3. Nordic approach to life cycle scenarios
Introduction to life-cycle scenario settings
The motivation to require a “life cycle GWP” in a regulatory perspective is the need to inform the market actors about the relative impact of the different parts of the building cycle in a uniform format based on the different information modules and building parts. The construction stage A1-A5, representing ‘as built’, can be evaluated by real data and does not need scenario settings for the construction stage. Although a climate declaration covering a full life cycle can never be verified by real data, scenario settings can be developed to cover the future parts on a common basis in a harmonised way. Subsequently, the influence of the person responsible for the LCA calculation is being minimised. One must be aware of the fact that the basic assumption for such a scenario setting is very simplified, where the building after the construction stage is used during an analysis period of 50 years and then assumed to be demolished, while it most likely will be rebuilt at this stage. The mandatory demolition (module C1) is not what the society aims at or what is likely to happen; it is just a simplification that describes ‘what happens if’ when such a linear life cycle is assessed (or a worst-case scenario).
By introducing an LCA covering a full life cycle, it could in theory be justified to use materials with a higher climate impact in the construction stage as part of a more durable technical solution if the overall impact is then reduced over the analysis period. This thinking is important from a regulatory perspective and as an instrument for climate improvement and understanding the overall impact. We notice that one option is to only regulate such aspects that can be verified, typically the building 'as built', or to expand, for instance, a limit value to include the full life cycle based on scenario settings. In the latter case, the rules for these scenario settings must be as precise as possible. This is to ensure that regardless of which consultant calculates the impact from the scenario-bases modules, the result remains the same. It can, of course, be disputed if a limit value should include such value bases scenario settings that cannot be verified and based on scenarios and therefore only account for A1-A5 that can be evaluated. This problem regarding limit values is dealt with in a separate project parallel to this one, and therefore not dealt with in this report.
To account for a whole building life cycle, it can always be motivated by the fact that it gives supportive information, and where there are significant aspects that affect the future scenario, these must be handled with an uncertainty assessment. The development that we can see now for construction products – that it is asked for – is that an EPD for a construction product shall include information for the full life cycle, and the wish is the possibility to reuse EPDs at the building assessment level. In reality, often only the modules A1-A3 can be controlled by the material manufacturer; in that respect, they are the only part of the life cycle where the producer can guarantee the life cycle performance. Other parts of the life cycle may vary and they are often out of the manufacturer's control. In most cases, the scenario settings for a construction product are very free to set for modules A4 to C4, which is why the information from an EPD seldom can be used as a source on the building level as it is now.
Nevertheless, the regulators would like that future so-called Product Category Rules (PCR) for a specific product group or types of construction products will be developed to include more generic applicable end-of-life scenarios. For instance, it is suggested that the EPD for modules C3-C4 and D includes a 100% scenario. In an EPD, a 100% scenario is several scenarios for C3 and A4 that can be (re)used to create any desirable waste scenario. Such user-defined scenario can be a mix on the building level based on real end-of-life data, or defined per country based on country-specific settings set by national regulators, etc. This kind of scenario setting is in accordance with the new CPR Acquis process, which describes a needed development for future regulated EPDs. Such scenarios are then typically based on European average scenario settings. Therefore, it is most likely that the market will respond by mandating material producers to define the scenario settings in the most representative way to be used in an average European context. This kind of EPD information can then be used for benchmarking with other producers of the same product type. However, it is not representative for a specific product in a specific building.
As exemplified in the CPR Acquis process, the 100% scenario approach suggested for stage C for construction products, EPDs can then, when used on the building level, easily be modified to be representative for any nation or scenario setting for any waste mix. When this text is written, the outcome from the part of the CPR Acquis process dealing with EPDs for construction products is not published. It is, however, likely that CPR Acquis defines different 100% scenarios relevant for the European averages that then can be reused on the building level and adds a mix based on these 100% alternatives per product. The prerequisite in EN 15804 (where the construction product sector’s opinions are accounted for) is that any construction products should be assessed in the context of its final intended use, which is why the final assessment is only valid in the specific project and takes the specific requirements into account. If the aim is that the EPD for construction products should support the assessment on any construction work level, the scenario has to be modular and include the background information for calculation in any scenario-based information module. If the EPD, for instance, only includes a single scenario-mix for a specific country for stage C, such results will, in practice, only be valid for benchmarking within an EPD PCR product group, but they will never be applicable to real-life conditions.
The above-mentioned scenario setting modularity and flexibility can also be achieved by reporting the data source used for the LCA calculation, rather than a fixed calculated GWP result. An advantage of this approach is that parts of the scenario settings can be regionalised or country-specific. For instance, the current biocomponent respective fossil mix used in diesel for transportation purposes in different regions or countries can easily be adjusted if the common scenario settings described the equation to achieve the GWP result, rather than only the resulting GWP figure without its underlying data. If the scenario setting for transportation is divided in different parts, such as fuel type, vehicle type, and energy use, and if all this information is reported as scenario settings for a building or part of an EPD for a construction product, such flexibility may be achieved.
One could ask if this sort of a very fine-grained scenario setting may be practical for utilising LCA tools and ensuring expeditious assessment processes on a building level. The answer is that these kinds of features are already included in most LCA tools used for buildings; if not, it will be a development that users will ask to be implemented. This kind of parameterised scenario setting, 100% modularity, will both streamline and make the calculation results more robust.
General guidance for scenario settings in the context of European legislation
The scenario settings for a whole building life cycle LCA are preferably found in commonly agreed specifications that are given in the product category rules (PCR) for buildings, namely EN 15978 and its latest version, and if relevant, also Level(s), as is referred to in the EPBD directive concerning a few aspects. Besides these more general scenario settings found in the PCR standard, complementary specifications are required if the result should be uniform. Such specifications will likely be published in a delegated act related to the EPBD directive and its mandatory climate declaration for new buildings. So far, a few specifications are known for the so-called “life cycle GWP” indicator [(kg CO2e/(m²∙y)]. It is currently known that the functional unit should be reported per useful floor area and the integrated climate impact is calculated as GWPtotal over an analysis period of 50 years. The scope of building system parts to account for in the inventory is given as listed in Level(s). Besides the so-called overall life cycle GWP indicator result covering modules A to C, it will also be needed to report B6 energy use separately and stored in national databases that will be an interconnected database within the EU (see EPBD Article 19).
There is an aim that the climate declaration for buildings shall be supported by information from environmental product declarations (EPDs) for all kind of resources used during the building’s life cycle. EPDs are based on product calculation rules for construction products, as defined in EN 15804 and its latest version. It is likely that this kind of EPD will be mandatory, and the ongoing CPR Acquis process will define how this EPD will be defined and approved. If a building climate declaration is asked for as part of a building permit, it must be based on generic data, and if a climate declaration is asked for 'as built', it can be based on specific data. When a climate declaration 'as built' is asked for, the goal is that a significant number of representative EPDs for specific products (as delivered to the construction site) shall be used. In order to report the amount of specific data used on the building level, the amount of specific data actually used in an individual EPD must also be added. This requirement to report the actual amount of specific data used in an EPD, in respect to the GWP indicator A1-3, is currently only required by one program operator, namely EPD International.
What is known about the scope of the new EPBD directive is it that there will be a climate declaration in 2028 and the limit value added to the declaration as such that will be required for all new buildings from 2030. Furthermore, by 1 January 2027, Member States must publish a roadmap detailing the introduction of limit values on the total cumulative life cycle GWP and notify this to the Commission. However, this describes the minimal level of implementation, and limit values can potentially be added to national legislation for, e.g. the construction stage (A1-A5), and be based on the same modular information that the EPBD climate declaration is comprised of. In order to ensure that GWP results will comply with set limit values, a climate declaration or mandatory complementary reporting to the climate declaration is necessary. They should be more transparent than the single-value life cycle GWP indicator mandated by the directive. This enhanced reporting is needed for facilitating limit values, particularly in scenarios where the full life cycle is not considered. Although the potential of including limit values is addressed in another project, it is worth noting that they do not necessarily have to include all building information modules and life cycle stages.
Moreover, a national limit value may require a climate declaration as part of the building permit and some may require a 'as built' climate declaration, or both. Presently, this is not defined in the EPBD directive climate declaration. The recommendations given in this report aim to provide guidance on defining scenario settings that are as representative as possible, following on a stepwise approach.
Where a simplification is possible for any scenario setting and when a European common average approach can be used as a default starting point, this will be a preferable alternative. If this is not possible, a more localised scenario is needed; such specifications can be developed by those countries that ask for this, preferably based on the same methodology approach as applied in the European scenario setting. Such a tiered approach may also – in theory at least – include specifications for a local context related to the actual building site.
Geographical representativeness
If it is possible to define commonly applicable European scenario settings for an individual information module that sufficiently captures a European geographical representativeness, this is the preferred option. If the relative importance of geographical representativeness is inferior, a common European scenario settings can still be accepted for an information module if its GWP contribution is relatively small regarding the full life cycle, modules A to C . If using a typical European average scenario setting does not provide enough accuracy, a regional alternative, such as a Nordic scenario, could be considered. Alternatively, if higher representativeness is required, national scenario settings can be defined. If national scenario settings are chosen, the same methodology used on the European level should always be the first choice.
If it is possible to define commonly applicable European scenario settings for an individual information module that sufficiently captures a European geographical representativeness, this is the preferred option. If the relative importance of geographical representativeness is inferior, a common European scenario settings can still be accepted for an information module if its GWP contribution is relatively small regarding the full life cycle, modules A to C . If using a typical European average scenario setting does not provide enough accuracy, a regional alternative, such as a Nordic scenario, could be considered. Alternatively, if higher representativeness is required, national scenario settings can be defined. If national scenario settings are chosen, the same methodology used on the European level should always be the first choice.
Technology representativeness
When default and typically generic GWP data is developed and published to be used in any information module, the aim is to also disclose the reference flow or recipe used to calculate these GWP results. This transparency supports the modification and enhancement of the GWP data for better national representation. This approach will also support and simplify the update of the GWP data published. Furthermore, this approach simplifies data updates and allows for more specific data usage when necessary. If appropriate, different aspects of the reference flow or recipe can be parameterisation in a machine-readable format, aiding the digitalisation and streamlining of national and site-specific adaptations based on generic data settings.
When default and typically generic GWP data is developed and published to be used in any information module, the aim is to also disclose the reference flow or recipe used to calculate these GWP results. This transparency supports the modification and enhancement of the GWP data for better national representation. This approach will also support and simplify the update of the GWP data published. Furthermore, this approach simplifies data updates and allows for more specific data usage when necessary. If appropriate, different aspects of the reference flow or recipe can be parameterisation in a machine-readable format, aiding the digitalisation and streamlining of national and site-specific adaptations based on generic data settings.
Time representativeness
The aim of climate declaration and its “life cycle GWP” indicator is to support climate mitigation and decarbonisation strategies. Considering the uncertainties that are related to a scenario fifty years into the future, we propose simplifying scenario settings by using a three-point method. We also suggest that, if possible, those national scenarios should be found on sources that are an outcome from any common EC-related work or statistics. This method describes: 1) the present situation, 2) a future situation based on long-term forecasts, and 3) thereafter a constant development until the 50-year reference service life ends. These scenarios can be commonly defined based on a European average or national scenario, and as an extreme for a local district heating net, etc.
The aim of climate declaration and its “life cycle GWP” indicator is to support climate mitigation and decarbonisation strategies. Considering the uncertainties that are related to a scenario fifty years into the future, we propose simplifying scenario settings by using a three-point method. We also suggest that, if possible, those national scenarios should be found on sources that are an outcome from any common EC-related work or statistics. This method describes: 1) the present situation, 2) a future situation based on long-term forecasts, and 3) thereafter a constant development until the 50-year reference service life ends. These scenarios can be commonly defined based on a European average or national scenario, and as an extreme for a local district heating net, etc.
Specific data
When a building climate declaration is required as built or when it is used as a basis for a limit value, the amount of specific data should be as large as possible to accurately represent the actual building. EPDs do not always provide 100% specific data, so this information needs to be added to the current EPD rules if the declaration shall serve its legislative purpose. An EC regulator cannot achieve this if an additional data quality requirement is introduced for EPDs for construction products (and its delegated act), as it is not covered in EN 15804 or in the supplementary data quality standard EN 15941. When such a data quality indicator is available on product level EPDs, it can be used to calculate data at the building level, typically for the construction stage A1-5. This is also essential for using LCA data in fair procurement processes.
A indicative achievable amount of specific data A1-5 based on the EPD is currently at least 60% (fulfilled by less EPDs for less than five product groups), and if a mandatory EPD will be required for all construction products in the future, it should be more than 90% specific data for a realistic figure.
When a building climate declaration is required as built or when it is used as a basis for a limit value, the amount of specific data should be as large as possible to accurately represent the actual building. EPDs do not always provide 100% specific data, so this information needs to be added to the current EPD rules if the declaration shall serve its legislative purpose. An EC regulator cannot achieve this if an additional data quality requirement is introduced for EPDs for construction products (and its delegated act), as it is not covered in EN 15804 or in the supplementary data quality standard EN 15941. When such a data quality indicator is available on product level EPDs, it can be used to calculate data at the building level, typically for the construction stage A1-5. This is also essential for using LCA data in fair procurement processes.
A indicative achievable amount of specific data A1-5 based on the EPD is currently at least 60% (fulfilled by less EPDs for less than five product groups), and if a mandatory EPD will be required for all construction products in the future, it should be more than 90% specific data for a realistic figure.
Transparent reporting
To compare the building climate declaration result in an EC common way across different buildings with more details than what is required in EN 15978 and Level(s), a common classification system is needed. This can be limited to a matric limited to A1-5 but it is likely better for the full life cycle A to C. It is recommended to divide the GWP indicator result per information module, with only A1-3 being merged. This impact can then be reported per building part and further into building element types, which is crucial for a proper and fair supervision. Additionally, climate declaration reports should transparently divide the result into internationally or European agreed building parts and potentially building elements. This kind of granularity result supports the comparison and benchmarking across countries and is needed for supervision. The new EPBD directive requires a digital logbook that could constitute the basis for a more transparent and detailed reporting format. It shall however be noticed that this granularity reporting based on a building classification system is not required as part of the climate declaration as such. However, it is noticed that it will be the case if/when the building digital logbook shall be established, as outlined in the EPBD directive. This kind of digital logbook is then voluntary: “…if these apply in the relevant Member State” (see EPBD Annex V).
To compare the building climate declaration result in an EC common way across different buildings with more details than what is required in EN 15978 and Level(s), a common classification system is needed. This can be limited to a matric limited to A1-5 but it is likely better for the full life cycle A to C. It is recommended to divide the GWP indicator result per information module, with only A1-3 being merged. This impact can then be reported per building part and further into building element types, which is crucial for a proper and fair supervision. Additionally, climate declaration reports should transparently divide the result into internationally or European agreed building parts and potentially building elements. This kind of granularity result supports the comparison and benchmarking across countries and is needed for supervision. The new EPBD directive requires a digital logbook that could constitute the basis for a more transparent and detailed reporting format. It shall however be noticed that this granularity reporting based on a building classification system is not required as part of the climate declaration as such. However, it is noticed that it will be the case if/when the building digital logbook shall be established, as outlined in the EPBD directive. This kind of digital logbook is then voluntary: “…if these apply in the relevant Member State” (see EPBD Annex V).
If the climate declaration, according to the EPBD directive, is also intended to be used as a source for any limit value not based on the full life cycle from A to C, a complementary report is needed where the LCA result is reported at least module by module.
In brief, scenario settings should be based on the following principals: 1) cut off and reporting voluntary, 2) tiered approach, 3) parametrisation, and 4) 100% modular information, which can be elaborated below.
- Such modules, or part of the scope of a module that is of minor interest in a life cycle's perspective, or regarded through a regularity perspective not relevant for inclusion in the declaration can be handled as a cut off, but it should always be possible to report on voluntary bases to support all parts of EN 15978.
- A tiered approach means that the first solution is a simplified method that can also be motivated that its overall impact is low, and if needed, replaced by a more detailed method if significant. Note that if the life cycle stages A4 and A5 are part of the climate declaration as a building permit, this could also be justified based on the data gap.
- Instead of a fix, the GWP shall, whenever possible, be found on data sources of parametrisation. This supports flexibility and transparency, and makes it easier to make specific adjustments if wanted. See transport A4 as an example.
- The 100% modular approach is a suggestion that is recommended when alternatives exist, such as in C3-4 (and D).
Current climate declaration reporting scope, country by country
Scope of life cycle stage and module
The table below is based on information from the authorities that work with this matter in their respective country. In many countries, this information is continuously updated, and the table below shows the status of February 2024.
Module | Finland | Denmark | Norway | Sweden | Iceland | Estonia |
A1-A3: Product phase | O | X | X | X | O | O |
A4: Transport | O | O1) | X | X | O | O |
A5 Construction process, Waste | O | O1) | X2) | X2) | O | O2) |
A5 Construction process, Energy | O | O1) | - | X | O | O |
B1 Use | - | - | - | - | - | - |
B2 Maintenance | - | - | X | O | - | - |
B3 Repair | - | - | - | - | - | - |
B4 Replacement | O | X | X | O | O | O |
B5 Refurbishment | - | - | - | - | - | - |
B6 Operational energy use | O | X | - | O | O | O |
B7 Operational water use | - | - | - | - | - | - |
C1 Deconstruction, demolition | O | - | - | O | O | O |
C2 Transport | O | - | - | O | O | O |
C3 Waste processing | O | X | - | O | O | O |
C4 Disposal | O | X | - | O | O | O |
D Re-use, recovery, recycling potential | O | X | - | - | O | - |
Limit value stage, scope | O: A to C | O: A to C | O: A1-5 | O: A1-5 | - | - |
Table 2 Modules in the normative building LCA in Finland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, and Estonia.
X = included in the regulation,
O = suggested or planned but not decided or in force yet
X = included in the regulation,
O = suggested or planned but not decided or in force yet
- A report related to the legislation suggests the inclusion of module A4-A5 in the Danish legislation (Kanafani, Magnes, Garnow, Lindhard, & Balouktsi, 2023).
- Regarding materials that become waste during construction, only the emissions from production and transport to the construction site are included. Emissions related to the waste management of these materials are excluded.
More detailed information on the respective information modules is found below in regard to how a module is implemented nationally. The scope and methodology for each information module is given in their respective sections, including recommendations for future common implementations.
Scope of building elements
Both the EU Taxonomy criteria for climate mitigation in new construction and the EPBD directive refer to Level(s) as the primary method to define the inventory scope for a building’s climate declaration (see Table 3). The listed “building parts” are not based on a formal classification system and only used to define the scope of the building parts to consider in the inventory.
The conceptual approach of listing different subsets parts and elements of the physical building (or in a worst case on the resource level) to describe an inventory scope can be very problematic if not all elements are clearly defined. Therefore, a nationally applied classification system is normally used for this purpose. Refer to the section 'Use of a common classification system in the context of building LCA', where we suggest an improved implementation in which an internationally recognised classification system is recommended to be used instead. A pragmatic interpretation of the Level(s) inventory scope table for decarbonising buildings is that it can be simplified, where the inventory scope of the physical building is defined by the boundary to its surroundings as:
An operation subdivision of the Level(s) scope table is to divide the building into, e.g. 1) Foundation, 2) Superstructure, 3) Core, and 3) External works.
all building elements above the drainage layer are accounted for as part of the building climate declaration.
For recommendations on how standardised classification can be made on a system level, refer to the section 'Use of a common classification system in the context of building LCA'. This section also outlines when a national system may be used, for instance, for supervision.
Building parts | Related building elements |
Shell (substructure and superstructure) | |
Foundations (substructure) | Piles Basements Retaining walls |
Load bearing structural frame | Frame (beams, columns, and slabs) Upper floors External walls Balconies |
Non-load bearing elements | Ground floor slab Internal walls, partitions, and doors Stairs and ramps |
Facades | External wall systems, cladding and shading devices Façade openings (including windows and external doors) External paints, coatings and renders |
Roof | Structure Weatherproofing |
Parking facilities | Above ground and underground (within the curtilage of the building and servicing the building occupiers)1) |
Core (fittings, furnishings and services) | |
Fittings and furnishings | Sanitary fittings Cupboards, wardrobes, and worktops (where provided in a residential property) Ceilings Wall and ceiling finishes Floor coverings and finishes |
In-built lighting system | Light fittings Control systems and sensors |
Energy system | Heating plant and distribution Cooling plant and distribution Electricity generation and distribution |
Ventilation system | Air handling units Ductwork and distribution |
Sanitary systems | Cold water distribution Hot water distribution Water treatment systems Drainage system |
Other systems | Lifts and escalators Firefighting installations Communication and security installations Telecoms and data installations |
External works | |
Utilities | Connections and diversions Substations and equipment |
Landscaping | Paving and other hard surfacing Fencing, railings and walls Drainage systems |
1) If the share of underground car parking (usable area plus traffic area) area accounts for more than 25% of the total useful floor area, the traffic area of the underground parking must be subtracted from the total useful floor area. | |
Table 3 Minimum scope of building parts and elements according to Level(s).
Since the EPBD directive only covers the building, external works can be considered to be excluded from the inventory scope of the EPBD climate declaration. Then, it might be necessary to simplify the inventory work. As in all LCAs, approximating with zero when a data gap exists is the worst approximation. Therefore, any building elements or systems excluded from a comprehensive building inventory shall not be set to a zero value, but rather handled with a default proxy figure.
European level
The system boundary between the surroundings and the building inventory scope is suggested to account for all building elements above the drainage layer.
The system boundary between the surroundings and the building inventory scope is suggested to account for all building elements above the drainage layer.
National level
Depending on the national status and experience with accounting for and calculating the GWP, simplifications to this scope may be needed; for instance, one or several building elements may be replaced with default figures instead of a detailed inventory of all resources used in the construction stage A1-5. These default figures should be conservative to support an assessment using specific data (as optional), and it is likely that default values will need to be provided for different archetypes to enhance representation. It is preferable to have a nationally-regulated establishment of a mapping of these simplifications to an existing classification system. It is then required to list the GWP data for those listed building elements that are handled in a simplified way by using default data, which optionally can be replaced with a full inventory and specific data.
Depending on the national status and experience with accounting for and calculating the GWP, simplifications to this scope may be needed; for instance, one or several building elements may be replaced with default figures instead of a detailed inventory of all resources used in the construction stage A1-5. These default figures should be conservative to support an assessment using specific data (as optional), and it is likely that default values will need to be provided for different archetypes to enhance representation. It is preferable to have a nationally-regulated establishment of a mapping of these simplifications to an existing classification system. It is then required to list the GWP data for those listed building elements that are handled in a simplified way by using default data, which optionally can be replaced with a full inventory and specific data.
Reporting of results and supervision/auditing
Energy performance certificate
When considering the reporting of the life-cycle GWP indicator in accordance with the new EPBD directive, it is, in its most aggregated form, handled as a single indicator result for a specific building and made available to the public as part of the energy and climate declaration. The building ‘climate declaration’ and its life-cycle GWP indicator result is formally a part of the EPBD energy certificate, expressed as kg CO2e/m2 (of the useful floor area), for each life-cycle stage and averaged for one year of a reference study period of 50 years. The division of the result “for each life-cycle stage” is just mentioned once in the EPBD (see Annex III, 1a), and can be interpreted as the result that shall be subdivided in stage A Construction stage, B Usage stage, and C End-of-life stage. Besides a mandatory limit value for the full life cycle, it is possible that individual countries also require a limit value for those parts that can be evaluated by real data. This is a suggested approach for at least Swedish and Norwegian legislation.
The basic methodology to use and the building’s full life cycle covered is referred to as stage A, B, and C, which is defined in the category rules in the standard EN 15978:2011. This methodology for buildings is coordinated and in line with the product category rules for all construction products and services EN 15804: 2012:A1+2019:A2, and based on a mandate related to Construction Product Regulation (CPR). These life cycle stages are further divided in information modules (see Figure 1), including the introduction of new sub-modules. The LCA methodology that is considered here is based on a draft of the new version of EN 15978. The delegated act regarding EPBD will be launched in December 2025; when writing this document, the new version of EN 15978 will most likely be published and therefore the latest version to refer to (when referred to) in the delegated act.
Figure 1 Life cycle stages and modular information used to divide the LCA result in different common parts as a basis for the building assessment (prEN 15978).
The life cycle GWP indicator result shall be calculated and disclosed through the energy performance certificate of the building; as of 1 January 2028, it will be required for all new buildings with a useful floor area larger than 1000 square meters, and as of 1 January 2030, for all new buildings. Besides the requirement for new buildings, there is one requirement for deeply-renovated existing buildings to declare the life-cycle GWP indicator (EPBD), formulated as:
“Member States may define an A+ energy performance class corresponding to buildings with a maximum threshold for energy demand which is at least twenty percent lower than the maximum threshold for zero-emission buildings, and which generates more renewable energy on-site annually than its total annual primary energy demand. For existing buildings renovated to A+ class, Member States shall ensure that the life-cycle Global Warming Potential (GWP) is estimated and disclosed through the energy performance certificate of the building. … … The data stored shall be machine-readable and accessible via an appropriate digital interface. … … The public information shall be updated at least twice per year”.
It shall be noticed that concerning a rebuilding/(deep) renovation/refurbishment, EN 15978 states: “the environmental impacts and aspects of the production of the refurbishment materials and reconstruction/ installation processes are allocated to modules A1 to A5”. In practice, this means that a refurbishment, when the function of the building is upgraded, is methodologically comparable with a new building, which is why, for instance, a limit value could theoretically be the same for rebuilding existing ones and new buildings. If so, this kind of implementation of a building's climate declaration would then really support circularity, where the environmental gain with rebuilding is visual compared to a new building.
Other exceptions where reporting a certificate according to the EPBD (Article 5) directive is not needed are:
- small buildings less than 50 m2,
- temporary buildings,
- buildings for defence purposes, buildings used as places of worship and for religious activities, and
- residential buildings, which are intended to be used less than four months of the year.
All individual building certificates will (see, e.g. Article 19) be published in a database established by each member state, which allows data to be gathered on the performance of individual buildings and on the overall performance of the national building stock.
Moreover, the Commission states (Article 7.5): “By 1 January 2027, Member States shall publish and notify to the Commission a roadmap detailing the introduction of limit values on the total cumulative life cycle GWP of all new buildings and set targets for new buildings from 2030, considering a progressive downward trend, as well as maximum limit values, detailed for different climatic zones and building typologies”. When these limit values are in force, the building life-cycle GWP performance will be complemented with such limit value(s).
Other indicator results that are found in the EPBD that may be reported if decided on a national basis are:
- “Information on carbon removals associated to the temporary storage of carbon in or on buildings”. See Annex 5 for how a definition of sustainable forestry supports this approach.
- In addition to primary energy use, additional indicators of non-renewable and renewable primary energy use, and of operational greenhouse gas emissions produced in kgCO2eq/(m2.y).
- Moreover, it is explained that “in order to populate the database, building typologies may also be gathered. Data may also be gathered and stored on both operational and embodied emissions and overall life cycle GWP”.
- The new EPBD also addresses a ‘digital building logbook’ that means “… a common repository for all relevant building data, including data related to energy performance such as energy performance certificates, renovation passports and smart readiness indicators, as well as on the life cycle GWP, which facilitates informed decision making and information sharing within the construction sector, among building owners and occupants, financial institutions and public bodies”.
If a digital log book is introduced, it is assumed that it will follow the same so-called data template approach (ISO 12006-3, ISO 23387) that is outlined for the Taxonomy log book, the Digital Product Passport, and the performance declaration according to the new Construction Product Regulation (CPR) (see section 'Machine readable EPD and LCA data adopted to BIM'). The digital format for reporting the GWP/LCA result of a building declaration should be aligned with an extended version of the data template format for EPDs (ISO 22057) valid for construction products adopted for buildings. This requires forthcoming standardisation work, which can start when prEN 15978 is approved and published.
If there are additional reports for supervision, it is required in a national implementation to report with a higher granularity than the single life-cycle GWP indicator result. Such more detailed reports will typically be divided:
- by the life cycle stage and its underlying information module.
- per building part, preferably based on a European common building classification system (see Annex 3).
- in a kg CO2e per m2 or m3 building element type that allows artificial intelligence (AI) to support the review of the digitally supplied LCA result and its underlying data used for proper supervision, especially when a limit value is introduced (see argumentation in Boverket 2023
It shall follow an international harmonised classification system and building parts that are about the same, as given in prEN 15978. Such a common classification system like IEC/ISO 81346 is recommended, which covers about the same “building system”, as outlined in EN 15978. Mapping based on this premise is made (in this project) to ICMS Level(s) and other national applied systems (see annex 3).
European level
The EPBD building certificate sets the mandatory minimum required reporting and a harmonised way to calculate the climate potential impact from buildings. The directive includes several optional indicators to report in the certificate related to its climate impact (see list above).
The EPBD building certificate sets the mandatory minimum required reporting and a harmonised way to calculate the climate potential impact from buildings. The directive includes several optional indicators to report in the certificate related to its climate impact (see list above).
National level
Based on the same source of information gathered for the EPBD energy certificate and its life cycle GWP indicator, it is assumed that Member States are free to add national additional requirements after the notification. It is assumed that supervision will be decided in each nation, and that an increased granularity of the GWP indicator result is then needed to secure a fair competition. Additional aspects and requirements might therefore be:
Based on the same source of information gathered for the EPBD energy certificate and its life cycle GWP indicator, it is assumed that Member States are free to add national additional requirements after the notification. It is assumed that supervision will be decided in each nation, and that an increased granularity of the GWP indicator result is then needed to secure a fair competition. Additional aspects and requirements might therefore be:
- Additional limit values for a building type restricted to the verifiable part of the lifecycle, namely the construction stage A1-A5, or with other words, the GWP result ‘as built’. It is noticed that this result on individual buildings can be added up to the national result, which, for instance, can be used for quantifying the yearly GWP contribution from all new building added to the building stock, and to follow the decarbonisation trend for the construction of buildings. Note that such indicator results must be found on the GWP-GHG
- A data quality indicator that specifies the amount of real primary data used in the calculation of the building 'as built' (module A1-A5). A representative life-cycle GWP performance indicator result requires a high amount of such primary data, and can only be achieved by using EPDs from the specific deliverer of a construction product that is delivered to the construction site. One can also consider the aimed data quality of the GWP declaration needs to be increased when limit values are introduced. The increased data quality must also support the use of as much specific data as possible; it also must partly allow generic data where the specific data is not realistic or cost-effective to be considered, such as emissions from different types of vehicles that in this context can be considered specific if it is parametrised sufficiently (see Table 4).
- Additional aspects related to the building and its surroundings, such as adding an optional-life-cycle indicator for the earthwork made for a specific building, and/or the impact from vegetation on the building spot before its exploration and development in the nearest 50 years (see Annex 4 for an example of such calculation methods).
- The EC common way to describe the inventory scope of mandatory building parts to be included for the building parts and its underlying building elements should be found on the common internationally-identified classification system, i.e. IEC/ISO 81346. The same classification can then be used if national implementation is required to divide the life-cycle GWP indicator result into different building system parts as part of the supervision and/or as part of the additional limit value for the construction stage A1-5).
- In the long run, it is recommended that instead of different national classification systems, a free-to-use European classification system based on IEC/ISO 81346 should be established. It should be noticed that further development is then needed, since the current IEC/ISO 81346 series do not include a granularity for ‘construction element type’, where the materials used in a construction element are typically accounted for. Such granularity is essential and there is a need for digitalised cost-effective supervision, since the amount construction product data that is part of the integrated life-cycle GWP supervision may cover several tens of thousands of data rows.
Aspects related to supervision
The trust of the certificate must be supported by supervision (auditing). The importance of establishing cost-effective and sufficient supervision is something that is not fully developed for today's building climate declaration (in countries and certification systems that act as a frontrunner here). It is notable that the need for supervision will increase when limit values are launched to support a fair comparison and free competition.13 It is likely that requirements will be partly included in the delegated act that is supposed to publish in December 2025.
The basis for supervision requires that a complete bill of recourses (BoR)
Bill of Material (BoM) is often limited to the amount of materials within a building, meaning that waste generated in the construction and installation process is not accounted as different services or processes used to achieve the construction results. Therefore, the term 'Bill of Resources' is used instead to indicate all kind of resources and wasted parts of the construction products delivered to the construction site.
The development of the Swedish implementation of PEPPOL can be followed here: https://byggforetagen.se/miljodata-nu/.
It shall be noticed that the BoR reflects the data used as input for the LCA calculation and differs from the final LCA data that describes the result of a building LCA calculation. In order to digitalise the work, there is therefore a need for common digitalised formats to communicate:
- the export of the final LCA result and necessary documentation related to this, which is typically part of the public declaration (see section above).
- the BoR used for the LCA calculation and the documentation on the data and scenario setting used, which is typically used for supervision (or auditing if it is a building classification system).
A digital machine-readable specification already exists for the communication of EPD and LCA data, to be implemented in BIM, for all kind of construction products and services. This format is based on the so-called data template approach ISO 22057 (see section; Machine readable EPD and LCA data adopted to BIM), and it can be elaborated further to be used for buildings found on EN 15978. Such a new working item proposal is supposed to be worked out by ISO TC 59 WG in the spring of 2024. The development of such a digital communication format that is applicable for buildings according to the new updated EN 15978, will, for instance, include other so-called ‘group of properties’ to partly report other documentation requirements related to modules A4 to D than what is found in ISO 22057:2019. Moreover, the new EN15978 includes more information modules than what is found in EN 15804. There is no such format for the BoR for construction works like an established building, and this needs further development. When the data template is developed for any building system, it should be found on the information model like ISO 12600-2, and when implemented in a webservice (API) and as a stand-alone file (e.g. based on JSON) for construction works, the format should follow the structure and schema given in, e.g. ISO 12006-3.
As part of the supervision, in order to digitally validate numerical values from building system parts, it is needed to introduce a classification system to which a ‘building element type’ is grouped into. Then, to create a key performance indicator (KPI) per ‘construction element type’ that can be used to evaluate if the specific reported value for a building element type can be compared to the statistic normal value, a common reference unit is needed. This use of a classification system is further elaborated in the section ‘Standardised building classification’.
European level
There is a need to support the supervision of EPBD building certificates. Parts of this supervision can be harmonised in a European way by developing a digital format for: 1) reporting the GWP result, and 2) documenting the source data used for the calculation of the GWP result.
There is a need to support the supervision of EPBD building certificates. Parts of this supervision can be harmonised in a European way by developing a digital format for: 1) reporting the GWP result, and 2) documenting the source data used for the calculation of the GWP result.
National level
National additions can be added to a common digital format related to the life-cycle GWP, and when the same addition is required in several countries, these additions shall also be subject for harmonisation.
National additions can be added to a common digital format related to the life-cycle GWP, and when the same addition is required in several countries, these additions shall also be subject for harmonisation.
When limit values are launched, proper supervision is required where the building classification is also reported with a high granularity on the element type. Today, this is, for practical reasons, only possible to use national classification systems that are already in use. With such a development where the KPI is created by sampling statistic information on reporter certificates, a benchmarking can be made that can, if implemented, support verification on the numerical GWP value for individual building parts and thereby strengthen a fair comparison and competition.
Basis for setting a reference study period (RSP)
In brief, it can be found that a common generic reference study period (RSP) needs to be defined for modules B and C to make comparisons possible between different individual buildings. EN 15978 does not suggest any RSP.
In theory, the specification of the minimum technical lifespan of a building can be different based on the client’s brief. However, this kind of a basic durability aspect is normally in line with the minimal requirements given in the building code, which often uses 50 years for load-bearing structures or other essential parts of the building construction.
For some buildings, the actual lifespan is much longer than this theoretically-based lifespan of 50 years used in LCA calculations. For example, buildings are being rebuilt to perform and fulfil the tenants’ need for the modernisation and implementation of cost-effective improvements. Also, rebuilding and making use of the existing built environment supports circularity. However, the current evaluation method in EN 15978 has a linear approach, assessing buildings as they are built, used, and then always demolished, instead of being rebuilt and transformed into competitive “new” buildings. While we acknowledge this issue, we do not present any solutions in this first generation of a common whole life cycle climate declaration, but for future developments.
Based on the argument given above, a reasonable approach to define the RSP is to instead consider a longer life cycle that covers the initial use of a building before it is rebuilt. Subsequently, the assessment of rebuilding an existing building can then be done in the same way and compared to the climate declarations for new buildings. In this context, 50 years seem reasonable.
We can then view the End-of-life (EoL) stage as a theoretical added scenario that is attributed to the whole life cycle assessment of a building as a conservative approach. This stage C will also indicate the relative importance between different stages assessed from A to C. Module D then indicates the environmental benefits of different recycling routes.
It is suggested here that an RSP of 50 years is used for all architypes, and that it reflects the time span when a building needs to be rebuilt and modernised.
Future scenarios for decarbonisation in modules B and C
The objective of decarbonisation is to eliminate our carbon dioxide emissions. The ultimate target is to achieve carbon neutrality, meaning a greenhouse gas (GHG) concentration as low as the natural concentration in the atmosphere before human intervention. This section presents a concept to include future decarbonisation scenarios in the assessment. Although the scenarios will not be correct, we need to produce estimations as best as possible to create a decision supported with our current knowledge. To reflect the uncertainty of estimating what will happen 50 years into the future, we will use a simplified three-point-scenario method (see Figure 3).
The decarbonisation scenario is divided into two categories, the energy sector and all sectors. The energy scenario is used when calculating B6, and the other scenario is used to assess a decarbonisation scenario for all resources used by the building throughout its life cycle.
It shall be noticed that the three-point-scenario method results in a decarbonisation (scenario) factor for each year that will be multiplied by the GWP indicator result that is representative for any resource used in the building sector today. However, when calculating the future climate impact from the use of products with inherent carbon (fossil as biogenic), this factor shall not be applied. In practice, this means that the following emissions shall not be multiplied by the decarbonisation factor:
- Biogenic carbon sequestration and storage in the product and its release or accounting for the next product system in the end of life.
- Fossil emissions in the end of life from combustion, etc.
- Uptake of carbon dioxide by carbonisation in cementitious or other pozzolan materials.
The consequences of these exceptions listed above are that those emissions must be handled and separately reported in the LCA tool in order to be accounted for in a correct manner in the LCA calculation tool. This also affect how generic databases are structured, as well as reporting requirements for the EPD, where the minimum requirement is that:
- Future EPDs must report the amount of carbon stored in the product.
Currently, this is only required for biogenic materials, and this has to be considered in the CPR Acquis process settings, the standard for future EPDs for construction products and future updates of EN 15804.
The decarbonisation of the energy system, as well as the shift to a more renewable energy source, will affect the climate impact from the use of materials and products in the future. In other words, the impact from the energy use and material and product use will likely decrease. Therefore, decarbonisation scenarios are applied not only for B6 but also for B1.2-B5, B7, and C1-C4.
There is an ongoing discussion of how to include the expected decarbonisation of the energy system into the assessment. Finland
A new emission factor report from Denmark is published, which is expected to be used from 2025: https://sbst.dk/udgivelser/2023/emissionsfaktorer-for-el-fjernvarme-og-ledningsgas-2025-2075.
In prEN 15978, a dynamic approach may be used even if a static approach remains the default approach, since the standard prioritises verifiable information that require Business as Usual, BAU, which is the classical approach used in the EPD. Furthermore, prEN 15978 suggests that where a specific approach is dictated (from relevant international, national, or regional regulations), these shall be used.
The future scenarios by Finland
With existing measures (WEM), with additional measures (WAM)
After evaluation, the chosen scenarios are from EU Prime due to the availability of scenarios being presented as intensity scenarios. In other words, the CO2 is presented per energy unit (kWh or toe). The EU Reference Scenario 2020 is the baseline scenario to assess the options informing the policy initiatives in the European Green Deal package adopted by the European Commission.
Figure 2 Simplified scenario for decarbonisation based on EU Prime and for comparison with other references. the result from EEA is also illustrated.
Given the unpredictability of future scenarios, a simplified approach is recommended to avoid implying a greater level of predictability beyond our actual knowledge. The simplified three-point-scenario approach uses a starting value from when the building is taken into operation and a linear interpolation is then applied to the last year of the data from a chosen scenario (e.g. 2050); after this, the value is constant (see Figure 3).
Figure 3 The simplified three-point-scenario method defines a decarbonisation scenario, using linear interpolation resulting in yearly decarbonisation factors used in combination with GWP values that are valid today.
The recommendation for a decarbonisation scenario is that a dynamic approach shall be used, meaning that the decarbonisation of grid energy will be taken into account. For simplicity, and since the future is impossible to predict, it is recommended to use a simplified three-point-method scenario approach. Furthermore, a minimum of one scenario shall be applied; the scenario should be a WEM or WAM scenario where WEM is the preferred choice. However, if a national/local energy scenario exists, this can be used and reported as additional information.
The recommended scenario is presented under each section below.
Decarbonisation scenario for B1.2-B5, B7 and C1-C4
For simplicity, one scenario is presented for B1.2-B5, B7 and C1-C4 that shall be applied for all resources except energy use in B6. The scenario shall not be applied for the carbonisation of concrete and built-in carbon, such as biogenic carbon or carbon stored, in e.g. plastic that is released in C3/C4. The suggested scenario is EU Prime and Total GHG emissions, excl. international excl. LULUCF (see .Table 4 and Figure 4). The scenario is based on an absolute reduction of GWP in the specific country and/or EU. A national approach is preferred to be in line with general LCA methodology, and a national absolute value is assumed to better reflect the change in the climate impact from material usage over time.
National/EU | Scenario | Intensity/territorial | System boundary |
National | EU Prime 2020 Total GHG emissions, excl. international excl. | Territorial | All sectors |
Table 4 Studied decarbonisation scenario for all resources except energy in B6, intensity/territorial, and system boundary.
Figure 4 Decarbonisation scenario for all resources except energy in B6, EU Prime 2020, for Sweden and the EU.
The recommended scenario is the simplified three-point-method scenario approach based on country-specific data from EU Prime, given under the heading “Total GHG emissions, excl. international excl. LULUCF for the specific country”, and if a national scenario is not available, the EU scenario shall be used.
If a national/local energy scenario(s) exists, these can be used and reported as additional information.
Decarbonisation scenario for B6
The chosen scenario for B6 is presented in Table 5 and plotted in Figure 5. The scenario plotted is an example for Sweden. For B6, an intensity scenario is assumed to best reflect the change for the energy system over time, which was only available in EU Prime. Furthermore, the residential scenario is chosen since it covers only the development in the residential sector.
Figure 5 Scenario for decarbonisation of energy use in B6 according to EU Prime 2020 and the three-point-method, Sweden.
National/EU | Scenario | Intensity/territorial | System boundary |
National | EU Prime 2020 Residential | Intensity* | Energy use in real-estate |
*CO2e per energy unit | |||
Table 5 Studied decarbonisation scenario energy use in B6, intensity/territorial, and system boundary.
The recommended scenario for B6 is a simplified approach to the EU Prime residential scenario.
If a national/local energy scenario(s) exists, these can be used and reported as additional information. The energy mix used as the default is the national grid mix. This double reporting is motivated since it can make a remarkable difference, and by the requirement to always report, the result based on a commonly agreed scenario comparability is achieved.
As built or as part of a building permit – module A1-A5
From a legal perspective, the climate declaration can be asked for as part of the building permit or 'as built' and part of the final part of the building permit process, or required to be reported on both occasions. When a limit value is required, it will force the market to make several GWP calculations in the early design in order to evaluate if the limit values will be fulfilled as built or not; if so, to take action so that the limit value is fulfilled. A validation, which will confirm that the GWP value calculated from the building permit is fulfilled as built, should be part of the supervision. It is worth noting that from a legal perspective, it should be enough to only ask for the climate declaration as built. It is only the construction stage that can be evaluated as built and the remaining parts of the life cycle will aways be scenario-based.
A1-A3 Product stage
The GWP result from the product stage will be found on generic data that is to be used, as required by the regulators. All countries that are part of the evaluation have specified what data shall be used (see section Common approach for definition of typical cradle-to-gate values'). Generic national representative GWP data on at least high-volume construction products must be advised (typically 80% of GWP-GHG A1-5) and publicly available for free and collected in a GWP database.
In order to have a GWP indicator result that reflects the actual building as built, there is a need to use a significantly high amount of specific GWP data on resources used during the construction stage. The new EPBD directive stresses (Annex I): “Where product-specific regulations for energy-related products adopted under Regulation 2009/125/EC include specific product information requirements for the purpose of the calculation of energy performance and life cycle GWP under this Directive, national calculation methods shall not require additional information”. It is likely that the intention with this text is that there will be no place for an individual country to require additional requirements on the product level to be used for a building climate declaration. In the new EPBD as such, there is no indication of a certain amount of specific data that is required for the GWP indicator to make the result for module A1-3 as specific and representative as possible. It is likely that such requirement is possible to be defined in the delegated act in 2025 if the Construction Products Regulation (CPR) will be in force and would make such requirements possible. Thereby, the ongoing work in the CPR Acquis process is important and considered in this report.
A4 Transport to the building site
A4 includes the transport of materials, products, equipment, and services to the site. This includes all transport from the factory gate to the construction site, including the return journeys, intermediate storage, and distribution. It also includes the impacts and aspects related to losses due to the transport (EN 15978, EN 15804).
In the Swedish database, a generic transport scenario is defined for each individual building material that typically consists of one last mile and then an additional distance to the average manufacturer. To simplify the approach and improve the comparison across different materials, this last transport leg is always given as a recalculated value for an “equivalent” lorry transport. When the declaration is reported for as built, it is possible to use the actual transport (if proof is provided).
There are two approaches used in Finland. The first is a calculation via the mode of transport, mass and distance, using the GWP indicators for ships, trains, trailers, etc. (kg CO2e/tonne km) in the database. The second is a proxy method where A4 is simplified to a default GWP figure per m2 building. This GWP figure is based on statistical data and earlier research results. In the updated climate declaration representing ‘as built’, one could either use specific data for A4 calculation or utilise the table values.
Although A4 is currently excluded in the Danish legislation, a published supporting report
In the Norwegian climate declaration, a simplified approach is also applied where the transport within Norway is assumed to be 300 km to the construction site, except for concrete that is set to 50 km. For imported construction materials, transports to Norway should be added. For specific materials that have an EPD (as built), the transport value from the EPD can be used but with an adjusted transport distance: As an alternative to the EPD and for specific calculations, a transport calculator on the website lca.no can be used. In this GWP calculator, lorry transport is defined by a Euro 5 truck 16 - 32 tons with a 50% filling rate as the default, but GWP calculations can also be performed with actual transport distances and modes of transport.
In prEN 15978, it is noted by referring to EN 15941 that “… the transport and installation scenarios proposed at the building level do not follow those given in EPD, the scenarios for the construction of the building take precedence over the product or system specific data provided in EPD which are adapted or the impacts and aspects are calculated accordingly using other data, ...”.
The goal with the CPR Acquis process and its new approach for EPDs is that they shall create a basis for information on a construction product level that, if possible, the EPD-based scenario information can be reused on the building or any construction works level, or at least partly.
A common set of parameters is therefore needed to digitalise and increase the transparency for transport scenarios used in the GWP calculations and the building declaration. One should observe that this parametrisation approach can be used in combination of any of these simplified approaches listed above. A transport scenario normally consists of several transportation legs and a default value is typically defined by the regulators - if not, in the future EPD based on the CPR Acquis process. We therefore assume that in an EPD, several so-called 100% scenario will be reported. It is suggested here that each individual transport scenario alternative is named, documented what it is representative for, and reported for 100 km, and all its underlying transport legs are communicated in the digital version of the EPD (ISO 22057 is currently developed to allow this digitalisation).
To support this development is a parametrisation and 100% scenario approach, which is developed here. This approach follows EN 15804 (as defined in Table 6) and its transparency in reporting, except that the energy use given per litre of fuel is obsolete since it not a generic approach. Instead, the energy use is suggested to be given as MJ per ton and km. The generic approach is then to specify the energy use resulting from the vehicle type, utilisation ratio, empty returns, and detour factor. This is then combined with an energy ware, and typically reported as CO2e emitted Well-to-Wheel/Wake (WtW) per MJ of energy ware used.
Named 100% scenario (1:n) | Name of the specific 100% scenario and text description on its representative |
Parameters divided in each transport leg (1:n) | Explanation and potential unit |
Transport leg | Its name as given by the practitioner |
Leg type | Default list: last mile, manufacturer to site, warehouse to site, manufacture to terminal, terminal to site, terminal to warehouse, terminal to site |
Distance | One way [km] |
Vehicle type | Default list: train, lorry, car, train, boat, flight |
Energy use, based on | [MJ/ton km] 3) |
Utilisation ratio | [-] |
Empty return | 0/1 yes/no |
Detour factor | [-] typically 1.05 as the default, and describes that the nearest distance is in practice not reached |
Energy ware type | Default list: i.e. different type of diesel, petrol, electricity, gas, oil, jet kerosene |
GWP WtW | Default list [kg CO2e/MJ] for all alternative energy wares |
Table 6 Suggested parameters used for a defined and named 100% transport alternative to be reported as part of module A4 and potentially C2 in an LCA or EPD. These parameters produce additional information compared to Table 10 in EN 15804, thereby partly replacing and expanding these parameters.
The current WtW data in existing databases often originates from LCA calculations and their generic databases, and this WtW data is also used when developing EPDs. Future developments should harmonise how such GWP WtW data for EPDs will be the same for transport calculations for life cycle GWP building calculations in all its modules. In the future, it must be decided if the whole transport system and its infrastructure also should be accounted for in the GWP WtW indicator result. If so, there is a need to develop common, publicly available data.
This kind of LCA data is currently only found in ecoinvent and other references do not cover all GWP sub-indicators).
GLEC is a recommended existing European data source to use for methodology settings. The methodology used for transport should, in the future, be found on ISO 14083:2023. Generic European transport scenario parameters as 100% scenarios are likely and possible to define via (cPCR) as a European average. It should be noticed that there is an ongoing project based on the ISO 14083:2023 framework, which aims to establish a common set of data sources and LCA data needed to launch a harmonised way of handling transport in this context. It is hopeful the outcome from this project can be referred to in the future CPR Acquis EPDs.
It is concluded here that it is not time-consuming to add generic transport figures with a GWP indicator result per construction material if they are part of the generic data (database) that is required by the regulators to be used.
Furthermore, it shall be specified for any material or product, the type of transport used, distances travelled, capacity of utilisation and fuel type, as well as the consumption required for their movement to and from the building’s site.
European level
It is recommended that A4 is a mandatory module. It is concluded here that it is not time-consuming to add generic transport figures with a GWP indicator result per construction product type if they are part of the mandatory generic construction product GWP database for A1-3, as advised by the regulators.
It is recommended that A4 is a mandatory module. It is concluded here that it is not time-consuming to add generic transport figures with a GWP indicator result per construction product type if they are part of the mandatory generic construction product GWP database for A1-3, as advised by the regulators.
EPD support: In an EPD, it is possible to define commonly applicable mix- scenarios for A4 for different European regions and/or countries. Such harmonised and regulated information from an EPD can replace the generic data from a public database. Nevertheless, in the future, it is likely that at least part of the transport parameters can be replaced by specific data from the actual transport. The parametrisation suggested here, if implemented, will support such developments and result in a more representative GWP indicator result from transportation.
National level
Whenever asked for by a regulator, generic transport data valid for a specific country can be developed to be representative for an individual country and replace European averages or other regionalised data. Such country-specific data must consider the granularity of the generic data required on the European level.
Whenever asked for by a regulator, generic transport data valid for a specific country can be developed to be representative for an individual country and replace European averages or other regionalised data. Such country-specific data must consider the granularity of the generic data required on the European level.
A5 Construction – installation process
The construction – installation process, A5, shall include all construction activities required to complete the building, or part of the building, during the assessment (EN 15978). This can include, if significant and relevant: transport within the site, ground works and landscaping, construction process and installation, temporary works, and waste management. In the expected update to the standard, A5 is divided into the following sub modules (prEN 15978):
- Sub-module A5.1 Pre-construction activities
- Including demolition/deconstruction of existing buildings or parts thereof, including waste processing and the removal of materials.
- Sub-module A5.2 Construction activities
- All impacts and aspects related to energy and water use needed to construct the building. This includes, i.e. preparing the site, temporary works on- and off-site, ground works, transport within the site, storage, heating and cooling, installation of materials and products.
- Sub-module A5.3 Waste and waste management
- Waste and waste management includes the impact from the material use (scope A1-A3 and A4) and waste management (scope C2-C4), all accounted for in A5.3.
- Sub-module A5.4 Transport of construction workers
- Module used for additional information regarding the transport of workers to and from the site.
The scope and implementation of A5 in legislation differs between the Nordic countries and Estonia. The differences are if all sub-modules are included or not and what is included in each sub module. As of today, no Nordic country nor Estonia requires to divide the result in A5 in sub-modules A5.1 and A5.4, A5.2 and A5.3.
Sub-module A5.1 Pre-construction activities
If the building is a major renovation, it shall, according to EN 15978, be accounted for as a new building, where the construction stage therefore must also account for the demolition/deconstruction of existing buildings or parts. According to the EPBD directive and its climate declaration, it only covers new buildings thus far.
If a new building is built on a plot where an existing building exists, which then needs to be demolished/deconstructed, all activities associated with the demolition/deconstruction will, according to prEN 15978, be accounted for as part of the environmental burden upon the new building.
The fact if it shall be treated as a new building or major renovation when only parts of the building are demolished is decided by how this is classified in a legal context.
European level
A5.1 Pre-construction activities
The EPBD directive mainly accounts for new buildings, but this module is mandatory if there is an existing building on the site that need to be demolished/deconstructed or parts thereof.
A5.1 Pre-construction activities
The EPBD directive mainly accounts for new buildings, but this module is mandatory if there is an existing building on the site that need to be demolished/deconstructed or parts thereof.
Sub-moduleA5.2 Construction activities
Sweden is the only country that has integrated A5 into its legislation currently in force. In Finland, legislation is in place but not in force, whereas this is yet to be determined by Iceland, Estonia, and Denmark. In Sweden, measured data is needed for the construction according to the legislation. Even if the ground works and landscaping are not included in the Swedish scope, they can be included for simplicity. In the recently published report by Kanafani et al. (2023) in Denmark, it is recommended that the energy use shall be based on measured data and include the construction site, as well as temporary storage and assembly outside the construction site.
In addition to this, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark have calculated values for the template data
The words template data are used since default generic figures in different groups are reported and the user takes the most relevant alternative. The word is also used for simplified EPDs where the manufacturer can use the most representative manufacturing alternative in respect to its own manufacturing process.
- Sweden (energy use, excluding ground works)
: - Buildings excluding single family houses: 17.1 kg CO2e/m2
- Single family houses, high level of prefabrication: 10.3 kg CO2e/m2
- Single family houses, other: 10.8 kg CO2e/m2
- Finland (energy use, excluding ground works)
: - Office buildings: 78 kg CO2e/m2
- Residential buildings: 46 kg CO2e/m2
- School or kindergarten: 60 kg CO2e/m2
- Denmark A5 (energy use and waste)
- All buildings: 50.0 kg CO2e/m2
- (1.0 kg CO2e/(m2 year) calculated over a period of 50 years)
A comparison of the template data is not a straightforward process since they have a different scope. Especially Denmark’s value that includes waste, as well as energy. However, the Swedish and Finnish scopes are assumed to be more similar, only including energy use at the construction site but excluding the ground works. It is therefore interesting to see that the values from Sweden and Finland differ significantly.
European level
A5.2 Construction activities
The suggestion is that this is a mandatory module.
A5.2 Construction activities
The suggestion is that this is a mandatory module.
Building permit: In the building permit, it is advised to establish European template data for A5.2 as part of the EPBD delegated act that can be used as proxy data. The source data for such template data are based on building types (see Swedish example above).
EPD support when used in a building permit: a European parametrisation scenario could be developed to support a common European approach that is based. Such a simplified approach can be made on the product density and a simple scenario where the product is transported by a front wheeler 5 minutes and lifted by electric craned 10 meters.
This so-called sector approach is used in the IVL EPD generator tool if no specific scenario is defined in the cPCR.
As built: Metered data from the actual construction site covering all energy wares, etc. and its related GWP impact shall be reported and accounted for in A5.3.
National level
Whenever asked for by a regulator, generic construction activities data valid for a specific country can be developed to be representative for an individual country and replace European average or other regionalised data. Such country-specific data must consider the granularity of the generic data required on the European level.
Whenever asked for by a regulator, generic construction activities data valid for a specific country can be developed to be representative for an individual country and replace European average or other regionalised data. Such country-specific data must consider the granularity of the generic data required on the European level.
Sub-module A5.3 Waste and waste management
Waste is included in the Swedish and Norwegian legislation, and generic factors for waste as a percentage of A1-A4 are used for different materials and material groups. However, in Norway, data from EPDs can be used if the module is available.
In Finland, generic values are presented for waste on their national database (CO2data.fi) in the same way as in Sweden and Norway. In Denmark, a recently published report states that the actual amounts should be taken from fractions leaving the construction site as waste (Kanafani, Magnes, Garnow, Lindhard, & Balouktsi, 2023). Hence, the emission values that are used for A1-A3 cannot be used for A5. The report also states that the transport of waste will be included in A4 instead of A5 due to simplicity. In Iceland and Estonia, it is yet to be determined how to include waste.
Today no country has included waste management for A5 in their legislation; however, it is proposed to be included in Finland's incoming legislation. In Finland, data “should be based either on the national emissions database or on the basis of a generally approved data…”.
Decree of the Ministry of the Environment – on the climate declaration of building, 30 sept 2022, Ministry of the environment, Department of Built Environment. Matti Kuittinen.
Ressourceforbrug på byggepladsen: Klimapåvirkning af bygningers udførelsesfase (Kanafani, Magnes, Garnow, Lindhard, & Balouktsi, 2023).
European level
A5.3 Waste and waste management
The suggestion is that this is a mandatory module.
A5.3 Waste and waste management
The suggestion is that this is a mandatory module.
Building permit: It is concluded here that it is not time-consuming to add generic waste figures and waste handling scenarios with a GWP indicator result per construction product type if they are part of the mandatory generic construction product data A1-3, as advised by the regulators, which is why it is recommended to be developed. It is likely that such wastage figures from the construction process could be defined as part of the EPBD directive delegated act and used as the default if the country-specific default is unavailable.
EPD support/simplified approach: It is recommended to define a common European waste factor per cPCR developed.
As built: It is very time-consuming and thereby costly to follow up on the actual waste generated at the construction site. It is therefore recommended, as the first option, to use the amount of construction products delivered to the construction object and combine this with the default wastage figure found in the default database. The metered data can always replace such default figures if proof can be provided.
National level
Whenever asked for by a regulator, generic waste and waste management data valid for a specific country can be developed to be representative for an individual country and replace European averages or other regionalised data. Such country-specific data must consider the granularity of the generic data required on the European level.
Whenever asked for by a regulator, generic waste and waste management data valid for a specific country can be developed to be representative for an individual country and replace European averages or other regionalised data. Such country-specific data must consider the granularity of the generic data required on the European level.
Sub-module A5.4 Transport of construction workers
The current LCA and EPD praxis is that this kind of externality shall not be considered as part of a building's burden, hence why the recommendation is that this is not a mandatory sub-moule to account for.
European level
A5.4 Transport of construction workers
This burden is to the current praxis assumed to be outside the burden related to a building, hence why it is recommended to be voluntary information, and if reported, it shall be reported separately.
A5.4 Transport of construction workers
This burden is to the current praxis assumed to be outside the burden related to a building, hence why it is recommended to be voluntary information, and if reported, it shall be reported separately.
Therefore, the recommendation is that this is a non-mandatory module.
National level
―
―
Module B1 Use
Sub-modules for B1 Use
In prEN 15978, B1 is being divided into the following sub modules:
- B1.1 for materials, the assessment of emissions from construction products to outdoor air, soil, ground- and surface-water should be based – among other sources of information – on the results of tests and measurements (e.g. blowing agents from insulation, VOCs from surface finishes, and carbonation from materials containing CaO absorbing CO2).
- B1.2 for “operational emissions”, the assessment of fugitive emissions of refrigerants from building-integrated technical systems. For fugitive emissions from non-integrated equipment (e.g. plug-in equipment, such as refrigerators), they should be addressed and reported in sub-module B1.2 as additional information.
Operational GHG removals are also around the corner, EC carbon removal certification.
The recommendation is to use the same approach as in prEN 15978, which is assumed to be the approach of the delegated act and is hence the suggested method. For reporting the GWP, the two following parts of B1.1 and B1.2 shall be reported:
- B1.1: carbonation from concrete.
- B1.2: emissions of refrigerants from building-integrated technical systems.
- B1.3 Approved GHG removals.
We also notice that in the future, it may be possible to include GHG removals that are approved and verified by the EC carbon removal certification system.
EPD support/simplified approach: It is recommended to define a common European template approach with the most frequent intended use alternatives to be included in the cPCR when relevant.
B1.1 - Carbonation from concrete
The methods of calculating the CO2 uptake of concrete are included in EN 16757. Parameters needed to make a building specific calculation on concrete carbonisation are given in Table 7.
Parameters per building element | Explanation and potential unit |
Reference study period (RSP) | Number of years [years] |
Building element type | Its name as given by the practitioner for a concrete building element |
Density of building element | [kg/m3] |
Amount of concrete | Weight of the concrete in the assessed element [kg] |
Concrete strength class | [MPa] |
Exposure conditions | Select from:
|
Mineral additions | Select from:
|
Amount of mineral additions | [weight-%] |
Clinker content in cement | [%] |
Cement content in concrete | [kg/m3 concrete] |
Table 7 Suggested parameters to be used to calculate the carbonatation of concrete in a building context, according to EN 16757, and reported as part of module A4 and potentially C2 in an LCA or EPD.
As the GWP indicator result from B1.1 will generally be relatively small compared to other modules, a simplified harmonised approach is recommended. Such calculations based on EN 16757 are performed here, and the results in a generic average carbonisation GWP indicator that can be used for all of the concrete in a building are set to be conservative. The assumptions made are:
Note that the cement amount and type given above shall not be used as a basis for a market representative concrete recipe, but the combination of ordinary Portland clinker (OPC) and the amount used per m3 is representative for a conservative approach on the carbonation of concrete recipes used in the Nordic.
- Reference study period: 50 years
- Concrete strength class: >35 MPa
- Exposure conditions: Indoor dry climate, with cover
- Mineral additions: None
- Clinker content in cement: 95%
- Cement content: 350 kg/m3 concrete
- Density of building element: 2350 kg/m3
- Thickness of building element: 300 mm
For B1.1, carbonisation from concrete shall be included, and other pozzolan materials are optional.
A simplified option is recommended with the opportunity to be more specific. To calculate more specific values, the method in EN 16757 shall be followed.
For the simplified options, the recommended Nordic value for B1.1 (carbon dioxide uptake) is:
- 0.002 kg CO2e /kg concrete (over a 50-year RSP)
or - 0.00004 kg CO2e/kg concrete, year
A specific calculation on carbonation from concretecan be made and used as an option for an individual building, but it shall follow EN 16757 and be found on material characteristics for the specific products used.
B1.2 Emissions of refrigerants
As B1.2 will generally be relatively small compared to other modules, a simplified harmonised approach is recommended.
The recommended value for emissions from the leakage of refrigerants is based on simplified calculations, together with data from studies in Denmark and property owners in Sweden. The suggested value is based on the following assumptions:
- Average leakage of refrigerants: 0,25 gram/m2, year
- GWP for refrigerants: 750 kg CO2e/kg (this GWP factor is based on the EU limit value from 1 January 2025)
For B1.2, emissions from the leakage of refrigerants shall be included, and other emissions are optional.
A simplified option is recommended with the opportunity to be more specific. How a more specific value should be calculated needs to be decided in the delegated act or by national legislation.
For the simplified options, the recommended Nordic value for B1.2 is:
- Emissions from the leakage of refrigerants: 0.2 kg CO2e/m2, year where the area represents the useful area that is heated and/or cooled with compressors that use refrigerants.
EPD support: It is recommended to define a common European template approach on leaching with the most frequent intended use alternatives to be included in the cPCR when relevant.
Decarbonisation scenario for B1
It shall be noticed that the biogenic carbon shall not be part of and multiplied by the decarbonisation (scenario) factor. See section “Selecting GWP indicators” för more information about the decarbonisation scenario for B1.
Module B2-B5 Maintenance, repair, replacement, refurbishment
Upholding running exchange activities versus rebuilding
The use stage B covers the period from the handover of the completed building to the developer until the time when the building reaches its end-of-life (EoL) in stage C. In accordance with EN 15978, this EoL stage for a new building is understood as deconstructed/demolished, or when an existing building is rebuilt, and its performance is improved to the current valid building code (also known as deep renovation/ retrofit).
Please note that the word ”refurbishment” is here only used in the context of individual products or building elements to avoid mixing up with rebuilding activities.
Rebuilding is, according to EN 15978, assessed in the same manner as a new building (reported in module A1-5), and the partial demolition of the existing building is attributed to the rebuilt building and all reusage if the existing construction is regarded as sank costs. This approach supports circularity and recovers the existing building as much as possible when rebuilt.
A rebuilding that upgrades the building’s performance shall be assessed as a new construction stage and therefore, according to EN 15978, assessed in A1-A5. A new service life with a new reference study period and end-of-life scenario shall be defined for the rebuilt building and its forthcoming service life.
Division of different activities and specifications needed
It can sometimes be a problem to select the most appropriate information module to address an upholding process, especially if it should be addressed in B2 Maintenance or B3 Repair. If it is unclearly defined whether the activities belong to B2 or B3, it is suggested that the first alternative shall be used. In prEN 15978, it also states that B2 and B3 can be combined due to the difficulties in separating them. The current state of practice is that repair processes are typically not accounted for. In the future, it should be possible to account for A3 repair if it is mandatory to include it in the cPCR if relevant. Such information can then be based on the repair frequency and other information needed, typically from statistics.
The other common interpretation problem is to understand the meaning of B5 Refurbishment. It is however clear that this type of process is related to the larger building context, rather than an individual building material, product, or element. As different strategies exist on refurbishment, it is suggested that a coordinated upholding processes covering more than one building element shall be accounted for in B5 refurbishment rather than B2 or B4. This could be, e.g. a façade renovation that includes windows, doors, and a partly new wall plaster. The other simplified refurbishment approach is that each building material, product, or element is maintained and replaced without regarding the relevance of combining these activities.
The most common approach regarding the implementation of exchange activities in an LCA based on EN 15978 is by addressing the maintenance or exchange of an individual construction product, and they are reported in B2 and/or B4. Additionally, B3 can be reported separately or may be combined with B2, as stated in prEN 15978.
It is recommended, in the future, to account for A3 repair if it is mandatory to include in the cPCR if relevant. Such information can then be based on the repair frequency and other information needed, typically from statistics.
It is suggested that B5 Refurbishment is more strictly defined to cover the combined upholding exchange activities and process that cover more than one building element. The exchange will be dependent on the scenario setting of a combined renovation as the main strategy for the selected building system. Consequently, if the combined exchange activities are not considered, this module will be reported as a zero for all environmental indicators. If accounted for, the building system part as a combined renovation shall be listed in B5, and these activities shall not be included in B2-B4.
Estimated service life for building component (ESL)
The most common way to handle different upholding activities in B2 to B5 is to give a time-related interval for its appearance. Ideally, these intervals should be dependent on the on-site conditions and different environmental exposures. The problem is that these types of data are often absent and difficult to verify. Therefore, default representative figures are often applied as a proxy. This, instead of the (non-existing) data, is based on more sophisticated methods, such as the factor method (ISO 15686-1, -2, -7 and -8), outlined in EN 15804 (see Appendix A). The factor method allows the handling of (or transferring) the ESL to different local environment conditions and aspects, such as where the material is placed in the building. However, since this is not an operational approach, and very little data is available, we suggest that the ESL shall be representative for the average conditions.
To calculate the number of replacements of the building component (NR), the estimated service life (ESL) for the building component is needed.
A national table of the estimated service life (ESL) for products is recommended to be defined for all construction products. A granularity similar to the CPR Acquis cPCR ‘product type’ is the most likely approach in the future. Moreover, it suggests that the ESL shall be representative for average conditions.
If the national table of ESL for products does not exist and, in the future, is not found in the CPR Acquis based information or new requirements outlined in the forthcoming EPBD directive delegated act, the ESL can be used from Level(s). The development in those cPCR will likely be relevant for the average European context, hence why national specification may be relevant in the future if regulators ask for more precise data.
For national legislation purposes, the use of company/building-specific service life data is not allowed, as this is impossible to verify. However, if such a system will be developed in the future, this might be optional.
It is recommended to use:
- advised European default data, typically found in the forthcoming delegated act, which can be replaced by national advised default figures for the ESL.
- such generic data can always be replaced by data from the EPD if the cPCR includes such information needed to determine a generic and/or specific ESL. If the factor method (ISO 15686-1/2/7) is applied (as asked for in EN 15804), or any other more specific method, it is possible to use specific data.
Number of replacements (NR)
According to prEN 15978, the frequency of replacements are calculated as:
NR(j)=[RSP/ESL(j)]-1 (1)
where
- ESL(j) is the estimated service life for building component j;
- NR(j) is the number of replacements of building component j;
- RSP is the reference study period of the building assessment.
In prEN 15978, there are two approaches suggested to quantify the frequency of an upholding activity:
- Integer number of replacements:
- For decimal points between 0 and 0.4, the number of replacements is rounded down to the next smaller integer number.
- For decimal points above 0.5, the number of replacements is rounded up to the next higher integer number.
- Decimal number of replacements; where the calculated frequency with decimals is used without an adjustment to quantify the number of anticipated replacements.
As stated in prEN 15978, the decimal number approach shall be used when required by national or regional regulations.
The two approaches suggested in prEN 15978 are also suggested and evaluated in a report that includes a default for periodic defined upholding activities to be used for a whole life cycle assessment (Erlandsson Holm 2015). The calculation example in this report indicates that it is possible to find examples for individual building components where the choice of calculation rule is significant. For an entire building, however, there is only a minor difference. In addition to this, the relative importance from B2-B5 is not the most contributing part from a life cycle perspective.
Based on the overall uncertainty in calculations, regarding the result for module B2 to B5, it is therefore suggested to use the decimal number approach.
LCA data and decarbonisation scenario for B2-B5
To assess the B2-B5 information about the resources, LCA data and waste factors are needed. Most of the time, this data will be available from the assessment for the LCA stage A1-A5. In some cases, the necessary data does not exist in existing national databases, e.g. some specific measures in B2.
To use LCA data from A1-A5 can be seen as a conservative way of assessing B2-B5 (business as usual scenario, BAU), as there then will be no product developments that will decrease the climate impact of building materials in the future. To take such development into account a decarbonisation scenario is added. See section “Decarbonisation scenario for B1.2-B5, B7 and C1-C4” for more information about the decarbonisation scenario factors used for B2-B5.
However, if reused components are used in A1-A5, this will be beneficial if the assessment uses the same LCA data in B2-B5. As it is impossible to verify that similar reused components can be used in the future, it is therefore suggested that only new building components are allowed to be used in B2-B5.
LCA data used for A1-A5 shall be used for B2-B5. If new and/or other types of GWP data are needed, it shall be published on a national level.
If reused building components are used in A1-A5, it is not allowed to benefit from this in B2-B5. In the assessment of B2-B5, it shall only include new building components.
Module B6 Operational energy use
The methodology behind the calculated impact of the operational energy use of the building can be divided into three different categories (prEN 15978):
- Sub-modules for operational energy use.
- Approach for building generated energy production.
- Time-related changes related to environmental aspects.
Sub-modules for operational energy use
In prEN 15978, there are some expected changes regarding the categories related to module B6. The expected changes include B6 being divided into the following sub modules:
Sub-categories related to energy use.
- 6.1 (Shall) Energy use from building integrated systems regulated by the EPBD and its national implementation shall be included; e.g. heating, cooling, ventilation, humidification, dehumidification, domestic hot water and fixed (installed) lighting.
- 6.2 (Should) Energy use from an unregulated building should be included; e.g. external lighting, elevators, escalators, and other building integrated systems (e.g. security and communication systems.
- 6.3 (May) Other energy related to the activities of the building user may be included; e.g. plug-in appliances, computers, washing machines, and refrigerators, etc. It is reported separately as additional information.
Today, the division between energy in 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 is not typically used and may differ between countries.
The recommendation is to use the same approach as in prEN 15978. If not, the EPBD delegated act is contradicted. As a basis, the same assumptions made for the energy declaration shall be reused as scenario settings for the life-cycle GWP result. The approach, as in prEN 15978, is assumed to be the approach of the EPBD delegated act and is hence the suggested method. Sub-category 6.1 is mandatory, 6.2 is mandatory depending on national implementation, and 6.3 is optional. Each sub-category should be reported and documented separately.
In addition:
- If the declaration is performed as part of the building permit, default values for energy use must be used, as already defined in national legislation.
- If declaration is based on 'as built' and measured energy data, the data shall be used and typically normalised, as already defined in national legislation.
Two approaches for building generated energy production
In prEN 15978, an alternative approach for calculating building generated energy production is presented. The different approaches are expected to be divided into Approach A and Approach B, where Approach A is the default approach in line with the current standard En 15978. A short description of the different approaches is shown here:
Approach A: All impacts and aspects regarding the building generated energy is allocated to the building. Hence, exported energy leaving the building will be free of an environmental burden. Any benefits and/or loads from the exported energy is reported in module D.
Approach B: The impacts and aspects regarding the building generated energy is allocated to the building proportionally to the energy that is used by the building. Hence, no benefits from exported energy can be taken credit for in module D.
Approach A is the recommended approach, which is also the default approach in prEN 15978.
Scope of LCA data and time-related changes to environmental aspects
Since the energy system will change over time, future scenarios are applied to the LCA data for the energy use in B6. The approach and studied scenarios are presented in Figure 4, as well as the recommended decarbonisation scenario and its factors.
The expected default in prEN 15978 is to use a national grid mix; however, another approach may be used.
The suggested scenario is a simplified approach to the EU Prime residential scenario. The scenario is applied for all energy wares in B6. However, if a national energy scenario exists, this can be used and reported as additional information. The energy mix used as the default is the national grid mix.
Impact from combined heat and power (CHP)
The prEN 15978 standard regulates the allocation for combined heat and power (CHP), also known as cogeneration. Cogeneration is the use of a heat engine or power station to generate electricity and useful heat simultaneously. This makes this kind of process unique since the process owner receives an income from the reception of waste and for the energy delivered, which is, in the LCA context, referred to as a multi-input/-outputs process. The process owner typically pays for some fuels, acquires some waste at no cost, and earns an income for those waste flows that is handled with a reception fee. The waste handling as such is always a cost (>0), so the waste cost in the reception is related to a material fee, typically per ton of waste material that is paid to the cogeneration plant owner (and does not account for taxes, etc.). To handle this allocation in an LCA, the plant flows need to virtually be separated in different flow types and allocated separately, according to an allocation approach that is suitable for the respective flow type.
To handle cogeneration, prEN15978 states:
“In the case of cogeneration (combined heat and power, CHP) an allocation method to assign the environmental impacts and aspects associated with resource use (primary energy/or fuel input) and the associated emissions (upstream, combustion) to the different energy forms/or carriers generated (thermal energy and electricity) shall be based on EN 15316-4-5.”
EN 15316-4-5 calls this allocation approach ‘Benefit sharing method’; another name is alternative production since this is partly a co-generation process, and the efficiency used when only producing and electricity respectively is used to attribute the impact to the outcoming emissions. This allocation requirement from EN 15316-4-5 conflicts with the fundamental requirement in EN 15804, where the inherent properties cannot be allocated away. This is the result of the ’Benefit sharing method’ if it is applied for the inputs. However, this can be solved by using the ’energy allocation’ approach for primary energy/or fuel inputs separately, and using the ‘Benefit sharing method’ for the outputs. By using the energy allocation method (the same approach as in national statistics), it means that the efficiency follows natural laws like input energy, which is then always larger than the energy output (and the difference is the losses). It shall be noticed that this split allocation solution does not need to be considered if the GWP is only asked for in the LCA calculations, but it must be considered if, for instance, the energy use indicators are reported or asked for.
According to EN 15804, if a material waste flow that is used as an energy carrier in a cogeneration plant meets the End of Waste (EoW) criteria, the combustion is classified as energy recovery if ‒ to start with ‒ a thermal energy efficiency is greater than 65% for the combustion process. In this case, the energy recovery is accounted for as ‘Materials for energy recovery (MER)’ in kg per declared unit and reported in module C3. If it is less than 65%, it is defined as incineration and accounted for in C4. If the energy from that process is used by the market, it is reported in C4 as Exported Electric Energy (EEE) and Exported Thermal Energy (ETE) in MJ per declared unit. In the first case, the emissions/outputs from the process is allocated downstream, and in the latter case, upstream to the process that generated the waste flow.
Materials that have not reached the End-of-Waste state prior to incineration, e.g. due to containing hazardous substances, do not qualify for energy recovery (e.g. C3); therefore, any emissions resulting from their disposal or incineration are always, in this case, assigned to module C4 and reported as described above if the energy is exported.
Another EoW criteria listed in EN 15804 states that: “A market or demand, identified e.g., by a positive economic value, exists for such a recovered material, product or construction element”. In the interpretation of the meaning of this statement, it is crucial how the meaning of the output/recovered material has a market shall be interpreted. We can here notice two schools:
→ School A: The waste generator may pay to get rid of the waste, but this is overruled if a market exists for the energy generated (and above 65%). The cogeneration owner typically gets paid for the generated energy that constitute the output. In other words, if there is a fee for the reception of the waste, it is, in fact, not part of the EoW criteria, but that there exists a market for the output that then generates an income.
→ School B: This interpretation adds to the main text defining the EoW criteria in EN 15804; an additional requirement that: “ …( the material reaches end of waste before incineration)…” is part of the EoW criteria. To be clear, it shall be noted that this is not stated elsewhere in the standard beside in the informative (i.e. non-mandatory) Annex D. If this aspect is added to the EoW criteria, one can consider waste (that is related with a reception fee) still being a waste at the moment it is combusted and will therefore be allocated to the upstream system. In other words, if the waste generator pays to get rid of the waste, it shall then be regarded as incineration and always be reported in module C4, even if the energy exported has a market and fulfils the thermal 65% efficiency requirement.
Based on the first sentence given in Annex D: “In case of different interpretations between the annex and the text of the standard, it is the text of the standard which prevails on the information in this annex.”, we can conclude that School B is in conflict with the main text in the standard, hence why School A must be used.
What is thus far not considered is the fact that waste flows associated with a reception fee constitute a multi-input/-outputs process. An economical allocation in such a multi-input/output process is the only alternative in the context of LCA, since their contribution to the revenue is the only common allocation basis for waste and the delivered energy flows. A rough estimation is that the district heat facilities generally obtain half of their income/revenue from waste fees and the other half from the energy sold. Essentially, this multi-input/-output economical allocation approach generates a split between the waste generator and the energy sold.
A criticism of economical allocation in general is that it is market dependent, and the value can therefore fluctuate over time for the very same site. Therefore, a regulator can also state that this kind of economical allocation shall be based on a fixed value, say 50/50 or any other split, which shall be applied and should be updated regularly in any steering document, like in so-called Product Category Rules (PCR) or in a legislative context in any delegated act.
Figure 6 Decision tree combined for separate allocations on different type of waste flows in a combined heat and power (CHP) plant.
Per the outcome of interpreting prEN 15978 and taking basic prerequisites from EN 15804 about what cannot be allocated away, the allocation in any cogeneration plant must divide the waste flows in two waste categories and perform an allocation individually. The multi-input/-outputs process introduced here supports the circularity and PPP since there is a split of the burden downstream and upstream, implying that both parties share the burden and gain from potential improvements.
European level
The allocation for cogeneration differs from flows that contribute to the cogeneration revenue and other input waste flows, and it must be allocated separately as follows:
The allocation for cogeneration differs from flows that contribute to the cogeneration revenue and other input waste flows, and it must be allocated separately as follows:
- Input waste flow that does not contribute to the cogeneration revenue: It is recommended to follow prEN 15978, using the ’Benefit sharing method’ for cogeneration process emissions and the ‘’energy’ allocation approach’ for the input energy carrier.
- Input waste flow that contributes to the cogeneration revenue: It is recommended to use a multi-input/-output allocation approach, whereas the inherent energy in the input flow (as default) can be set to be equal to the energy delivered, meaning that 1 MJ net calorific value of inputs is equal to 1 MJ delivered energy to the net.
National level
Whenever asked for another economical allocation factor for case 2, than a generic European representative allocation factor (1 MJ in:1 MJ out) can be defined nationally.
Whenever asked for another economical allocation factor for case 2, than a generic European representative allocation factor (1 MJ in:1 MJ out) can be defined nationally.
Module B7 Operational water use
The boundary for module B7 includes the impacts and aspects of the operational water use. Operational water use entails the consumption (net use) of freshwater resources. Its environmental impacts are caused by the processes for the water input (upstream) and the wastewater output (downstream).
Note that:
- The impacts and aspects associated with any water-related energy use within the building and its site are included in module B6.
- The impacts and aspects due to material usage for any water-related technical system in the building during the use stage are covered in modules B1 – B5.
- Water usage for cleaning the building and its components are included in module B2, when possible, to separate it from the overall water usage.
In prEN 15978, B7 is being divided into the following sub modules:
- B7.1 (Shall): Covering water demand and wastewater disposal by essential building integrated systems; e.g. water for sanitation, heating, cooling, ventilation, humidification systems, and irrigation of building integrated landscape areas, green roofs, and green walls.
- B7.2 (Should): Covering water demand and wastewater disposal by other building integrated systems; e.g. swimming pools and saunas.
- B7.3 (May): Covering water demand and wastewater disposal by non-building integrated systems; e.g. dishwashers, washing machines, and washing cars. It is reported separately as additional information.
It is noticed that the division of water use between 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3 is not typically used today and may differ between countries.
The recommendation is to use the same approach as in prEN 15978, which is assumed to be the approach of the delegated act and is hence the suggested method.
Sub-category 7.1 is mandatory, 7.2 is mandatory depending on national implementation, and 7.3 is optional. Each sub-category should be reported and documented separately.If this is not, on a national level, the current practice to divide into these sub-categories,an overall GWP indicator can be used and reported as a total of B7.1-B7.3.
GWP data for B7
GWP data is needed for processes regarding the water input (upstream) and the wastewater output (downstream). As of today, this data is not part of any LCA database in the Nordic countries.
It is recommended that European common figures can be used as part of the delegated act that can be used if national data does not exist. If national regulations do not provide GWP data for the water input nor wastewater output, Nordic default values can be developed and used. These GWP values can be replaced by EPD data related to the actual water supply or waste-water treatment, or other specific data in line with the EN 15804 methodology.
Suggested GWP data if more specific data are missing:
- Water input (upstream): 0,08 kg CO2e /m3
- Wastewater output (downstream): 0,3 kg CO2e /m3
The suggested value for the water input is a mean value from two freshwater plants in Sweden and with a conservative approach. The suggested value for the wastewater output is a mean value from six sewage water treatment plants in Sweden and with a conservative approach.
Water demand
The water demand for the assessed building is needed for assessing B7. Setting a universal level of water demand for all Nordic countries has proven to be challenging due to the lack of comprehensive and reliable data sources. Therefore, addressing the water demand must be approached at a national level.
It is recommended that the water demand is set on a national level for a relevant number of reference-building (e.g. litres of water per person and year for housing, offices, and schools).
Decarbonisation scenario for B7
See Figure 4 for more information about the decarbonisation scenario for B7.
Module B8 Other building-related building activities
According to prEN 15978:
“The assessment of module B8 is optional. When carried out it shall be reported separately as additional information and its scope/activities reported shall be clearly disclosed to avoid confusion.
The boundary for module B8 covers impacts and aspects of the users’ activities associated with the building’s intended use during its normal operation, that are not relating to energy and water use addressed in modules B1 – B7.”
It is recommended that B8 is optional and if it is included by any national legislation, it shall be based on national level requirements.
Module C1-C4 End of life
The end-of-life stages calculation consists of two parts: the first is the actual activity taking place in the sub-modules based on GWP data for current processes, and the second is the application of a decarbonisation scenario (factor). To handle the uncertainty, as well as the complexity in calculating something happening 50 years in the future, a parameterised approach is suggested for the activity occurring in each sub-module. The decarbonisation scenario is then applied to all processes and their GWP impact based on data for the current situation from each module C1 to C4.
A waste stream has to be classified in the waste handling process if it reaches the end-of-waste criteria or not (see EN 15804 paragraph D.3.3).
It is noted that the accounting rules from EN 15804 is currently not fully followed an all EPDs and in Ökobaudat, why data for module C1 to C4 from these sources must be used with care. Current national generic databases that referred to these sources should therefore consider updating, if needed, to be in line with EN 15804.
These accounting rules from EN 15804 are currently not followed in all EPDs and in Ökobaudat, so data for module C1 to C4 from these sources must be used with care. Current national generic databases that referred to these sources should therefore consider updating the data to be in line with EN 15804.
A ‘material’ decarbonisation scenario is applied for all processes in C1-C4. The recommended decarbonisation scenario is a simplified approach to the EU Prime ‘Total GHG emissions, excl. international excl. LULUCF’. For details on the recommended Future scenarios for decarbonisation in modules B and C . Apply same methodology settings for energy recovery in C3 and C4 as used in B6, with the difference that in stage C is a decarbonisation scenario applicable for ‘materials’ used.
Module C1 Deconstruction/Demolition
A parameterised approach is sought for module C1, as it is a simplified method that can be altered to the specific characteristics of the building. Such specific characteristics are, i.e. the number of floors and material composition. An example of a parameterised approach is presented by Erlandsson and Pettersson (2015, p. 28), which can serve as inspiration for the development of an EC common scenario. The parameterised approach from the report is based on the following parameters:
- Energy use and energy carrier per floor area,
- Energy use and energy carrier based on kg material type in the construction, and
- Extra energy use and energy carrier based on the number of floors.
Looking at the Nordic countries, only Finland has values published on their national website for LCA data for the construction sector. However, it consists of template data, which is based on little background information represented by only concreate construction. The template data is published on the CO2data.fi website.
A parameterised approach is suggested:
- C1: Parameterisation using European Commission default values per material group, including energy use per building floor area, energy use based on the kg material type in the construction, extra energy use based on the number of floors over 6 m.
- EPD support: The same Parameterisation can be used in EPDs and then directly used for the input to the building level.
Module C2 Transport of demolition waste
A parameterised approach is recommended to have the ability to change the calculation in order to fit the location of the building, as well as national conditions. A parameterised approach is also used by Finland,
The parameterisation in this report is suggested as follows:
- Energy use for a diesel-driven lorry [MJ/ (ton km)]
- GWP data for diesel WtW
- European average distance
- i.e. 50 km or
- per material category, that can be overruled by national additions, or
- potentially specific distances
A parameterised approach is suggested:
- C2: Parameterisation (km, fuel type, vehicle type, etc.) using the national default per product type (see A4).
- It is recommended that the delegated act specifies a European (one figure) average distance as 50 km, or different distances per material category, that can be overruled by national additions or potentially specific distances.
- EPD support: In an EPD, it is possible to publish several scenarios for C2 for different European regions and/or countries.
Module C3 Waste processing and C4 Disposal of waste
The current data for C3 and C4 in EPDs offers little or no transparency. It therefore becomes impossible to use these values when calculating the C3-C4 of a building. This is on account of the fact that no assurance of its accuracy for the actual location and country can be made. In Denmark and Finland, the generic data for C3 and C4 is presented. In Denmark, Ökobaudat and EPDs are used to define GWP data for waste handling, whereas in Finland, EPDs are the most common source of information. For future EPD development, this problem is handled in the CPR Acquis process, and they suggest the so called 100% approach to solve this waste scenario matter and to create flexibility and transparency when waste handling is reported in a EPD, so that it can be used in a modular way as input data on the construction works level.
Where little or no transparency can be found in the Danish database, this cannot be said for Finland. Just as in Denmark, values are presented without transparency for specific products; however, the Finnish database CO2data.fi also presents parameterised values. The parameterised values are 100% scenarios for different material groups, meaning that values for, i.e. gypsum, are presented as 100% material recycling and 100% landfill. The CO2data.fi also includes assumed amounts for specific products to be reused or sent to material recycling, energy recycling, or the landfill; for instance, 15% of gypsum is assumed to go to material recycling, whereas 85% goes to the landfill.
With today's developments, it is assumed that EPDs will become more transparent, publishing 100% scenarios in the future for different waste handling options. With this kind of data available, together with national-based scenarios for waste handling options for each material group, a parameterised approach is possible. The outcome of 100% scenario, to improve and support waste handling on the construction works level, is summarised below:
A parameterised approach is suggested:
- C3/C4: Parameterisation should be defined that can be used to develop 100 % scenarios on different waste treatment options, where the parameterisation of the waste treatments scenario is based on a European average or more representative national scenario.
- Based on the parametrisation methodology above, European ready-made 100% scenarios can be published in the EPBD delegated act, representing the European average.
- EPD support: 100% scenario data can be supplied by EPDs that then must include the relevant 100% reported separately and defined in the PCR. Those scenarios can be generalised as 100%.
- reuse,
- material recycling
- landfill or losses, inorganic materials
- landfill, organic materials (anaerobic degradation)
- losses, organic materials (aerobic degradation)
- combustion of non-renewable energy carriers
- combustion of renewable energy carriers
- To support the calculation of combustion, a generic GWP database should then be expanded with energy indicators 1) Non renewable primary energy resources used as materials and 2) Renewable primary energy resources used as raw materials. That inventory data will then be used to calculate the amount of energy carrier that is combustible for all construction products. Moreover, to calculate emissions from anaerobic degradation the mandatory figure on amount of biogenic carbon stored in the product can be used as input for those calculations.
Module D
In the EPBD climate declaration, it is required that a life-cycle GWP indicator shall be reported, which covers stages A to C, the full lifecycle of the building. Module D is supplementary information and outside the system boundary of the building, where we assume that module D will not be part of the mandatory climate reporting.
It shall be noticed that the importance of module D based on a decarbonisation scenario relative, using a scenario as “business as usual”, will mean that its relative importance is decreased. If we achieve the zero emission target, the figures in module D will be zero.
A development is made in prEN 15978, where the D-module is now divided into subcategories:
- D1 Material recovery
- D1.1 reuse,
- D.2 recycling
- D1.3 energy recovery
- D2 Exported utilities
The scenario for the D-module shall be in line with the scenario in the C-stage, as well as comply with the same allocation approach as in the rest of the assessment, meaning that the allocation approach A shall be used. Today, the use of EPD data for module D is often not transparent enough to be used in an assessment. In the future, a 100 % scenario in module C3/C4, suggested by the CPR Acquis for materials and national waste scenarios, is recommended to be used and could simplify the calculation of sub module D1 in particular.
National level
It is optional to include module D if no EU directive/delegated act is in place covering this; a calculation method can be decided upon in the national legislation based on EN 15978/EN 15804. If included, the method should:
It is optional to include module D if no EU directive/delegated act is in place covering this; a calculation method can be decided upon in the national legislation based on EN 15978/EN 15804. If included, the method should:
- D1: have scenario settings for D1 that is in line with the scenario in the end-of-life stage, module C.
- D2: use the allocation approach A as in the rest of the assessment.