigation needs to be stopped. Moving to suggestions of how to integrate the building sector into the climate change national legal framework, Singapore is directly tackling the issue. In 2005, the Building and Construction Authority presented the first Green Building Masterplan. Due to it, the Green Mark Scheme was introduced. In 2009 and 2015, new editions were published. Each one raised the goals and announced new and complementary point of views. The 2009 version established the goal to certify 80% of the buildings’ stock by 2030 under the Green Mark Scheme. The last edition is more directed to stakeholder’s engagement, leadership and sustainability performance. Capacity building, research, innovation cluster, buildings’ users well-being and carbon reduction are core issues (Building and Construction Authority, 2015). Statistics demonstrate how successful these integrated actions are (Figure 48). In less than 10 years, Singapore elevated the number of Green Buildings from 17 to more than 2700, certifying more than 80 million of m2 (National Climate Change Secretariat, 2016). The government aims being successful in the sphere of green buildings in the tropics and subtropics, transferring knowledge and inspiring other governments to follow the initiative. Currently, the Centre for Sustainable Building of the Building and Construction Authority has a partnership with UNEP’s Sustainable Buildings and Climate Initiative (UNEP-SBCI). Figure 48 - Number and Gross Floor Areas (GFA) of Green Buildings in Through this collaboration, Singapore until May 2016 Source: National Climate Action Plan, 2016 Southeast Asian countries should understand the importance of addressing the construction sector regarding climate change and in order to 6587-and Singapore’s projected BAU emissionsFigure 6588facilitate the implementation ofFigure policies practices. The2020 Philippines did not join this Number and Gross Floor Areas (GFA) of Green Buildings in Singapore program so far, contradicting its own promises to solve mitigation until May 2016 with international aid. It Source: National Climate Action Plan, 2016

Figure 6589- Singapore’s projected 2020 BAU emissions Source: National Climate Change Strategy, 2012

104

seems that the Philippines is losing the opportunity to leverage the available and innovative options. The Green Mark Scheme is a governmental Green Building Certification System proposed to be complied by the public and private sector. It demands that new and renovated existent buildings reach a minimum of 28% of energy efficiency when compared to what was demanded in 2005 by the national code. The point-based scheme is applicable for constructions with a minimum gross floor area of 2.000 m2. It is expected to strengthen the applicability of the certification in the next years, especially comprising buildings from the public sector. Similar to other GBRS, it has four awarding levels: certified, gold, gold plus and platinum. The overarching categories are: energy, water, materials, waste and indoor air quality. Additionally, innovative categories like leadership, tropicality, green efforts, social benefits and smart buildings play an important role. The Green Mark certified the traditional building typologies plus parks, infrastructure (e.g. roads, bridges, barrages) and oversees projects (Building and Construction Authority, 2017). Green Mark is a comprehensive system designed as the result of: (I) the engagement of the public sector to preserve and optimize the limited resources available in the country; (II) the development of a gradually improving program according to strategic groundwork from the past, (III) the goal to be recognized as regional leader and to share the successful findings, (IV) different national authorities and administrative levels working in a coordinated and result-oriented manner in order to establish and enforce beneficial cross-sectoral actions. Perhaps Green Mark is not the best GBRS to be followed, since it is still a point-based scheme. Still, its outstanding features like the legal framework that supports it, the enforcement, implementation and cooperation of the public and private sector are worth to be followed. Regarding the legal tools created by the National Climate Change Secretariat, the National Climate Change Strategy ruled that all new and retrofitted buildings need be certified under the Green Mark Scheme from 2013 onwards. To verify the efficiency of the cooling system, audits are conducted every 3 years. For 2020, it is projected that the building sector will account for 13.8% of the GHG BAU emissions (Figure 49). Therefore, the strategy targets a reduction of the BAU sector’s emission between 11% and 16%. Figure 49 - Singapore’s projected 2020 BAU The National Climate Action Plan of 2016 emissions included the Green Mark Scheme as main Source: National Climate Change Strategy, 2012 policy to reach energy efficiency in the area. The Singapore Green Building Council collaborates to reach these goals (National Climate Change Secretariat, 2016).related Figure 6747- Split of global building emissions and emissions reduction 6748Singapore’s A second option for the Philippines is to followpotentialFigure the strategies proposed byprojected the Global 2020 BAU emissions Alliance for Buildings and Construction (GABC)Source: in the Roadmap Towards Low-GHG and National Climate Change Strategy, 2012 Resilient Buildings published in 2016. The GABC recognizes that each country’s singularities must be respected. This way, the roadmap suggests eight key steps (Figure Figure 6749- Split of global building related emissions and emissions reduction potentialFigure 6750- Singapore’s projected 2020 BAU emissions Source: National Climate Change Strategy, 2012

105

50) which can be tailored to different needs and possibilities. They are presented not in a chronological but in a priority order. 1. Implement urban planning policies for energy efficiency: it refers to how new resultoriented laws will modify the buildingsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; shapes and materials. Consequently, these decisions have an impact on the energy consumption of a city. New districts deserve special attention since they are a chance to implement coordinated policies. To be applied in the Philippines, the Philippines Green Building Code needs to be reviewed and should include energy efficiency in a stronger way. The document needs to be enforced. A collaboration with the NAMA for the construction sector is a promising path to follow. Additionally, the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act of 2017 should be enforced and really implemented in the building and construction sector. This new act aims to achieve Energy Efficient Projects. For this, the Guidelines on Energy Conserving Design of Buildings and Utility Systems must be followed. However, the guidelines are from 2008 and a review is expected to be conducted. 2. Accelerate the improvement of existing buildingsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; performance: it is not enough to concentrate the actions in the future buildings. Around 2/3 of the global building stock predicted for 2050 was already constructed. Despite this need, renovation rates, energy efficiency performance and projections are low for both industrialized and developing countries, hence not aligned with global warming limitation efforts. Reasons are difficult access to financing and unattractive pay-backs. In industrialized nations, the current renovation rate is roughly 1% per year with achievements of maximally 15% of energy efficiency. The growing pace is expected to reach 3% in 2040(GLOBAL ALLIANCE FOR BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION, 2016). For developing countries, the numbers are lower. The GABC proposed to determine a combination of global performance goals for heating and cooling plus sustainable strategies called deep renovations. The strategies include: envelopeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s retrofitting, substitution of counterproductive HAVC systems or renewable energy incorporation. Certainly, such strategies are quite traditional and general, allowing the countries to shape them. No data regarding the renovation rate of the Philippines was available, underlining the need for improvement in the field and for reinforcing the numbers estimated by the GABC. 3. All new buildings achieve nearly net zero operating emission performances: having in mind that the building sector is responsible for 18,6% of the world CO2 emissions (IPCC, 2015) and the urban growing pace, it is environmentally and socially fair to pursue net zero buildings. A call to passive and hybrid buildings, vernacular solutions and mixing typologies is made. Life Cycle Assessment plays an important role as well. In this context, the Philippines does not have any law that promotes net-zero buildings. The Philippine Green Building Code and BERDE are the only existent tools which include energy efficiency, even though its approach and weak performance had been broadly discussed along this work. 4. Improve the management of all buildings: in order to guarantee a low emissions level in the operational phase, an integration of supervising tools or methodologies is necessary.

106

The use of ISO is suggested. User’s education and aligned practices complete the monitoring activities. This strong participation of the management field, considered a tactic for the success of the building sustainable performance, is approached in the DGNB version of 2018. This category has a higher number of strategies that are indirectly related with CO2 emissions’ mitigation. In the case of BERDE, the category of management exists as well. Yet, it plays a minor role within mitigation. It is focused on stakeholder’s consultation and on having a BERDE professional on board. In the case of the Philippine Green Building Code, management is not targeted. 5. Decarbonized energy - decarbonize the energy and power supply for buildings’ load: this step proposes simple strategies inside the buildings, like eliminating boilers running on fossil fuel and installing on-site renewable energy sources. It also scales-up the strategies to a district and city level, pursuing the use of biogas, biomass or geothermal sources. This topic is sensible in the Philippines due to government’s recent announcements of increasing coal-fires power capacity by 2040 (Climate Action Tracker, 2017), which goes against the ambitious goals of the NDC. In the case of BERDE, the credit for on-site renewable energy established a minimum supply of 5% of the total demand. For off-site renewable energy, the credit must be 100%. However, this is a voluntary credit. The building sector has potential to change, but this process needs to be backed up by legal instruments and financial means. Otherwise, the sector will continue to be locked-in. 6. Reduced embodied energy and GHG emissions: life cycle assessment of the used material is chosen to reduce the buildings’ GHG footprint. Embodied energy accounts between 10% and 20% of the sector’s emissions. Moreover, on a worldwide scale, the construction sector is responsible for the extraction of 24% of raw materials (GLOBAL ALLIANCE FOR BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION, 2016). Reused elements, cradleto-cradle and local material are promoted. One more time, the DGNB goes ahead by including circular economy as core issue for the new version. BERDE has voluntary credits tackling the installation of construction waste diversion as well as the use of local materials and green procurement. No LCA is mandatory in BERDE or in the GB Code 7. Reduce energy demand from appliances: this step does not depend on the professionals’ responsibilty to design and construct a building. It strictly depends on the user’s acquisitions. Thereupon, it highlights the importance of the government to cooperate with existent international initiatives that support clean energy (e.g. for activities like cooking or to substitute lamps and other appliances). Examples are: United for Efficiency (U4E), Super-Efficient Equipment and Appliance Deployment (SEAD) and wood-cook stoves. This type of initiative perfectly matches with the Philippines’ stands towards mitigation: rely on international technology and financial aid. 8. Reduced climate change related risks for buildings - upgrade adaptation: the last phase encourages the countries to follow the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction from the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR), a

107

voluntary agreement previously mentioned. Buildings are vulnerable to climate change effects and, at the same time, they can help reducing the population’s vulnerability to extreme events. Project strategies can provide mitigation and adaptation benefits. For instance, a green roof reduces the solar heat gain, therefore the need of cooling. Urban gardening can be integrated into these roofs as a strategy for food security. Rainwater harvesting systems can be coupled to the roof, increasing the water sources and reducing potable water consumption. The Philippines is quite engaged in the field of adaptation. The National Disaster Risk Reduction & Management Council is the governmental entity that is responsible for new policies as well as coordinating and supervising their implementation. In the field of buildings and communities, the country follows the ‘build back better’ (BBB) principles. The BBB concept was globally introduced after the Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004. It is defined as “using the reconstruction phase to create a new ‘normalcy’ in affected communities with improved physical, social and economic conditions creating improved resilience” (Mannakkara and Wilkinson, 2013). The BBB efficacy depends on the preparation that takes place before a disaster as well as on the multi-stakeholder collaboration (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, 2017). Though BBB was used in the latest severe cases (such as the reconstruction of the city of Tacloban after Typhoon Yolanda of 2013), the application of the concept still challenges local governments in the Philippines. Constraints such as interpretation difficulties, impediments to quantify the improvements, subjective respectively non-objective definitions or measurements for “better” or real possibilities of implementation (Philippine Department of the Interior and Local Government, 2015) hinder its applicability. In 2016, together with the Australian Government, the Philippines developed the handbook Designing Resilient Structures: Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation in Local Design Practices. It intends to provide basic principles to lessen the risks of environmental hazards consequence of climate change by establishing the new concept of resilience factors. Through this factor, it is possible to identify against which natural disaster a building is prepared (Xiaoming Wang et al., 2016). Going back to BERDE and the national concern with adaptation, this handbook could be included or mentioned in the certification version of 2018. But this does not happen. Perhaps it is not mentioned because the handbook is just a guideline and not a law

Additional to these main steps, the GABC suggests strong progress and impact measures to assure that the roadmap is being correctly implemented. 13 objectives and 15 indicators should track the improvements (see Annex). Data availability can be a bottleneck for the process. The GABC steps up by instigating the UNFCCC to review the emission’s scopes from the building framework. A new scope is suggested to be added: the scope zero to refer to on-site renewable energy production and consumption.

108

Finally, the roadmap can be considered too general. Nonetheless, the GABC is open to support the governments in the process of shaping and implementing it and looks forward to reduce emissions of the three scopes as well as proposing a new scope too. Moreover, based on the fact that the GABC was created to support the construction sector to reach the Paris Agreement goals and the countries to reach the proposed NDCs, a collaboration of this nature can be one option to solve the gap and boost the integration of the building sector into the climate change legal framework in the Philippines.

Figure 50 - Split of global building related emissions and emissions reduction potential Source: Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction, 2016

Related with how to solve the gap of the two parallel regimes, apart from a possible partnership with EDGE and the IFC, the inspiring example of the German Sustainable Building Council is presented. The DGNB is articulating a groundbreaking vision of the council’s role in the green construction and the climate change legal sphere. The council proposes a mix of top-down and bottom-up strategies. The DGNB is eager to catalyze cross-sectoral actions and push forward to higher ambitions by steering policy-making. According to the interview conducted with Dr. Anna Braune, Head of Research and Development at the DGNB, when compared with other certifications, the DGNB aims at achieving measures to reduce climate change causes and effects as well as at having very ambitious targets for carbon footprint. Since 2018, the DGNB has its own mechanism to achieve the Paris Agreement. The so-called framework for “carbon-neutral buildings and sites” aspires to reach a high percentage of constructions with zero or negative CO2 footprint in a short timeframe as well as to catalyze the interaction and cooperation among the process’ stakeholders. These stakeholders are political decision-makers, designers, builders, owners, operators, funding agencies, investors and banks. The addressed buildings should be financially interesting, perhaps receiving tax discounts, special

109

financing or insurance terms. Existent buildings play a key role in the decarbonization process. Moreover, it will be indispensable to account and monitor the emissions during the construction phase and operation phase in a relevant, consistent, transparent and accurate way. Therefore, emissions need to be distinguished between direct, indirect, avoided and bound. This framework was initially focused on Germany and discussions are still ongoing. However, the DGNB expects to extend it to a European level. It is an ambitious project, which has the vision of providing national law-makers with an instrument that proves not only the urgency to make buildings climate protective but also the profitability of these buildings (Braune et al., 2018). The framework is independent of the DGNB certification. Yet, it is planned to consider this framework as an evidence of carbon-neutral building in the future certification versions. Finally, the framework is a support to the “Building Emissions Law 2050” (GEG 2050). Emitted in 2018, this DGNB’s statement suggested an alternative legal approach to the draft of the new "Building Energy Law" (GEG). The German council understands that the process of how the GEG was designed, merging three existent laws, is not the correct methodology to address new goals and strategies (Braune, Lemaitre and Oehler, 2018). Therefore, the GEG2050 is a reaction and a suggestion to the construction sector in Germany. The short document comprises four central actions:    

Primary energy demand will not be the main accounting focus. Instead, it will be CO2 emissions. Real data needs to be assessed, not theoretical one. A CO2 fee should be charged if mitigation goals are not achieved. The entire process of appraisal and monitoring needs to be supported by collected data regarding consumption.

Both, framework and statement, were just recently created and no concrete result was accounted yet. Nonetheless, the positive outcomes can already be envisioned. The German Sustainable Building Council is willed to foster policy-makers in the process of paving the way to achieve forceful and fruitful answers for the construction sector in the field of climate change. The council is unsatisfied with the current legal path that has been followed, hence it assumes a position of identifying a fragility and proposing integrative and attractive mechanisms to solve it. Arguably, the same model cannot be identically transferred to the Philippines. Thus, this initiative and engagement deserves to be highlighted, adapted to other realities and multiplied. The PHILGBC has the opportunity to shape the NAMA for the construction sector. Yet, the base of BERDE (LEED) is outdated regarding climate change, jeopardizing the council’s performance. Shifting the following model, from LEED to a mix of EDGE and DGNB concepts, can grant the PHILGBC a proactive role in the building sector decarbonization scenario. In the case of DGNB, besides being more harmonized with climate change concerns, its know-how of SDGs’ integration and circular economy activities into a certification system

110

can be transmitted. Stepping up, the PHILGBC could include the same approach to adaptation measures, increasing the buildingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s stock resilience. In case of EDGE, the low cost, user-friendly system and easier measures are assets. Additionally, the World Bank grants financial means to constructions that apply EDGE. Such benefits are able to harness a low-carbon or zero-carbon performance of the new and existent building stock as well as to spread certification to other sites aside from the investors of the Central Business Districts. If successful, the aftermath of this core alteration will be two regimes working hand in hand. An ideally status-quo where the public sector demands realistic and enforced goals to be achieved by all. Furthermore, in this ideally status-quo the private sector will enhance those goals and scale up them. The last gap represents the unsatisfactory tailored approach of the developing process of BERDE. The situation aggravates at the moment when local governments decide to use BERDE as a mandatory legal instrument, as happened in Pasig City. Following the arguments of the last gap, it would be reasonable to extend and explore further possibilities to solve the incongruences transmitted to the municipal level. Therefore, it will be a plausible solution if the PHILGBC develops a specific guideline, program or chapter that is able to offer real support to the Local Government Units (LGU), to untap the potentials to mitigate global warming, to increase resiliency and to pursue a sustainable development. This would be the second step in the process, since the PHILGBC needs to align its goals and methods to real national capabilities, needs and commitments first(e.g. NDC). Pilot projects in each region can be a good start. Having in mind that more than 7,000 islands are part of the country as well as thinking of the fast urbanization perspectives for the Philippines and the high levels of vulnerability of the coastal cities, a comprehensive, affordable and uncomplicated tool can lay the groundwork for a better future. The PHILGBC detains credibility among private investors, national departments and municipalities. Higher recognitions lead to higher responsibilities and commitments. Therefore, the PHILGBC cannot just copy a foreign system, technologies and parameters anymore. If LEED and the USGBC do not shift their awarding system to be based on minimum decarbonization levels, there is no sense of perpetuating and institutionalizing its application, especially in developing countries. The PHILGBC should leverage the opportunities offered by EDGE and the DGNB and face it as a momentum for change and improvement. Both systems are open to tailor the certifications to national needs.

111

Metro Manila, The Philippines Romรกn, 2018

112

5 - CONCLUSION

The aim of this research was to analyze the Green Building Rating Systems’ approach to CO2 emissions’ mitigation. The Philippines served as the thesis’ case study. Three research questions and five gaps guided the work. Chapter 1 provided the necessary background information about climate change, urban growth, the Philippines and the methodology established to be followed. Chapter 2 presented a critical overview of the legal tools related with climate change mitigation and sustainable development on three scales (international, national and local). The selected certification systems were described as well. In Chapter 3, the quantitative and qualitative analysis was conducted through the appraisal of scorecards and SWOT evaluation. Finally, Chapter 4 discussed the findings, limitations and gave suggestions of existing examples that can help to close the five gaps identified as main problems. This last chapter concludes the research by answering the research questions and by providing an outlook for further research.

5.1 Answering the Research Questions Research Question 1 Which reasons are behind the disconnection between LEED and BERDE green building rating systems and the CO2 emissions’ mitigation legal framework? Several findings explain the disconnection. The main one is the fact that LEED and BERDE are Green Building Certification Systems of the first generation. GBRS of this generation are point- based methodologies. They focus on environmental accomplishments and energy efficiency instead of having the sustainability triple bottom line and the holistic performance of the building as a guide. This intrinsic configuration allows to award buildings with low energy efficiency and decarbonization levels but is incompatible with the emissions’ share of the construction sector. This is possible by accumulating points in other categories, which are neither related with climate change concerns nor with other sustainable development concerns. Additionally, LEED and BERDE have minimum requirements to be followed. Yet, none of these mandatory strategies incorporate actions to limit the buildings’ carbon footprint. The credits that support the reduction of climate change causes are voluntary. A minimum mitigation performance is not mandatory. Another reason is that the first-generation systems are part of the buildings and construction sector since the decade of 1990s. In this almost 30 years, they reached the status of being associated with excellent and best practices. The certifications are coveted

113

in different developed and developing countries by private investors and public entities. Suggestive names, number of qualified professionals, strong partnerships and good marketing are attributed to the success. By detaining this leading position, this generation of GBRS is however not forced to modify their assessment goals by the construction market, industries, professionals or governments. The pressure to embed climate change effects and causes in the systemsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; core comes from the scientist community, which alone is not strong enough to shift the current modus operandi. Besides the justification of the time lapse between the last LEED version (2013), the 2015 Paris Agreement and the UNSDGs, LEED and BERDE fail to include, as mandatory, most of the previous international agreements (The Millennium Development Goals, Habitat I or Habitat II). Thus, with regards to the Kyoto Protocol, LEED has once credit which supports the consumption of CERs from CDMs. The last BERDE version is from 2018. Though no timing lapse exists, BERDE still neglects the importance of the mentioned agreements and does not have a strategy whit a clear connection to the CDMs. Due to the globalization of LEED, the system is more suitable to be used in what is defined as international architecture. Skyscrapers, large windows panes, plane surfaces, open interiors, rectilinear shapes, concrete and steel use mark this widespread style. One disclosure of the promotion of the international style is the exclusion of vernacular construction techniques and passive architecture. For example, LEED and BERDE demand to use air conditioning or heating in a project. A project that runs just under natural ventilation does not meet the certification pre-requisites. Therefore, it can also be considered that those two GBRS increase the energy demand. The problem intensifies when the Green Building Councils praise the energy consumption reduction of certified buildings, therefore reducing consequently operation costs. What is not displayed is that the certified buildings are compared with a baseline to obtain the exposed results. This baseline already includes HACV systems and no natural ventilation strategy. Indirectly, embodied energy consumption and transportation emissions are intensified with the promotion of the international style of certifying buildings. Usually, some materials, coatings, appliances and equipment suitable to gain points of specific credits are not available in every region. It is necessary to import such items in order to comply with some credits. In the case of BERDE, the few engagement and weak position towards climate change is more than a legacy from LEED. The absence of a sound national legal framework or public entity in the Philippines, which promotes green buildings and integrates them as part of the countryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s strategy to reduce climate change, promotes the use of the private system. Furthermore, mitigation strategies are not a priority in the country and directly bias the regulations and practices of the construction sector. In the field of climate change, where a strategic collaboration between the different sectors of economy and society are needed, LEED and BERDE are outdated. During the design and construction phases, it is necessary extra time and economic means from the projectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s members and investors to achieve a certification. The downside is the possibility of providing outcomes not as significant and excellent as they intended to do in the context of sustainability. Considering the life spam of a building, it is counterproductive to develop,

114

apply and promote such resources demand systems with questionable environmental performance. If LEED, BERDE and other similar GBRS of the first generation do not deeply review its entire configuration and learn from the examples of the second generation, they can be considered insufficient or, under a stricter point of view, greenwashing mechanisms.

Research Question 2 How can the Philippines develop an enforce strategic framework able to strength the building sector performance regarding CO2 emissions’ mitigation measures in a national and local level? In order to give a satisfying answer to this question, it was necessary to first understand the country’s general climate change legal framework. The Philippines has positive points in the structural organization of the climate change legal tools. The Climate Change Commission, main authority in the field, is directly positioned under the president’s office. This superior position enables the commission to be the policy-making body, which all sectoral departments need to follow. It enacted three major multi-governance instruments: the National Framework Strategy on Climate Change, the National Climate Change Action Plan and the Local Climate Change Action Plans. According to the literature review, this structure provided good results for climate change adaptation. However, these positive findings are quickly jeopardized by the amount and consequences of negative points. The root of the country’s problem is the imbalance between adaptation and mitigation. The multi-governance structure defined by the Climate Change Commission caused the financial, technical and man power resources to converge in the assignment of reducing the country’s vulnerability by enhancing adaptation. Mitigation is defined to be applicable as a function of adaptation. Such disparity is reproduced in the building sector, where no mechanism to limit CO2 emissions is enforced. The status quo is aggravated since this sector remains unmentioned in the recent government’s commitments and tools for mitigation (e.g. the Nationally Determined Contributions and Philippine Greenhouse Gas Inventory Management and Reporting System). Based on the examples, studies and the suggestions furnished in the Discussion Chapter, it was stressed: (I) how it is possible to soundly mainstream mitigation into the legal framework (II) the availability of specialized assistance that fosters this process in the building and construction sector. Singapore is an example of how a Southeast Asian country (with similar vulnerability characteristics than the Philippines) meliorated its legal framework after ratifying international climate change agreements. Guided by this real example, the Philippines should review the targets of the Climate Change Commission as well as its three main instruments. In general terms, a capacity-building and knowledge transferring partnership for the building sector with Singapore would be a win-win situation. On one side, for the Philippines it is an opportunity to understand a balanced and resultoriented legal framework. Further, the country can assess the possibilities to implement and include those tailored strategies into the climate change national legal structure. On the other side, it fulfills Singapore’s aim of being a leader for green buildings in the tropical and subtropical areas, share the gained assets and foster other countries to follow the initiative.

115

On a national scale, it is crucial to update the GHG emissions inventory of the Philippines. Without the current emissions’ panorama, it is more difficult to identify the sectors that need to be tackled and to determine the most effective actions to curb the problem. Decision and policy makers need to be supported with real information. The outdated data base of the year 2000 hinders the hand in hand work of science and law. The emissions of the building and construction sector need to be clearly presented. The perfect scenario will be an inventory able to disclose the emissions per region (Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao), per building typology and separated by each of the three scopes of emissions. The methodology for accounting those emissions should be standardized, defined by the national government and followed by all. For example, the ISO 16745: Sustainability in buildings and civil engineering works – Carbon metric of an existing building during use stage, from 2017, could be one recognized, reliable and standard methodology to follow. Nowadays, the construction sector is free to use any methodology. Thus, different outcomes can be obtained, which makes it difficult to compare. The PHILGBC considers this lack of uniformity a challenge that needs to be overcome. For example, the National Climate Change Secretariat and the National Environmental Agency of Singapore developed the Greenhouse Gases Emissions Measurement and Reporting Guidelines. Knowing about the lack of specialized working force, educational programs need to be offered to the main stakeholders of the process. This could be workshops for the employees of the national departments and of the local government units, in-house trainings for companies and new lectures for university courses. After obtaining thorough information, the proposition is to follow the existing legal structure, to improve it and to implement the modifications: 



Climate Change Commission: state mitigation is a problem to be solved by the public sector. National research and development of new technologies will be priorities to solve the gap and will gradually reduce the dependency from foreign aids and initiatives of the private sector. A carbon budget needs to be defined per economy sector. The building sector must be included. National Framework Strategy on Climate Change: first, the vision of mitigation as a function of adaptation urgently needs to be abandoned. Mitigation actions must be fostered independently of other climate change components. Second, the document called for the use of green building standards through the Key Result Area of Sustainable Infrastructure. Those standards were expected to be guidelines for climateresilient and energy-efficient buildings and settlements. So far, the Philippine Green Building Code and BERDE fall short with this task. The directive was stablished, though the proper implementation of those defined strategies is missing. National Climate Change Action Plan: After establishing mitigation as a priority, the next step should determine a fair division of the national budget. The original plan settled seven strategic priority programs, their activities, outcomes and time slots. Three out of the seven were highlighted as related with the process of enforcing a legal framework able to strengthen the building sector performance regarding CO2 emissions’ mitigation measures. The projected outcomes were: the revision of the National Building Code under a green perspective, the development and application of a green building certification system on a local level and incentives to promote green buildings. Still,

116



those activities are senseless if a carbon budget for the building sector and no lowemission or net-zero laws are introduced. To the current date, few activities were undertaken and if so, rather incomplete, reinforcing the implementation problem. Therefore, it is recommended to review those activities and their timeframe based on the importance granted to mitigation. To support this review, knowledge and experiences can be exchanged with peer groups from Singapore. For example, similar to the Green Building Masterplan of Singapore, a Low-Emission and Net-Zero Building National Plan can be outlined in the Philippines following the applicable steps introduced by the Roadmap Towards Low-GHG and Resilient Buildings of the Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction (GABC). This plan should determine the timeline and percentage of existent buildings to be renovated per year as well as the year when all the new buildings will need to comply with it. The plan must take into consideration not only the largest constructions and international architecture style buildings. Complementary to the strategies’ review, a revision of the implementation process needs to be conducted. The reasons for the lack of implementation (difficulty to access financing programs, limited allocated economic resources, scarcity of qualified professionals and understaff public departments) need to be addressed too. If not, the outcome will be a sound framework in the paper that will continue not being executed. This action plan is being revised currently. Local Climate Change Action Plans: The municipal levels must include mitigation as a priority too. Continuing with implementing a Low-Emission and Net-Zero National Plan, this is a way of integrating mitigation into the construction sector at this level. The LCCAPs could have a section referring to the national plan, in which each city should tailor the activities, timelines, priority regions to address, building typologies to be tackled and financial help to comply with the directives of the plan. These decisions should be communicated officially and approved, so the national government is informed and able to track and evaluate the pace of the process. Events to exchange experiences and solutions between the local governments will be a fruitful and enlightening experience. The enactment of local ordinances will ensure the transition of the sector by obliging the resolution of the LCCAP. Philippine Green Building Code: In the line of the Low-Emission and Net-Zero National Plan, this code must be modified to reach the climate change ambitious mitigation goals. A new version of the GB code can be the main instrument to support and implement the national plan. The reformulated code can include parameters and directives for: minimum levels of decarbonization, mandatory and significant percentage of renewable energy consumption, on-site energy, construction materials with minimum embodied energy, thermic properties of the external walls and roof materials, priority to climate-adaptive techniques, GHG emissions inventory of the building, synergies with other fields besides energy, periodically monitoring of the emissions of the operational phase. Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions: the NAMA can be an active part in the reformulation of the Philippine Green Building Code and the Low-Emission and NetZero National Plan.

Beyond the national, local and sectoral arrangements, it will be meaningful to review the National Determined Contribution. Detaining new data and strategies enables the

117

Philippines to be more transparent with the goals, sectors and aims. Moreover, revised versions of the NDC are welcomed by the UNFCCC. The first suggestion is based on real actions, integrated governmental departments, a cooperating population, planned ambitious goals and good results. The second suggestion corresponds to a theoretical blueprint backed by an alliance created to support the Paris Agreement. One conclusion of the research is that options to solve the problem exist. Different reliable paths are available, fulfilling the country’s pledge of dependency of foreign aid to solve mitigation’s bottlenecks. Therefore, the Philippines could take these favorable opportunities, learn with the mistakes and successes of Singapore and be assisted by a credible organization in the process of improving the building sector performance regarding CO2 emissions’ mitigation measures. But international guidance is not enough to make this process a success. The main contribution and engagement is a task inherent in the Philippines. It is a complex process where an intense vertical collaboration between the national and local levels needs to take place supported by horizontal and integrated actions. Lastly, the country needs to be motivated to conduct such modification, to establish viable goals that can be accomplished through the different phases and, mainly, needs to conduct the process in a transparent way to reach the decarbonization levels aimed. The construction sector is just one of the weaknesses that the government should address to reduce its carbon footprint. Other sectors, like transportation and energy supply, deserve urgent attention as well. Summing up the answer of the Research Question 2, it is concluded that global level climate change policies need to be localized for closing the gap between the rhetoric and the real actions with a cross-sectoral approach. For this, the implemented actions should be independent of political cycles or actors to ensure the continuity of the initiatives. Different paces should be respected as well. Concrete actions must be part of well-defined agendas that provide specific goals to the building sector and facilitate the integrated measures to comply with them. Also, capacity building and technology transfer programs should be enhanced, promoted and multiplied between the most developed and least developed regions. Lastly, clear funding mechanisms need to be defined in order to include the people that need it the most. Finally, the review of the legal tools unveiled a private and public green building regime where adaptation is still not well encompassed. Neither the Philippine Green Building Code, nor BERDE mentions it as a concern despite the urban settlements’ vulnerability. One explanation arises from the building size targeted by both documents. The two of them are designed for bigger investments, mostly located in developed areas and supplied with basic urban infrastructure and services. The vast majority and most vulnerable constructions are excluded of these two guidelines. Yet, one can argue that a certified building embeds adaptation when it reduces water consumption, generates on-site renewable energy or uses low-emissivity (low-e) materials in the facades. Still, these are optional strategies in a point-based system, not mandatory ones. Additionally, measures like nature-based solutions for landscape or equipment’s logistic, such as not placing generators in the basement or urban gardening, are excluded of the guidelines.

118

In the scope of construction, in the Philippines, adaptation is associated with the capacity to build new and resilient structures after a major climate change disaster that affected a specific area or community. There is no national program focused on delivering constructions or improving the current buildings’ stock to be resistant against the likely increasing number of natural extreme events or to avoid the losses that this unpreparedness will cause. The country is starting to rethink this approach to adaptation with the concept of “Build Back Better” (BBB), shifting it from a program that repairs the damage to one that prevents the damages. International cooperation is taking part of this task-force. A “bonus” finding of the process of answering this question is that certainly adaptation is a topic that needs to be further explored in the same way mitigation was analyzed in this research.

Research Question 3 How BERDE can contribute with this strategic framework of the construction sector? In a new context in which the Philippines develops and implements the framework for the construction sector foreseen in the previous question (with mandatory minimum decarbonization levels), BERDE has the ability to collaborate and work for the country’s goals. Nevertheless, to stay in the market and offer significant contributions, the voluntary GBRS of the private sector will need to be more creative and engaged in the cause. For this, it makes sense to conduct a deep review and reformulation of the rating system. An expected outcome is a green building system without characteristics of the first generation, yet of the second one. The first step should be shifting from a LEED-based system to a system based on the national needs and possibilities. Significant tasks will be: how to efficiently collaborate with the Low-Carbon and Net-Zero Buildings National Plan, how to be fully aligned with the new version of the Philippine Green Building Code, how to really integrate climate change and sustainable development in a new version can be the driver of the review of BERDE. General goals could include to accelerate the decarbonization process of the buildings and leverage the synergies with other urban sectors. The National Climate Change Action Plan called for establishing partnerships with the private sector in the educational area. The PHILGBC could use this call and develop an umbrella of programs. Options that the council can implement are: a certified training program for professionals that enables them to manage and evaluate the implementation of the new version of BERDE, workshops for public employees to create the qualified working force needed in the country, in-house trainings for companies, contributions to architecture’s and engineer’s university courses or internship offers. This focus on mitigation does not mean that other environmental protection strategies will be neglected from the new version on. It is a must to continue to aim at the efficient use of natural resources and preservation. Perhaps, an approach similar to the one of DGNB and similar to the contributions of the system to the Sustainable Development Goals can guide BERDE through this process.

119

Maintaining a point-based awarding system will be outdated and senseless for the new version. Instead of it, a more suitable system needs to be developed, a system that makes minimum mitigation and energy conservation performance mandatory in order to reach the awarding levels. The minimum level of awarding needs to be compatible with the country’s decarbonization goals for the building and construction sector. The awards will be granted to the projects that improve such performance and comply with the targets of the SDGs. Regarding the interface between the project team and the certification, a partnership or guidance from EDGE could direct a more user-friendly and transparent tool. Beyond reformulating their own rating system, the PHILGBC needs to be more engaged in the cause. Based on the findings presented in the Discussion Chapter, especially in the case of the DGNB, it was shown how a sustainable construction council is eager to actively participate and improve the legal framework of a country. The PHILGBC is part of the group developing the NAMA, meaning that the channel and openness to contribute to the development of a new legal framework is already available. Possible partnerships with the EDGE or the DGNB can be explored by the council. As previously exposed, both systems have strong points to integrate and assess CO2 emissions’ mitigation measures in the green building sector. Finally, in the context of the local governments which established BERDE as mandatory for certain buildings’ typologies, will face a new situation. If the national legal conditions are sound and implemented, the municipalities will need to fulfill them, able to refrain from private certification systems to assure green building’s development. Though, they can be used in order to exceed the required performances and to gain green branding. However, the BERDE version to be followed should be the updated one. In this sense, a new option for BERDE is to explore alternative guidelines to support the cities. Offering a service for developing tailored guidelines for districts or neighborhoods (which are able to harness sustainable development) is just one example. Urban infrastructure and services like transportation, energy sources, water supplier, wastewater treatment, open spaces, green areas and waste collection can be evaluated. BERDE and other GBRS have concrete possibilities to support governments. This is especially applicable to developing countries. There the public sector is not aware or well prepared in legal, educational and professional fields for the changes they need to conduct to integrate cross-sectoral sustainable strategies. Green buildings still need to unleash its potentials in the new context imposed by climate change and, at the same time, be able to embrace the needs of the international, national and local levels.

5.2 Outlook The Analysis and Discussion Chapter evidenced a range of possible outlooks for the research. This work focused on mitigation actions. However, there is room for a further similar research targeting adaptation. For instance, a review of how the GBRs of the first and second generation promote strategies to turn buildings and cities more resilient to climate change extreme events and how to reduce inhabitants’ vulnerabilities can be conducted. The research can be situated in the Philippines or extended to other countries.

120

Looking into the part of the assessment’s results, deeper studies can take place, having the scorecards’ analysis of LEED and BERDE as starting point. Perhaps, each of the credits and prerequisites classified as directly and indirectly related with CO2 mitigation can be appraised under a new perspective. A suggestion for subclassification is: financial investments necessary, the impacts for mitigations and the level of difficulty to conduct the projections of emissions’ reductions. Consequently, more detailed information and a partnership with professionals from different backgrounds will be necessary. Focusing on LEED, the USGBC is open for suggestions to improve the LEED v4.1. This real opportunity can be leveraged by preparing a document with general findings of the research regarding mitigation and climate change. The contribution can be stronger by exemplifying how the concept of LEED is replicated in countries through the development of new certification systems. Additionally, a closer collaboration between the World Green Building Council and the GABC for international matters can be proposed. Lastly, a suggestion for the national Green Building Councils to be active parts of the NAMAs can be included too. With regards to outlooks for the Philippines, a contribution to the undergoing review of the National Climate Change Action Plan can take part. Based on the international concern and the call for urgent comprehensive strategies, mitigation could be contemplated as critical aspect to be addressed. This initiative can create a momentum to review other legal instruments created by the Climate Change Commission. Concerning the building and construction sector, the support of the Philippine Green Building Council in the process of creating the NAMA is important and meaningful. The importance of the sector to reduce climate change needs to be transmitted in order to obtain sound legal tools proper to be effectively implemented in the country’s context. Finally, during the interviews conducted with representants of the Philippine Green Building Council and the administration of Pasig City, both institutions were open to contribute to the research and have access to its outcomes. Based on this position, a further option could be to establish a professional or educational collaboration with both stakeholders in order to assess which solutions are viable to be implemented. For example, actions like launching a cooperation with EDGE where public buildings from Pasig City can be pilot projects or contacting the DGNB to exchange experiences of how to step-up as a private council and support policy-makers can be developed and implemented. Therefore, I believe there is potential to continue exploring the topic and the relations assessed.

5.2 Personal Note As an architect and urban planner, being educationally and professionally in contact with the GBRS for 10 years, the thesis offered the opportunity to analyze the systems from a new perspective, especially because my position towards the systems, and mainly LEED, changed across time. First, they were really seen as the best solution to design and construct green buildings, representing an innovative methodology that could bring attention to the future buildings of

121

the city, attract investors and clients. A professional niche was still unexplored in the region. The lack of national and legal framework that included sustainable construction in an integrated way lead to such perception. Second, by applying LEED and other GBRS in public and private buildings in the semiarid region of Brazil, positive and negative points were detected. The positive ones are related with how project teams, with different professional backgrounds, have been working integrated since the beginning. The strategies were evaluated by several stakeholders, weighting the advantages and disadvantages. Even though, the designing phase of a certified project is an exhaustive process where no-conventional studies, simulations and impact reports need to be conducted. One positive result was the number of project team members which multiplied the knowledge acquired, by transferring to other working colleagues, and engaged sustainable construction after the end of the projects. In the construction phase, it was very clear how the environmental and social negative impacts were reduced when compared with the BAU construction sites. With regard to the negative points, the resistance of older professionals to accept new working methodologies, forcing to subordinate payments to the levels of compliance, probably was the point with the highest impact. The extra time and higher expenses were burdens as well. In the case of LEED, a special criticism needs to be made for the construction phase. During this step, no on-site audit takes place, just on-line. Hence, bottlenecks and unconformities can be hidden from the ones in charge to grant the awards. Third, the master lectures triggered the need to be more critical. In case of the GBRS, a more critical view concerning the comprehension of the different influential fronts, the applicability in real life and how sustainable these tools are implemented occurred. Besides, the master brought the understanding that being critic towards something is comfortable. The challenge is to propose implementable solutions to the highlighted critics, respecting the contexts where they will be inserted. Fourth, the internships in the field of climate change and sustainable development reinforced the perception of how the GBRS can actually have sustainable outcomes and that it can be part of the solution. The certification systems have untapped potential to solve global problems regarding climate change, limited natural resources and cooperation with public entities. Concluding the master, my interest and curiosity for the green buildings increased. The difference is that - compared to when I graduated in 2009 - now my interests are directed to other fields: (I) how can you improve these systems regarding climate change issues and sustainable development, especially in developing countries where assistance is more necessary? (II) The message the GBRS transmits and (III) how to facilitate and leverage the cooperation between the private and the public sector so both cooperate working for the same aim?

122

â&#x20AC;&#x153;The design and use of the built environment is a critical area for climate change mitigation; the built environment consumes about one-third of the final energy used in most countries, and absorbs an even more significant share of electricity.â&#x20AC;? (UN-Habitat, 2016)

123

REFERENCES

Adegbile, B. (2013) ‘Assessment and Adaptation of an Appropriate Green Building Rating System for Nigeria’, Journal of Environment and Earth Science , 3(1). Available at: www.iiste.org (Accessed: 20 August 2018). Allwood, J. M. et al. (2014) ‘Annexes’, in Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, pp. 1249–1279. Aquitania, V. (2018) ‘Ambitious City Promises Project in Pasig City, the Philippines’. Quezon City. Asian Development Bank (2016) ADB Sustainable Development Working Paper Series No. 44: Assessing the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions of ADB Developing Members. Manila. Available at: https://www.adb.org/publications/assessing-indc-adb-developing-members [accessed on 11 January 2017]. Asian Development Bank (2018) ‘Asian Development Bank and Philippines: Fact Sheet’. Available at: https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/27790/phi2017.pdf (Accessed: 27 May 2018). Aubree, A. (2010) ‘Introduction to BREEAM’, p. 60. Available at: https://www.heattracing.co.uk/upload/BREEAM-WAT-01-WAT-02-WAT-03-WAT04---An-Introduction-to-BREEAM.pdf (Accessed: 20 August 2018). Bardhan, S. (2011) ‘Assessment of water resource consumption in building construction in India’, WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, 144, pp. 93–101. doi: 10.2495/ECO110081. Barros, V. R. et al. (2014) 2014: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. New York: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2. BERDE Program (2018a) BERDE GBRS – New Construction – Version 2.1.0 User Guide. Manila. Available at: http://docs.berdeonline.org/userguide/v2.0.0/berdenc/#requirement-levels (Accessed: 30 August 2018). BERDE Program (2018b) BERDE GBRS – Operations – Version 2.1.0 User Guide Release 3.0. Manila. Available at: http://docs.berdeonline.org/userguide/v2.0.0/berde-op/#about-berde-gbrsoperations (Accessed: 30 August 2018).

124

Boongaling, C. (2014) On the Hot Seat: Critiquing the Climate Change Act of 2009, Center for Environmental Concerns Philippines. Available at: http://beta3.cecphils.org/programs/advocacy/hot-seat-critiquing-climate-changeact-2009 (Accessed: 12 September 2018). Braune, A. (2018) ‘DGNB 2018 scheme and the approach to SDG’s’. Stuttgart. Braune, A. et al. (2018) Framework for “carbon-neutral buildings and sites”. Stuttgart. Braune, A., Lemaitre, C. and Oehler, S. (2018) ‘Proposal: Building Emissions Act, valid until 2050 (GEG 2050)’. Stuttgart: German Sustainable Building Council, p. 6. Available at: https://static.dgnb.de/fileadmin/en/dgnb_ev/Position_Papers_and_Statements/DG NB-discussion-proposal-GEG-2050.pdf (Accessed: 19 December 2018). Building and Construction Authority (2015) 3rd GREEN BUILDING MASTERPLAN. Singapore. Available at: https://www.bca.gov.sg/GreenMark/others/3rd_Green_Building_Masterplan.pdf (Accessed: 23 December 2018). Building and Construction Authority (2017) BCA GREEN MARK ASSESSMENT CRITERIA, ONLINE APPLICATION AND VERIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. Available at: https://www.bca.gov.sg/GreenMark/green_mark_criteria.html (Accessed: 23 December 2018). City of Pasig (2015) ‘Pasig City Local Climate Change Action Plan (LCCAP): A Convergence of Mitigation and Adaptation 2016-2027’. Pasig City: Republic of the Philippines. City of Pasig (2016) ‘GREEN BUILDING ORDINANCE OF PASIG CITY’. Pasig city: Republic of the Philippines. Climate Action Tracker (2017) Philippines. Available at: https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/philippines/ (Accessed: 4 March 2018). Climate Action Tracker (2018) Climate Action Tracker - Singapore. Available at: https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/singapore/ (Accessed: 22 December 2018). Climate Chage Commission (2011) ‘National Climate Change Action Plan 20112018’. Available at: http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/phi152934.pdf. Climate Change Commission (2017a) ‘Community-Level GHG Inventory for Local Government Units in The Philippines User’s Manual’. Manila, p. 84. Available at: www.climate.gov.ph. (Accessed: 20 September 2018). Climate Change Commission (2017b) ‘Philippine GHG Inventory and Reporting Protocol: Manual for Business’. Manila, p. 85. Available at: http://www.climate.gov.ph/images/knowledge/GHG-Manual-for-Business-2017.pdf (Accessed: 20 September 2018).

125

Corpuz, A. (2012) ‘Land Use Policy Impacts on Human Development in the Philippines’. Available at: http://www.hdn.org.ph (Accessed: 29 May 2018). Day, T. et al. (2016) Analysis of Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs). Available at: https://www.transparencypartnership.net/sites/default/files/indc-conditionality_0.pdf. Dedicatoria, R. (2017) ‘ICLEI and CO2 emissions approach in the construction sector in the Philippines’. Manila. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES (2013) Climate Change Adaptation Best Practices in the Philippines. Department of Interior and Local Government (2014) LGU Guidebook on the Formulation of Local Climate Change Action Plan (LCCAP) Book 1. Manila: Local Government Academy. Department of Public Works and Highways (2017) ‘DPWH Reconstitutes National Building Code Review Committee’. Manila: Republic of the Philippines. Available at: http://www.dpwh.gov.ph/dpwh/news/12128 (Accessed: 13 October 2018). Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen (2018) DGNB System - New Construction Building Crite Set 2018 Version. Stuttgart. Diaz-Sarachaga, J. M., Jato-Espino, D. and Castro-Fresno, D. (2018) ‘Is the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) index an adequate framework to measure the progress of the 2030 Agenda?’, Sustainable Development. Wiley-Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/sd.1735. EDGE Buildings (2015a) ‘EDGE App’. Available https://app.edgebuildings.com/#/ (Accessed: 14 December 2018).

at:

EDGE Buildings (2015b) Primavera Residences Towers. Available https://www.edgebuildings.com/projects/primavera-residences-towers-a-b/ (Accessed: 16 December 2018).

at:

EDGE Buildings (2018a) EDGE Buildings | Build and Brand Green. Available at: https://www.edgebuildings.com/ (Accessed: 15 December 2018). EDGE Buildings (2018b) ‘EDGE in the Philippines’. Available at: https://www.edgebuildings.com/certify/philippines/ (Accessed: 14 December 2018). Energy Market Authority (2018) Statistics Solar. Available at: https://www.ema.gov.sg/cmsmedia/publications_and_statistics/publications/ses/2 017/solar/index.html (Accessed: 22 December 2018). Essig, N. (2009) Sustainability of Buildings-Planning tools for the assessment of the sustainability building performance. Munich. Available at: https://www.irbnet.de/daten/iconda/CIB17708.pdf (Accessed: 12 December 2018). Fitriandana, B. and Lagonera, M. (2018) ‘Multi-Governance in Climate Change Planning and Implementation Case Study: The Philippines and Indonesia’, in

126

Resilient Cities 2018 Congress. Bonn. German Federal Statistical Office (2017a) Countries &amp; regions - Data by country Germany. Available at: https://www.destatis.de/EN/FactsFigures/CountriesRegions/InternationalStatistics/ Country/Europe/Germany.html (Accessed: 4 December 2018). German Federal Statistical Office (2017b) Social &amp; society - Living conditions, risk of poverty -. Available at: https://www.destatis.de/EN/FactsFigures/SocietyState/IncomeConsumptionLiving Conditions/LivingConditionsRiskPoverty/LivingConditionsRiskPoverty.html (Accessed: 4 December 2018). German Sustainable Building Council (2018) DGNB business areas. Available at: https://www.dgnb.de/en/DGNB-business-areas/ (Accessed: 17 December 2018). GermanWatch (2017) GLOBAL CLIMATE RISK INDEX 2017: Who Suffers Most From Extreme Weather Events? Weather-related Loss Events in 2015 and 1996 to 2015. doi: 978-3-943704-04-4. Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction (2017) Towards a zero-emission, efficient, and resilient buildings and construction sector, Global Status Report 2017. GLOBAL ALLIANCE FOR BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION (2016) Global Roadmap Towards Low -GHG and resilient buildings. Nairobi. Available at: https://www.globalabc.org/uploads/media/default/0001/01/0d6a71a346ea7e6841b 1b29c77eba6d6ae986103.pdf (Accessed: 27 November 2018). Global Construction Perspectives and Oxford Economics (2015) Global Construction 2030 - A global forecast for the construction industry to 2030. London. Available at: https://www.pwc.se/sv/entreprenad/assets/global-construction2030.pdf (Accessed: 18 June 2018). Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (2011) Vulnerability, Risk Reduction, and Adaptation to Climate Change - Philippines. Gou, Z. and Lau, S. S.-Y. (2014) ‘Contextualizing green building rating systems: Case study of Hong Kong’, Habitat International. Pergamon, 44, pp. 282–289. doi: 10.1016/J.HABITATINT.2014.07.008. Gulsrud, N. (2014) ‘“Green City Branding in Perspective d: Lessons from Singapore and Abroa”’, CityGreen - 8 A Centre for Urban Greenery and Ecology Publication, 8(2010-0981), pp. 138–143. Available at: www.flickr.com/photos/76682361@ (Accessed: 11 December 2018). HAMILTON-HART, N. (2006) ‘Singapore’s Climate Change Policy: The Limits of Learning’, Contemporary Southeast Asia. ISEAS - Yusof Ishak Institute, 28, pp. 363–384. doi: 10.2307/25798796. ICLEI (2018) ‘Pasig City emerges as Philippine National Capital of WWF’s One Planet City Challenge | ICLEI – SEAS’. Available at: http://icleiseas.org/index.php/2018/07/25/pasig-city-is-the-philippine-national-

127

capital-of-this-years-opcc/ (Accessed: 11 December 2018). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Glossary. Available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=689 (Accessed: 31 May 2018). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2014) Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report Summary Chapter for Policymakers, Ipcc. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781107415324. International Energy Agency (2017) Energy Technology Perspectives 2017 Catalysing Energy Technology Transformations. Paris: IEA Publications. Available at: http://www.iea.org/etp2017/summary/ (Accessed: 21 June 2018). International Finance Corporation (2016a) EDGE User Guide for Offices Version 2.0. Washington. Available at: https://www.edgebuildings.com/wpcontent/uploads/2016/07/160707-00103-Office-User-Guide-Version-20.pdf?MOD=AJPERES#page=21 (Accessed: 16 December 2018). International Finance Corporation (2016b) PHILIPPINE GREEN BUILDING CODE USER GUIDE. Manila. International Monetary Fund (2018) World Economic Outlook Database. Available at: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2016/01/weodata/index.aspx (Accessed: 29 May 2018). Kats, G. (2017) LEED Must Be Updated To Address Climate Change, BuildingGreen. Available at: https://leeduser.buildinggreen.com/blog/leed-must-beupdated-address-climate-change (Accessed: 21 November 2018). Khamidi, M. F., Idrus, A. and Rahardjati, R. (2011) ‘Green building rating system: The need of material resources criteria in green building assessment’, 2nd International Conference on Environmental Science and Technology, 2, pp. 148– 151. doi: 978-1-4244-9261-9/11. Kreft, S. et al. (2014) Global climate risk index 2013: Who suffers most from Extreme weather events? Weather-related loss events in 2013 and 1994 to 2013, Think Tank & Research. doi: 978-3-943704-04-4. Kuramochi, T. et al. (2017) Greenhouse gas mitigation scenarios for major emitting countries. Analysis of current climate policies and mitigation commitments: 2017 update. Berlin. Macken, C. et al. (2017) LEED V4 Impact Category and Point Allocation Development Process. Available at: https://www.usgbc.org/sites/default/files/LEED v4 Impact Category and Point Allocation Process_Overview_0.pdf (Accessed: 21 November 2018). Magno-Ballesteros, M. (2000) Land Use Planning in Metro Manila and the Urban Fringe: Implications on the Land and Real Estate Market. Manila. doi: 2000-20.

128

Mannakkara, S. and Wilkinson, S. (2013) ‘“Build back better” principles for land-use planning’, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Urban Design and Planning, 166(5), pp. 288–295. doi: 10.1680/udap.12.00017. Naciongayo, R. (2017) ‘Mandatory Green Building Code in the local level’. Pasig city. National Aeronautics and Space Administration - Global Climate Change Division (2017) Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet. Available at: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/ (Accessed: 8 June 2018). National Climate Change Secretariat (2012) National Climate Change Strategy 2012 - Creating a climate for sustainable growth, Securing a liveable environment for our future. Singapore: National Climate Change Secretariat. National Climate Change Secretariat (2016) Singapore’s Climate Action Plan: Take Action Today, For a Carbon-Efficient Singapore. Singapore. National Climate Change Secretariat (2018) Inter-Ministerial Committee on Climate Change. Available at: https://www.nccs.gov.sg/about-us/inter-ministerialcommittee-on-climate-change (Accessed: 22 December 2018). Nguyen, B. K. and Altan, H. (2011) ‘Comparative review of five sustainable rating systems’, Procedia Engineering, 21(0), pp. 376–386. doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2011.11.2029. OECD (2015) The Economic Consequences of Climate Change. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/9789264235410-en. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2015) Material Resources, Productivity and the Environment. Paris: OECD Publishing (OECD Green Growth Studies). doi: 10.1787/9789264190504-en. Oxford English Dictionary (2014) Oxford English Dictionary Online, Oxford English Dictionary. doi: 10.1016/S0305-9006(02)00073-9. Pasig City Government (2010) Pasig City General Information. Available at: http://www.pasigcity.gov.ph/subpages/about.aspx#page1 (Accessed: 29 May 2018). Philippine Atmospheric Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (2018) Climate Change in the Philippines. Available at: https://www1.pagasa.dost.gov.ph/index.php/climate-change-in-thephilippines#climate-projections-for-provinces (Accessed: 30 May 2018). Philippine Atmospheric Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (no date) Climate of the Philippines, N.A. Available at: https://www1.pagasa.dost.gov.ph/index.php/climate-of-the-philippines (Accessed: 28 May 2018). Philippine Department of the Interior and Local Government (2015) Build Back Better Operations Manual. Tacloban. Available at: http://yolanda.neda.gov.ph/wp-

129

content/uploads/2016/02/BBB-Operations-Manual-Rev1.0-July-2015-small-filesize.pdf (Accessed: 22 December 2018). Philippine Green Building Council (2017) Updates on the BERDE Program. Manila . Available at: http://seaisi.org/file/S5 P3 Presentation - 2017-1128 - BERDE.pdf (Accessed: 22 November 2018). Philippine Green Building Council (2018a) About BERDE Green Building Rating System. Available at: https://berdeonline.org/#what-is-the-berde-certificationprocess (Accessed: 30 August 2018). Philippine Green Building Council (2018b) BERDE. Available http://berdeonline.org/#why-should-i-use-berde (Accessed: 20 April 2018). Philippine Green Building Council (2018c) CONSTRUCTION VERSION 2.1.0. Manila.

BERDE

GBRS

–

at: NEW

Philippine Green Building Council (2018d) ‘BERDE Registration Form’. Manila, p. 8. Philippine Green Building Initiative (2018) About PGBI. Available http://greenbuilding.ph/aboutpgbi/ (Accessed: 14 December 2018).

at:

Philippine Statistics Authority (2016a) Highlights of the Philippine Population 2015 Census of Population | Philippine Statistics Authority. Available at: https://psa.gov.ph/content/highlights-philippine-population-2015-censuspopulation (Accessed: 25 May 2018). Philippine Statistics Authority (2016b) Philippine Population Density (Based on the 2015 Census of Population) | Philippine Statistics Authority. Available at: https://www.psa.gov.ph/content/philippine-population-density-based-2015-censuspopulation (Accessed: 25 May 2018). Philippine Statistics Authority (2016c) Population of the National Capital Region (Based on the 2015 Census of Population). Available at: https://psa.gov.ph/population-and-housing/title/Population of the National Capital Region %28Based on the 2015 Census of Population%29 (Accessed: 30 May 2018). Philippine Statistics Authority (2018) Per Capita: Gross National Income, Gross Domestic Product and Household Final Consumption Expenditure 2017 and 2018. Available at: http://psa.gov.ph/nap-press-release/sector3/Per Capita GNI (Accessed: 27 May 2018). Recabar, S. G. (2018) Updating the NCCAP Philippines ’ Climate Change Policies. Manila. Republic of the Philippines (2018) ‘Legarda heads PH delegation to 2018 Climate Change Conference in Bonn’, Philippine Information Agency, May. Available at: https://pia.gov.ph/news/articles/1007557 (Accessed: 3 October 2018). Republic

Singapore

(2015)

SINGAPORE’S

INTENDED

NATIONALLY

130

DETERMINED CONTRIBUTION (INDC) AND ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION. Singapore. Available at: https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/ndcstaging/PublishedDocuments/Singapore First/Singapore INDC.pdf (Accessed: 23 December 2018). Republic of the Philippines (1978) Presidential Decree No. 1505, s. 1978. Manila. Available at: http://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1978/06/02/presidential-decree-no1396-s-1978/ (Accessed: 29 May 2018). Republic of the Philippines (2009a) REPUBLIC ACT NO 9729. Manila: Congress of the Philippines. Available at: http://climate.gov.ph/images/documents/Republic_Act_No.9729.pdf (Accessed: 11 September 2018). Republic of the Philippines (2009b) The Philippine Green Building Act - Senate Bill N.410. Manila: Senate. Available at: www.epa.gov/greenbuilding/pubs/gbstats.pdf] (Accessed: 13 October 2018). Republic of the Philippines (2010) National Framework Strategy on Climate Change 2010 – 2022. Manila: Climate Change Comission. Available at: http://www.neda.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/nfscc_sgd.pdf (Accessed: 12 September 2018). Republic of the Philippines (2014) Executive Order No.174. Manila: Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Available at: http://climate.emb.gov.ph/wpcontent/uploads/2017/01/EO-174-National-GHG-Inventory.pdf (Accessed: 20 September 2018). Republic of the Philippines (2015a) Intended Nationally Determined Contributions Communicated to the UNFCCC on October 2015. UNFCCC. Available at: http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/INDC/Published Documents/Philippines/1/Philippines - Final INDC submission.pdf (Accessed: 23 September 2018). Republic of the Philippines (2015b) THE PHILIPPINE GREEN BUILDING CODE. Manila: Department of Public Works and Highways. Available at: http://www.dpwh.gov.ph/dpwh/sites/default/files/laws_codes_orders/PgbcBooklet2 3March.pdf (Accessed: 13 October 2018). Republic of the Philippines (2018) SDG Watch. Manila. Available at: https://psa.gov.ph/sdg/Philippines/baselinedata/11 Sustainable Cities and Communities (Accessed: 24 November 2018). Rocha, M. et al. (2015) ‘Historical Responsibility for Climate Change - from countries emissions to contribution to temperature increase’, p. 51. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31296.84481. Rubel, F. and Kottek, M. (2010) ‘Observed and projected climate shifts 1901-2100 depicted by world maps of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification’, Meteorologische Zeitschrift, 19(2), pp. 135–141. doi: 10.1127/09412948/2010/0430.

131

Schindler, S. (2010) ‘Following Industry’s LEED: Municipal Adoption of Private Green Building Standards’, Florida Law Review, 62, pp. 285–350. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1424587 (Accessed: 9 December 2018). Sciences Po Urban School (2018) Manila 2018 Study Trip Report. Paris. Available at: http://www.sciencespo.fr/ecole-urbaine/sites/sciencespo.fr.ecoleurbaine/files/Manila Report.pdf (Accessed: 30 November 2018). Scofield, J. H. (2009) ‘A Re-examination of the NBI LEED Building Energy Consumption Study’, in 2009 Energy Program Evaluation Conference. Portland: 2009 Energy Program Evaluation Conference, pp. 765–777. Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/. (Accessed: 21 August 2018). Scofield, J. H. (2013) ‘Efficacy of LEED-certification in reducing energy consumption and greenhouse gas emission for large New York City office buildings’, Energy and Buildings, 67, pp. 517–524. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.08.032. Sentman, S. D., Del Percio, S. T. and Koerner, P. (2008) ‘A Climate for Change: Green Building Policies, Programs, and Incentives’, Journal of Green Building. College Publishing, 3(2), pp. 46–63. doi: 10.3992/jgb.3.2.46. Shatkin, G. (2008) ‘The city and the bottom line: urban megaprojects and the privatization of planning in Southeast Asia’, Environment and Planning A, 40, pp. 383–401. doi: 10.1068/a38439. Smith, T. (2012) ‘Is the Philippines’ climate law the best in the world?’ Climate Home News. Available at: http://www.climatechangenews.com/2012/05/05/is-thephilippines-climate-law-the-best-in-the-world/ (Accessed: 12 September 2018). Suelpo, M. L. (2017) ‘Certification System in a National Level - Building for Ecologically Responsive Design Excellence (BERDE) Program’. Manila. Suelpo, M. L. (2018) ‘BERDE GBRS V2’. Manila. Suttell, R. (2015) ‘The green building movement is being readily adopted into municipal facilities’, Building Magazine. Available at: https://www.buildings.com/article-details/articleid/2475/title/america-s-cities-leedthe-way (Accessed: 29 August 2018). The World Bank (2015a) CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita). Available at: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC (Accessed: 8 June 2018). The World Bank (2015b) Population living in slums (% of urban population) | Data. Available at: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.POP.SLUM.UR.ZS?contextual=default&e nd=2014&locations=PH-1W&start=1990&view=chart (Accessed: 28 May 2018). The World Bank (2017a) Philippines Economic Update 2017. Available at: http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2017/05/04/philippines-economicupdate-april-2017 (Accessed: 29 May 2018).

132

The World Bank (2017b) Urban population (% of total). Available at: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS?locations=DE-PH (Accessed: 4 December 2018). The World Bank Group (2017) GREEN BUILDINGS for a smarter world. Available at: https://www.edgebuildings.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/2017-07-27English-version-EDGE-Brochure-HR.pdf (Accessed: 14 December 2018). U.S. Green Building Council (2013) LEED - Reference Guide for Building Design and Construction v4. Washington: U.S. Green Building Council. U.S. Green Building Council (2014a) ‘LEED v4 Rating System Selection Guidance’. LEED. Available at: https://www.usgbc.org/articles/rating-system-selectionguidance (Accessed: 28 August 2018). U.S. Green Building Council (2014b) ‘Minimum program requirements for LEED’. U.S. Green Building Council. Available at: https://www.usgbc.org/articles/goodknow-minimum-program-requirements-leed (Accessed: 28 August 2018). U.S. Green Building Council (2016) LEED by the numbers: 16 years of steady growth. Available at: https://www.usgbc.org/articles/leed-numbers-16-yearssteady-growth (Accessed: 20 April 2018). U.S. Green Building Council (2017a) ‘Guide to LEED Certification - BD+C, ID+C, O+M’, United State Green Building Council. Available at: http://www.usgbc.org/certguide. U.S. Green Building Council (2017b) USGBC Statistics. Available https://www.usgbc.org/articles/usgbc-statistics (Accessed: 20 April 2018).

at:

U.S. Green Building Council (2018a) A LEED for every project. Available at: http://leed.usgbc.org/ (Accessed: 27 August 2018). U.S. Green Building Council (2018b) LEED, Better buildings are our legagy. Available at: https://new.usgbc.org/leed (Accessed: 19 April 2018). U.S. Green Building Council (2018c) LEED Certification Fees. Available at: https://new.usgbc.org/cert-guide/fees (Accessed: 14 December 2018). U.S. Green Building Council (2018d) Regional priority credit LEED V4- The Philippines. Available at: https://www.usgbc.org/rpc/LEED v4 BD+C: NC/v4/2330?location=Matag-ob, Eastern Visayas&lat=11.127039927793593&lng=124.44763657064391 (Accessed: 12 November 2018). UN-Habitat (2016) Urbanization and Development: Emerging Futures, UN Habitat World Cities Report 2016. doi: 10.1016/S0264-2751(03)00010-6. United Agency for International Development (2017) CLIMATE CHANGE RISK PROFILE PHILIPPINES. Available at: https://www.climatelinks.org/sites/default/files/asset/document/2017_Climate Change Risk Profile_Philippines.pdf (Accessed: 30 May 2018).

133

United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, P. D. (2014) ‘World Urbanization Prospects’, United Nations, 12, p. 32. doi: 10.4054/DemRes.2005.12.9. United Nations (2015a) Sustainable Development Goals - Goal 11 Sustainable cities and communities. Available at: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/cities/ (Accessed: 9 November 2018). United Nations (2015b) Sustainable Development Goals - Goal 13 Climate Action. Available at: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/climate-change-2/ (Accessed: 9 November 2018). United Nations Climate Change (2018) Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs). Available at: https://unfccc.int/topics/mitigation/workstreams/nationallyappropriate-mitigation-actions (Accessed: 21 September 2018). United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development (2016) New Urban Agenda. Quito: Habitat III Secretariat. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2018) ‘World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision’. United Nations Development Programm (2018a) Human Development Reports Germany. Available at: http://hdr.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/DEU (Accessed: 4 December 2018). United Nations Development Programm (2018b) Human Development Reports Philippines. Available at: http://hdr.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/PHL (Accessed: 4 December 2018). United Nations Development Programme (2013) Philippines, Coordinating national climate change action. Manila. United Nations Development Programme (2016) Human development report 2016, United Nations Development Programme. doi: eISBN: 978-92-1-060036-1. United Nations Environment Programm (2016) ‘The 10YFP Programme on Sustainable Buildings and Construction’. Available at: http://www.oneplanetnetwork.org/sites/default/files/10yfp-sbc-brochure-en.pdf (Accessed: 18 June 2018). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (2015) Climate Agreement of Paris. Paris. doi: 10.1017/s0020782900004253. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (2018) Paris Agreement - Status of Ratification. Available at: https://unfccc.int/process/the-parisagreement/status-of-ratification (Accessed: 27 November 2018). United Nations Framwork Convention on Climate Change (2015) Second National Communication to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: Philippines, UNFCCC. Available at: http://climateactiontracker.org/countries/philippines.html%5Cnpapers3://publicatio

134

n/uuid/4F1E87EA-0DD9-41D1-A7BD-B59BA118A326. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (2017) Build Back Better in recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction. Geneva. Available at: https://www.unisdr.org/files/53213_bbb.pdf (Accessed: 22 December 2018). United Nations Statistics Division (2016) ‘and communities Make cities and human settlements inclusive , safe , resilient and sustainable’, pp. 1–7. United States Agency of International Development (2016) Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions by Sector in the Philippines. Available at: https://www.climatelinks.org/sites/default/files/asset/document/2016_USAID_Phili ppines GHG Emissions Fact Sheet.pdf (Accessed: 31 May 2018). USGBC (2018) International Brief - SDG 13: Climate Change. Washingyon. Available at: https://www.usgbc.org/sites/default/files/sustainable-developmentgoal-13-climate-change.pdf (Accessed: 9 December 2018). Vierra, S. (2016) Green Building Standards and Certification Systems. Available at: https://www.wbdg.org/resources/green-building-standards-and-certificationsystems (Accessed: 21 August 2018). Wilmoth, J. (2015) ‘World ’ s population increasingly urban with more than half living in urban areas’, (July 2014), pp. 2014–2016. World Bank (2018) World Bank Country Data - The Philippines. Available at: https://data.worldbank.org/country/philippines?type=points (Accessed: 25 May 2018). World Green Building Council (2013) INTERNATIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS FOR GREEN BUILDING RATING TOOLS IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES. Available at: http://www.worldgbc.org/sites/default/files/Pilot_International_SocioEconomic_Framework_-_Draft_v10_-_23_Oct_2013.pdf (Accessed: 30 August 2018). World Green Building Council (2016) Green building &amp; the Sustainable Development Goals. Available at: https://www.worldgbc.org/green-buildingsustainable-development-goals (Accessed: 24 November 2018). World Green Building Council (2017) ‘Building A Better Future. Annual Report 2016/2017’, (April). Available at: http://triec.ca/betterfuture/. World Green Building Council (2018) Our Story. http://www.worldgbc.org/our-story (Accessed: 21 August 2018).

Available

at:

World Resource Institute (2017) This Interactive Chart Explains World’s Top 10 Emitters, and How They’ve Changed. Available at: http://www.wri.org/blog/2017/04/interactive-chart-explains-worlds-top-10-emittersand-how-theyve-changed (Accessed: 31 May 2018). World Resources Institute (2016) Climate Analysis Indicators - CAIT 2.0 Data

135

Explorer l Philippines. Available at: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://cait.wri.org/profile/ Philippines&num=1&strip=0&vwsrc=0 (Accessed: 31 May 2018). World Resources Institute (2017) This Interactive Chart Explains World’s Top 10 Emitters, and How They’ve Changed | World Resources Institute. Available at: http://www.wri.org/blog/2017/04/interactive-chart-explains-worlds-top-10-emittersand-how-theyve-changed (Accessed: 25 May 2018). WRI (2004) A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard, Greenhouse Gas Protocol. doi: 10.1196/annals.1439.003. WRI (2016) Accelerating Building Efficiency. Xiaoming Wang, by et al. (2016) Designing Resilient Structures Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation in Local Design Practices. Australia: CSIRO. Yudelson, J. (2007) Green Building A to Z - Understanding the language of Green Building. Canada: New Society Publishers. Available at: https://issuu.com/opoushkino/docs/zemlja_na_kotoroj_my_stoim_22_12_2008 (Accessed: 20 August 2018). Yudelson, J. (2008) The Green Building Revolution. Washington: Island Press. Yusoff, W. Z. W. and Wen, W. R. (2014) ‘Analysis of the International Sustainable Building Rating Systems (SBRSs) for Sustainable Development with Special Focused on Green Building Index (GBI) Malaysia’, Journal of Environmental Conservation Research, 2(1), p. 11. doi: 10.12966/jecr.02.02.2014.

ANNEX

1- Figures of the Text

Figure 1- Countries with Green Building Councils until December 2017 Source: World Green Building Council, 2017

Figure 2- Annual rainfall (left) and temperature (right) for the Philippines Source: (Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery, 2011)

Figure 3â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Buildings sector emissions coverage based on the countriesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; NDC Source: GABC, 2017

Figure 4– GABC Global Roadmap Towards Low-GHG and Resilient Buildings – Summary of objectives and indicators Source: GABC, 2017

2- Scorecard Analysis

Scorecard

GBRS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Generation

LEED v4 BC+C: New Constructions and Major Renovations LEED v4 for BD+C: Core and Shell

First

LEED v4 for Operations & Maintenance: Existing Buildings BERDE V2: New Constructions BERDE V2: Operations EDGE Offices DGNB Version 2018 - New Buildings

First

First First Second Second

Scorecard 1 LEED v4 for BD+C:

D: Directly related

New Construction and Major Renovation

I: Indirectly related

Project Checklist - 57 prerequisites and credits

N: Not related or applicable P: Potential to include CO2 emissions reduction strategies and accounting

CLASSIFICATION D

PREREQUISITES AND CREDITS P 1

Credit

Location and Transportation

Credit

LEED for Neighborhood Development Location

Credit

Sensitive Land Protection

Credit

High Priority Site

Credit

Surrounding Density and Diverse Uses

Credit

Access to Quality Transit

1 1

Credit Credit

Credit

Bicycle Facilities Reduced Parking Footprint Green Vehicles

1 1 1

OBSERVATIONS

Integrative Process

Integrate process of energy related disciplines which reduce energy consumption

It reduces the vehicle distance traveled, co2 reductions is a consequence Applicable just in the USA, refers to national laws Promotes walkability, efficient transportation and reduce vehicle distance traveled Promotes multimodal transport and reduced single vehicle use

Enhance the use of not conventionally fueled vehicles. No law referred to Asia

Prereq

Credit

1 1

Credit

Credit Credit Credit Credit

1 1

Sustainable Sites

Water Efficiency

Prereq

Outdoor Water Use Reduction

Prereq Prereq

Indoor Water Use Reduction Building-Level Water Metering

Credit

Outdoor Water Use Reduction

Credit Credit Credit

Indoor Water Use Reduction Cooling Tower Water Use Water Metering

1 1 1

Construction Activity Pollution Prevention Site Assessment Site Development - Protect or Restore Habitat Open Space Rainwater Management Heat Island Reduction Light Pollution Reduction

1 1 1 1

11 Energy and Atmosphere Fundamental Commissioning 1 Prereq and Verification 1 Prereq Minimum Energy Performance

Prereq

Building-Level Energy Metering

Prereq

Fundamental Refrigerant Management

1 1 1

Credit Credit Credit

Enhanced Commissioning Optimize Energy Performance Advanced Energy Metering

Credit

Demand Response

Credit

Renewable Energy Production

Credit

Enhanced Refrigerant Management

Credit

Green Power and Carbon Offsets

Materials and Resources

1 1

Prereq

Storage and Collection of Recyclables

Prereq

Construction and Demolition Waste Management Planning

It works like a vegetation compensation for the area constructed Includes vegetated roofs Reduce air conditioning need

Reduce irrigation, reducing energy consumption

Monitors the energy consumption Energy simulation Energy metering to identify additionally energy savings. Share data with the USGBC Refers to gases that cause ozone depletion (chlorofluorocarbon (CFC). CO2 could be added Monitors the energy consumption Identifies opportunities to save energy The energy generation and distribution is more reliable and efficient, reducing GHG Contracts of minimum 10 years. The maximum of points can be achieved just by generating or pursuing 10% of renewable energy Reduce the use of refrigerants that cause ozone depletion in the HVAC&R systems. It has the formula, can be base for CO2 Refers to engage in GHG mitigation projects by having contracts of minimum 5 years to provide at least 50% of the energy from green power, carbon offsets or renewable energy certificates. Promotes offsetting and not internal strategies

Waste sorting infrastructure. Increase materials designated to recycle Possibility to reuse materials from construction and demolition, reducing embodied CO2 from purchasing new materials

Credit

Construction and Demolition Waste Management

Credit

Indoor Environmental Quality Prereq

Prereq

Credit

Minimum Indoor Air Quality Performance Environmental Tobacco Smoke Control Enhanced Indoor Air Quality Strategies Low-Emitting Materials Construction Indoor Air Quality Management Plan Indoor Air Quality Assessment

Credit

Thermal Comfort

Credit

Interior Lighting

Credit Credit Credit

Daylight Quality Views Acoustic Performance

Innovation

Credit

Innovation

Credit

LEED Accredited Professional

Regional Priority

Credit

1 7 12

Building Product Disclosure and Optimization Environmental Product Declarations Building Product Disclosure and Optimization - Sourcing of Raw Materials Building Product Disclosure and Optimization Material Ingredients

Building Life-Cycle Impact Reduction

1 1 1

Credit

27 48

Credit

Regional Priority: Specific Credit Regional Priority: Specific Credit Regional Priority: Specific Credit Regional Priority: Specific Credit

23 37 TOTAL 40 64 PERCENTAGE

Source: Own based on LEED V4, 2018

One option: LCA tackling global warming potential reduction (GHG) in kg CO2e when compared to a baseline building One option: LCA tackling global warming potential reduction (GHG) in kg CO2e when compared to a baseline building Option: corporate sustainability reports based on GRI, UN Global Compact, OECD Option: cradle to cradle certificate Possibility to reuse materials from construction and demolition, reducing embodied CO2 from purchasing new materials

By providing individual control to at least 50% of the occupants, energy consumption in reduced Minimum 90% of individual occupant spaces must have individual control Reduce electrical lighting

6 out of the 38 pilot credits tackles CO2 emissions Potential of having a professional qualified in the area of climate change

Credit energy: Optimize energy performance Credit Water: Outdoor water use reduction Credit SS: Site Development - Protect or Restore Habitat

Scorecard 2 LEED v4 for BD+C: Core and Shell

D: Directly related

Project Checklist - 55 prerequisites and credits

I: Indirectly related N: Not related or applicable P: Potential to include CO2 emissions reduction strategies and accounting

CLASSIFICATION D

PREREQUISITES AND CREDITS P 1

Credit

Location and Transportation

Credit

LEED for Neighborhood Development Location

Credit

Sensitive Land Protection

Credit

High Priority Site

Credit

Surrounding Density and Diverse Uses

Credit

Access to Quality Transit

1 1

Credit Credit

Credit

Bicycle Facilities Reduced Parking Footprint Green Vehicles

Sustainable Sites

1 1 1

4 1

Prereq

Credit 1

1 1 1

Credit

Credit Credit Credit Credit Credit

Integrative Process

Enhance the use of not conventionally fueled vehicles. No law referred to Asia

Several of the credits with potential to reduce and measure CO2 emissions are part of the guidelines

Prereq

Outdoor Water Use Reduction

Prereq

Indoor Water Use Reduction Building-Level Water Metering

Promotes walkability, efficient transportation and reduce vehicle distance traveled Promotes multimodal transport and reduced single vehicle use

Tenant Design and Construction Guidelines

It reduce the vehicle distance traveled, co2 reductions is a consequence Applicable just in the USA, refers to national laws

It works like a vegetation compensation for the area constructed Includes vegetated roofs

Water Efficiency

Integrate process of energy related disciplines which reduce energy consumption

Construction Activity Pollution Prevention Site Assessment Site Development - Protect or Restore Habitat Open Space Rainwater Management Heat Island Reduction Light Pollution Reduction

OBSERVATIONS

Credit

Outdoor Water Use Reduction

Credit

Indoor Water Use Reduction

Reduce air conditioning need

Reduce irrigation, reducing energy consumption

1 1

Credit Credit

Cooling Tower Water Use Water Metering

Energy and Atmosphere Fundamental Commissioning and Verification Minimum Energy Performance

Prereq

Building-Level Energy Metering

Prereq

Fundamental Refrigerant Management

1 1

Credit Credit Credit

Enhanced Commissioning Optimize Energy Performance Advanced Energy Metering

Credit

Demand Response

Credit

Renewable Energy Production

Credit

Enhanced Refrigerant Management

Credit

Green Power and Carbon Offsets

Materials and Resources

1 1

Prereq

Storage and Collection of Recyclables

Prereq

Construction and Demolition Waste Management Planning

Credit

Building Life-Cycle Impact Reduction

1 1

Credit

Indoor Environmental Quality

Prereq

Minimum Indoor Air Quality Performance Environmental Tobacco Smoke Control

Monitors the energy consumption Energy simulation Energy metering to identify additionally energy savings. Share data with the USGBC Refers to gases that cause ozone delegation (chlorofluorocarbon (CFC). CO2 could be added monitories the energy consumption Identifies opportunities to save energy The energy generation and distribution is more reliable and efficient, reducing GHG Contracts of minimum 10 years. The maximum of points can be achieved just by generating or pursuing 10% of renewable energy Reduce the use of refrigerants that cause ozone depletion in the HVAC&R systems. It has the formula, can be base for CO2 Refers to engage in GHG mitigation projects by having contracts of minimum 5 years to provide at least 50% of the energy from green power, carbon offsets or renewable energy certificates. Promotes offsetting and not internal strategies

Waste sorting infrastructure. Increase materials designated to recycle Possibility to reuse materials from construction and demolition, reducing embodied CO2 from purchasing new materials One option: LCA tackling global warming potential reduction (GHG) in kg CO2e when compared to a baseline building One option: LCA tackling global warming potential reduction (GHG) in kg CO2e when compared to a baseline building Option: corporate sustainability reports based on GRI, UN Global Compact, OECD Option: cradle to cradle certificate Possibility to reuse materials from construction and demolition, reducing embodied CO2 from purchasing new materials

Credit

Credit 1

Credit Credit

Innovation

Credit

Innovation

Credit

LEED Accredited Professional

Regional Priority

Credit

Enhanced Indoor Air Quality Strategies Low-Emitting Materials Construction Indoor Air Quality Management Plan Daylight Quality Views

Credit

Regional Priority: Specific Credit Regional Priority: Specific Credit Regional Priority: Specific Credit Regional Priority: Specific Credit

Reduce electrical lighting

6 out of the 51 pilot credits tackles CO2 emissions Potential of having a professional qualified in the area of climate change

Credit energy: Optimize energy performance Credit Water: Outdoor water use reduction Credit SS: Site Development - Protect or Restore Habitat

TOTAL

58 PERCENTAGE

Source: Own based on LEED V4, 2018

Scorecard 3 LEED v4 for Operations & Maintenance: Existing Buildings

D: Directly related

Project Checklist: 52 credits and prerequisites

I: Indirectly related N: Not related or applicable P: Potential to include CO2 emissions reduction strategies and accounting

CLASSIFICATION

PREREQUISITES AND CREDITS

Location and Transportation

Cre dit

Sustainable Sites

Prer eq Cre

5 1

Alternative Transportation

OBSERVATIONS

Promotes multimodal transport, walkability, bicycle use and reduced single vehicle use

Site Management Policy Site Development-Protect

It works like a vegetation compensation for the

1 1 1 1

1 1

1 1 1 1

1 1

dit Cre dit Cre dit Cre dit Cre dit Cre dit

or Restore Habitat Rainwater Management Heat Island Reduction Light Pollution Reduction Site Management Site Improvement Plan

Prer eq Prer eq Cre dit Cre dit Cre dit Cre dit

Indoor Water Use Reduction Building-Level Water Metering Outdoor Water Use Reduction Indoor Water Use Reduction

Water Metering

Energy and Atmosphere Prer eq Prer eq Prer eq Prer eq

Cre dit

Cre dit Cre dit Cre dit Cre dit

Energy Efficiency Best Management Practices Minimum Energy Performance Building-Level Energy Metering Fundamental Refrigerant Management Existing Building Commissioning— Analysis Existing Building Commissioning— Implementation Ongoing Commissioning Optimize Energy Performance Advanced Energy Metering

Cre dit

Renewable Energy and Carbon Offsets

Cre dit

Enhanced Refrigerant Management

Materials and Resources

1 1 1

Reduce irrigation, reducing energy consumption

Cooling Tower Water Use

Reduce air conditioning need

Water Efficiency

area constructed

Prer eq Prer eq Cre dit

Demand Response

Ongoing Purchasing and Waste Policy Facility Maintenance and Renovations Policy Purchasing- Ongoing

Ensures energy efficiency in a long term Energy simulation Energy metering to identify additionally energy savings. Share data with the USGBC Refers to gases that cause ozone depletion (chlorofluorocarbon (CFC). CO2 could be added Analyze and identify energy and resource efficiency opportunities Implement the energy efficiency opportunities identified in the previous credit Guarantee the energy efficiency along time monitories the energy consumption Identifies opportunities to save energy The energy generation and distribution is more reliable and efficient, reducing GHG Contracts of minimum 10 years. The maximum of points can be achieved just by generating or pursuing 10% of renewable energy Reduce the use of refrigerants that cause ozone depletion in the HVAC&R systems. It has the formula, can be base for CO2

Waste sorting infrastructure. Increase materials designated to recycle Option to purchase consumables with recycled content, certified and equipment’s energy star

Cre dit

Indoor Environmental Quality

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1

2 1

1 1

2 4

Purchasing- Facility Management and Renovation Solid Waste ManagementOngoing Solid Waste ManagementFacility Management and Renovation

Purchasing- Lamps

2 5 4 8

55, 8

Prer eq Prer eq Prer eq Cre dit Cre dit Cre dit Cre dit Cre dit Cre dit Cre dit Cre dit Cre dit Cre dit

Option to purchase materials and furniture with recycled content and certified cradle-to-cradle Increase reuse and recycling rates from the building users Possibility to reuse materials from construction and demolition, reducing embodied CO2 from purchasing new materials

Minimum Indoor Air Quality Performance Environmental Tobacco Smoke Control Green Cleaning Policy Indoor Air Quality Management Program Enhanced Indoor Air Quality Strategies Thermal Comfort Interior Lighting

By providing individual control to at least 50% of the occupants, energy consumption in reduced Minimum 90% of individual occupant spaces must have individual control

Daylight and Quality Reduce electrical lighting Views Green Cleaning- Custodial Effectiveness Assessment Green Cleaning- Products and Materials Green CleaningEquipment Integrated Pest Management Occupant Comfort Survey

Innovation Cre dit Cre dit

Innovation

6 out of the 41 pilot credits tackles CO2 emissions

LEED Accredited Professional

Potential of having a professional qualified in the area of climate change

Regional Priority Cre dit Cre dit Cre dit Cre dit

Regional Priority: Specific Credit Regional Priority: Specific Credit Regional Priority: Specific Credit Regional Priority: Specific Credit

TOTAL PERCENTAGE

Source: Own based on LEED V4, 2018

Credit energy: Optimize energy performance Credit Water: Outdoor water use reduction Credit SS: Site Development - Protect or Restore Habitat

Scorecard 4 BERDE V2: New Constructions Project Checklist: 43 credits

D: Directly related

I: Indirectly related N: Not related or applicable P: Potential to include CO2 emissions reduction strategies and accounting

CLASSIFICATION D

Credit

1 1

Credit Credit

Water Efficiency and Conservation Credit

OBSERVATIONS

Energy Efficiency and Conservation By reducing energy consumption, GHG are Energy Consumption Credit reduced too. Potential to measure this Reduction reduction Monitores energy consumption, identifying Credit Energy Monitoring possible peaks Reduce use of air conditioning by requiring Credit Natural Ventilation at least 50% of the regularly occupied spaces with natural ventilation Minimum o site renewable energy of 5%. For Credit Use of Renewables off-site renewable energy the contract must be 100% By calculating the peak energy consumption for cooling in kilowatt-hour per square meter Credit Energy Efficient Lighting * per person (kWh/m2/person) based on an 8hour shift will be easy to calculate the CO2 emissions Follows the Building Envelope Requirements for Climate Zone 1 (A, B), ASHRAE Energy Efficient Building Credit Standard 189.1-2014 â&#x20AC;&#x201D; Standard for the Envelope Design of High-Performance Green Buildings (ASHRAE, 2014) It reduces energy consumption from cooling Energy Efficient AirCredit conditioning System* systems Possibility to monitors and control the Building Automation Credit System energy-consuming systems in the project

PREREQUISITES AND CREDITS

Water Consumption Reduction Water Monitoring Efficient Landscape Irrigation Reduce irrigation, reducing energy consumption Effluent Quality Monitoring

Waste Management Credit

Construction Waste Diversion

Credit

Materials Recovery Facility

Possibility to reuse materials from construction and demolition, reducing embodied CO2 from purchasing new materials

Credit

Green Building Professional

Credit

Stakeholder Consultation

Credit

Design Charrette

Credit

Land Reuse

Credit

Protection of Ecological Features Improvement of Ecological Features

Credit

1 1

Credit Credit

Green Materials

Credit

Green Procurement

Credit

Use of Local Materials

Transportation

Credit

Parking

Credit

Fuel Efficient and Low Emitting Vehicles

Credit

Public Access

Credit

Bicycle Rider Amenities

Credit

Contribution to Public Transport Amenities

Promotion of Open Spaces Heat Island Reduction Flood Risk Minimization

Transportation Impact Assessment Proximity to Key Establishments Public Transportation Access

Indoor Environment Quality

Credit

Lighting Level and Control

Credit

Thermal Comfort

Credit

Acoustic Comfort

Credit

Visual Comfort

Credit Credit

Glare Control Indoor Air Quality

1 1

1 1 1

Potential of having a professional qualified in the area of climate change Potential of having a professional qualified in the area of climate change Integrate process of energy related disciplines which reduce energy consumption

Use of Land and Ecology

Management

By discouraging the use of greenfield, undeveloped open space or natural habitat, carbon sinks are preserved Protects trees and wetland areas, preserving carbon sinks Option of having green roofs and walls, helping to cool the building and reducing the need of air conditioning

Reduce air conditioning need Credit related with adaptation

Guarantees the use of certified materials with less embodied energy Reduce materials transportation distances, directly reducing CO2 emissions

Measures the traffic impact, possible to measures CO2 emissions Reduces the need of vehicles, reducing CO2 emissions Promotes the use of public transportation Refers to having the minimal required by law of parking sports, discouraging the use of private vehicles Promotes the use of alternative and less pollutant fuel for vehicles by designating a minimum of 3% of the parking spots Promotes walkability and less use of vehicles Provides infrastructure to bicycle parking and showers, encouraging it use instead of vehicles. Promotes the use of public transportation by providing stations, waiting areas or walkways. Not possible to measure CO2 reductions

Enables usersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; control, reducing energy consumption Promotes maximum use of natural ventilation and users' control of air conditioning Having at least 50% of the regularly occupied areas with daylight reduces electric lighting use

Credit

Microbial Contamination Prevention Low VOC Materials

Emissions Credit

Greenhouse Gas Projection

Credit

Refrigerants

Credit

Emission Control

Necessary to submit the GHG inventory, which should include recommendations to reduce the GHG emissions Reduces the ozone depleting substances but not with CO2 Refers to the Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999, which do not tackle GHG and CO2 emissions. From the stationary sources, it focusses on sulfur oxides, particulate matters and nitrogen oxides.

TOTAL

65 PERCENTAGE

* Credit referring to Philippines Green Building Code standards Source: Own based on BERDE V2, 2018

Scorecard 5

BERDE V2: Operations Project Checklist: 25 credits and prerequisites

D: Directly related I: Indirectly related N: Not related or applicable P: Potential to include CO2 emissions reduction strategies and accounting

CLASSIFICATION D

Electrical Equipment Maintenance

Water Efficiency and Conservation

Credit

Credit Credit

OBSERVATIONS

Energy Efficiency and Conservation By reducing energy consumption, GHG Cr Energy Consumption edi are reduced too. Potential to measure Reduction t this reduction Monitors energy consumption, identifying Credit Energy Monitoring possible peaks Credit

PREREQUISITES AND CREDITS

Water Consumption Reduction Water Monitoring Effluent Quality Monitoring

Credit

Waste Characterization Survey

Credit

Waste Management

Management

Credit

Green Building Professional

Credit

Stakeholder Consultation

Credit

Previously Certified Green Building

Use of Land and Ecology

Credit

Improvement of Ecological Features

Credit

Landscape Management

Credit

Demolition and Construction Activity Pollution Control

1 1

Green Materials

Credit

Transportation

Credit

Transportation Survey

Credit

Sustainable Transportation Plan

Indoor Environment Quality

Credit

Visual Comfort

Credit

Thermal Comfort

Credit

Indoor Air Quality Microbial Contamination Prevention Green Cleaning

Green Procurement

Waste Management

Greenhouse Gas Projection

Credit

Refrigerants Emission Control

Potential of having a professional qualified in the area of climate change Potential of having a professional qualified in the area of climate change If the emissions category was tackled and several energy efficient measures installed, then the building is reducing CO2 emissions already

Option of having green roofs and walls, helping to cool the building and reducing the need of air conditioning Aims to reduce energy consumption and waste generation in land management. Impacts must be monitored and reported

Guarantees the use of certified materials with less embodied energy

Promotes alternative fuels, bicycles use by providing incentives such as dedicates parking areas, parking valets, showers. The impact needs to be measure

Having at least 50% of the regularly occupied areas with daylight reduces electric lighting use Promotes maximum use of natural ventilation and users' control of air conditioning

Emissions Credit

By sorting and diverting waste from landfills, reuse and recycle elements will avoid production of new materials

Credit

oxides.

2 8

9 36

14 56

12 48

TOTA PERCENTAGE

Source: Own based on BERDE V2, 2018

Scorecard 6

EDGE 0FFICES

D: Directly related

Project Checklist: 44 measures

I: Indirectly related N: Not related or applicable P: Potential to include CO2 emissions reduction strategies and accounting

CLASSIFIC ATION

MEASURES

2 3 0 Energy Efficiency 7 0

N P

1 1

OBSERVATIONS

Reduced window to wall ratio. Reflective paint/tiles for roof – solar reflectivity Reflective paint for external walls – solar reflectivity External shading devices Insulation of roof surfaces Insulation of external walls Low-e coated glass Higher thermal performance glass Natural ventilation – offices, corridors, lobby Ceiling fans in all office rooms Variable refrigerant volume (vrv) cooling system Air conditioning with air cooled screw chiller Air conditioning with water cooled chiller

Ground source heat pump

Absorption chiller powered by waste heat

Mandatory. Finds the equilibrium between glass and walls of the building envelope to avoid unnecessary heat gain Reduce heat gain and urban heat island Reduce heat gain and urban heat island Reduce heat gain, reducing cooling needs

Reduce thermal transference among the sides Refers to double or triple glazing Reduce air conditioning demand. Minimum open areas are established, but not minimum percentage of the spaces to follow it Just accounts if the fan is energy efficiency. It resects countries traditions

Geothermal heating and cooling directly reduces the need of fuel-based energy

1 1

Solar photovoltaics

Reduce energy consumption

Reduce energy consumption Applicable just if gas condensing boiler is used

Control is made by timing, sensors or dimming, not by users Control is made by occupancy sensors in all these spaces Control is made by occupancy sensors in all these spaces All internal spaces with natural light should have the sensor Acknowledged when 25%of the total energy demand is supplied with this renewable energy

0 8 0 Water Efficiency Low-flow faucets in bathrooms Dual flush for water closets in bathrooms Water-efficient urinals in all bathrooms Water efficient kitchen faucets

1 1 1 1

Condensate water recovery

Rainwater harvesting system Grey water treatment and recycling system Black water treatment and recycling

1 1

Radiant cooling and heating system Recovery of waste heat from the generator for space heating Variable speed drives on the fans of cooling towers Variable speed drives in ahus Variable speed drives pumps Sensible heat recovery from exhaust air High efficiency condensing boiler for space heating Air economizers during favorable outdoor conditions Energy – saving light bulbs – internal spaces Energy – saving light bulbs – external spaces Lighting controls for corridors & staircases Occupancy sensors in bathrooms, conference rooms and closed cabins Occupancy sensors in open offices Daylight photoelectric sensors for internal spaces

Acknowledged if 100% of the condensate water from cooling is collected and use in outdoor or toilet flushing Indoor use is mandatory

6 0 6 Materials Efficiency 1

1 Roof construction

External walls

Internal walls

Use of materials with less embodied energy than regular ones Use of materials with less embodied energy than regular ones Use of materials with less embodied energy than regular ones. Possible impacts in acoustic are

3 7

Flooring

Window frames

Insulation

mentioned Use of materials with less embodied energy than regular ones Use of materials with less embodied energy than regular ones Use of materials with less embodied energy than regular ones. The baseline has no insulation

3 3 8 TOTAL 3 6 7 1 8 PERCENTAGE 5 8 2

Source: Own based on EDGE OFFICES, 2018

Scorecard 7 DGNB Version 2018 New Buildings Project Checklist:37 Criteria

D: Directly related I: Indirectly related N: Not related or applicable P: Potential to include CO2 emissions reduction strategies and accounting

CLASSIFIC ATION

CRITERIA

3 2 4 Environmental Quality

CLASSI FICATI ON

Focus on reaching high levels of carbon neutrality. Related with SDG 13, including 13.1 and 13.2 as significant impact. Awards for LCA into the planning process and optimization. Targets the use of refrigerants with high GWP factor. Accounts as Agenda 2030 Bonus for climate protection

Emissio ns

Related with SDG 13., including 13.1 and 13.2 as moderate impact. More related with VOC emissions and internal air quality

IAQ

Pursues social and environmental responsibility for raw material extraction processes

Material

N P

Effect s on the

global and local enviro 1 nment

OBSERVATIONS

Reso urce consu mptio n and

Building life cycle assessment Local environmental impact Sustainable resource extraction Potable water demand and waste water volume Land use

Water Related with SDG 11 as significant impact. Limits the use of undeveloped lands, preserving carbon sinkers

Location

waste gener 1 ation

Life cycle cost Econ 1 omic devel 1 opme nt 1

Allows to decide to the strategies to reduce the co2 emissions in the LCA

Econom ic

Flexibility and adaptability

SDG 11 as significant impact. Reduce vacant building and the need to construct more edifices

Emissio ns

Commercial viability

Increase buildings life spam, reducing the need of constructing new ones

Econom ic

Thermal comfort

Healt h, 1 1 Comf ort 1 1 and User Satisf 1 action 1 1

Functi onalit y

Pursues resilience and adaptation according to climatic conditions. Reduce need of HAVC

Indoor air quality Acoustic comfort Visual comfort User control

IAQ IAQ IAQ

Promotes natural light use, reducing artificial light need Reduce artificial lighting, cooling and heating need

Quality of indoor and outdoor spaces Safety and security

IAQ IAQ IAQ Commu nity Commu nity

Design for all

3 3 4 Technical Quality

Quality of the building envelope Use and integration of 1 building Techn technology Ease of cleaning ical qualit building components y Ease of recovery 1 and recycling 1

Commu nity

Sound insulation

Emissions control

Life cycle cost

3 5 3 Sociocultural and Functional Quality 1

Location

Biodiversity at the site

3 0 3 Economic Quality 1

SDG 11 has a low impact and 13 a moderate impact. Preserves and enhance local ecosystems, maintaining green surfaces. Accounts as Agenda 2030 Bonus for climate protection

Mobility infrastructure

Aims enhancing user's satisfaction and reducing energy consumption. Accounts as Agenda 2030 Bonus for climate adaptation

Energy

Promotes the applicability of passive systems and the integration of renewable energy sources. Reduce technical dependency, enhancing buildings resilience

Energy

IAQ Reduce use of primary and raw materials, therefore of embodied energy, Enhance circular economy Related with noise and light pollution in the surroundings Reduces traffic-related emissions and use of sustainable mobility ways. Strategies are similar with other GBRS, bicycle, car sharing, e-vehicles. SDG 11 and 13 have

Material s Commu nity Transpo rtation

significant impact. Accounts as Agenda 2030 Bonus for climate protection

8 1 8 Process Quality 1

Planni ng qualit 1 y

Const ructio n 1 qualit y 1 assur ance 1

1 1

Sustainability aspects in tender phase Documentation for sustainable management Urban planning and design procedure Construction site/construction process Quality assurance of the construction Systematic commissioning User communication Facility Management compliant planning

Similar with the integrative design of LEED, which identify in a early stage synergies and guarantee they take place. Involve community participatory approach

Manage ment

Innovative criteria and efficient way to guarantee in a legal way sustainability

Manage ment

Similar approach of the previous criteria

Manage ment

Contributed to SDG 11 in a low impact. Aims sustainable building with high life spam

Manage ment Location

Assures implementation of the sustainable strategies Guarantee energy efficiency use Educate users in the field of sustainability and how they can contribute

Manage ment Manage ment Manage ment

Supports energy efficient consumption

Manage ment

Enhance building's resilience. Contributes with SDG 13 in a significant impact

Location

3 1 3 Site Quality 1

Comprehensive project brief

Site qualit 1 y

2 3 6 2

1 2 3 3

Local environment Influence on the district Transport access Access to amenities

2 TOTAL 5 6 PERCENTAGE 7

Source: Own based on DGNB Version 2018, 2018

Location Pursues sustainable transportation. Contributes with SDG 11 and 13 in a significant and moderate way Contributes to SDG 11 in a significant way. Promotes neighborhood livability and reduce emissions from transportation

Transpo rtation Location