Recommendations

Academic and professional education as well as voluntary declaration schemes help building competences throughout the value chain. There are several national and international examples

National examples are Denmark’s Knowledge Centre for Building Climate Impacts (Videnscenter om Bygningers Klimapåvirkning, n.d.), the new portal by Iceland’s Housing and Infrastructure Agency (Húsnæðis- og mannvirkjastofnun, n.d.), the Finnish Ministry of the Environment’s information pages on sustainable construction, as well as Boverket’s information pages and guides in Sweden. See more information in the report:  (Balouktsi, Francart, & Kanafani, 2024)

European Commission (2023) and Skills4Reise (n.d.)

Existing and emerging international learning resources must be adapted to national contexts. Frontrunner competition must be fostered through certification schemes.

Acting: Academia, Industry

The Nordic Sustainable Construction Platform provides an overview of Nordic initiatives in this area (see also Table 5)

Consultation groups and public-private partnerships between must be formed for co-developing roadmaps, balancing current readiness with future innovation requirements and for monitoring and revisiting regulation.

Acting: Authorities, Policymakers, Industry

Affected: All

Generic impact data for products and processes: The CPR is making environmental product declarations mandatory for an increasing number of product groups in the future. However, EPDs are currently lacking for numerous construction products. In the meanwhile, generic data with conservative factors is being provided for ensuring design-stage decision support, compliant as-built assessments, while maintaining incentives for an increase in developing voluntary EPDs. Most Nordic countries have developed such national generic data (Section 4.2, Table 14).

Variation in current national generic emission factors affect results considerably (Figure 14). Some of the differences between generic emission factors rely on actual product differences in national markets and eventually from import. Remaining differences must root in varying assumptions and methods.

Generic impact data for products and processes must be provided for filling data gaps allowing modelling complete inventories independently of the availability of EPDs. These data must not be allowed for use in as-built declarations, when specific data will be available for the respective product groups.

In the meantime, and until sufficient specific data is in place for all product groups, a gradual phasing out of the conservativity factor in generic data should be strived for to reduce the risk of not following the real performance of the building stock.

The structure and content of national generic emission factor databases can be aligned, including which product categories are used, and how conservative factors are defined.

More recommendations are provided in the Nordic report on data needs and scenarios-setting by Erlandsson et al. (2024).

Acting:
Authorities, Academia, industry

Affected: Consultants, Designers

Generic impact data for modules: Finland and Iceland provide generic impact data for life cycle modules, such as A4, A5, C1 and C2, for bridging the current lack of specific data. Iceland also allows the use of average data on energy demand in module B6 (Section 4.2, Table 14).

Generic impact data for certain modules would remove the effort and uncertainty for the industry to provide whole life assessments. However, carbon limits must only include specifically reported modules to ensure the decarbonisation steering effect.

Generic product service lives: The Nordics apply varying degrees of differentiation of table values from uniform to a differentiation after exposure, quality, or location in the building. There is the possibility of a potential EU harmonisation (Section 4.2).

National service life tables should apply a harmonised structure and evaluation criteria, securing adaptation to regional conditions such as climate.

 

Developing common standards, which remove differences in the status of building products in varying regulation regimes increases consistency and improves fair competition. As for common service lives standards this is also a good preparation towards including maintenance in the scope.

Generic inventory data for components: Most Nordic countries provide conservative inventory data for building components and systems to support the implementation of carbon assessments and early design decisions. An example is building services (Section 4.2, Table 14).

Authority or other actors can provide standard values and built-ups, however, the issue is what standard solutions can be used directly in carbon declarations, and what deviations are allowed between standard and as-built solutions. (Section 4.2).

Generic components should be provided at the introduction of carbon limits when the industry is still lacking template data. It must be defined whether generic components may be used for as-built reporting.

 

The currently high costs for developing EPDs are a barrier for small suppliers and for covering a larger range of product variation. Industry associations like Swedish Concrete, Swedish Wood and Danish Concrete provide EPD generators for all branch members (Section 4.4.6, Table 15).

EPD data must be accessible in a digital, structured and exchangeable format for improving feasibility. This is in line with the requirement that product information must be transmitted digitally by means of a Digital Product Passport (DPP) under both CPR and ESPR legislations.

 Subsidies or automated tools designed to generate EPDs can help support small enterprises.

Acting:
Authorities, EPD Programme Operators

Affected:
Product Manufacturers

There is not a standardised approach for selecting and analysing reference data for deriving carbon limits.

Limit values are based on a building stock analysis by either using a larger representative building case sample or by breaking down the building stock into few representative archetype models. Archetypes require a certain case sample as well and are also useful for simulating the carbon reduction potential (Section 4.3.5).

Limit values must be derived from a large statistical sample of building cases, which represent the building stock in relation to the limit values for certain building types. The statistical approach is useful for introducing limit values in a feasible manner.

Alternatively, limit values can be derived from distinct archetype models, which represent the building stock. Archetypes are useful for understanding the variation in carbon impacts and the thresholds for reducing them. Archetypes are useful for more advanced studies of carbon mitigation and the efforts required to achieve certain limit levels.

Acting:
Academia, authorities

The EPBD requires limit value roadmaps differentiated for building type and climate zone. All Nordic countries apply building use or function for differentiating limit values, even though many other parameters can cause variation in building carbon impacts, including location, building geometry or construction method.

In Denmark, some of the justified variation is being balanced by providing an allowance for components with extraordinarily high climate impacts (Section 2.4.2). Also, the construction process (modules A4, A5), as a location-sensitive parameter, has been agreed to be regulated with an individual limit value from 2025

Systematic variation in building properties can be addressed by differentiated limit values, while unavoidable variation can be balanced through exemption criteria. Due to the complex nature of construction, the steering effect of limit value differentiation must be considered carefully and monitored over time.

 

 

Due to the delay in necessary carbon reductions globally, upfront carbon reductions provide more immediate effects than long-term processes. Upfront carbon (modules A1-5) is both significantly high and provides the largest mitigation potential throughout the life cycle in energy efficient buildings.

Three strategies for promoting upfront carbon mitigation are observed:

1. Initial focus exclusively on A1-5 (Sweden) or

2. Dynamic accounting of emissions over time, where today’s emissions are assigned a higher weight than emissions in the future.

3. Dynamic emission factors for future process scenarios (i.e., operational energy, replacements or waste treatment)

The Danish regulation includes dynamic emissions for energy supply, rendering their contribution to the overall impacts relatively small. On the contrary, only voluntary schemes are using dynamic emissions for other processes such as future product manufacturing. In general, the choice between static and dynamic factors influences the steering effect of regulation and should be considered carefully (Section 4.3).

Possible options to highlight upfront carbon reduction should be considered entailing the different influences on the steering effect of carbon limits:

An initial focus exclusively on A1-5 is an option for countries looking to quickly establish requirements in those phases where the market is more mature. The risk lies in that buildings may not be fully optimised if this is not accompanied by a clear indication of a long-term strategy considering the full life cycle.

A dual approach with separate carbon limits for upfront modules and the whole life cycle increases immediate carbon reductions while also controlling long-term impacts. However, this added complexity may result in increased bureaucracy and challenges in effectively communicating the results.

Application of dynamic emission factors for future scenarios leads to a significant decrease in the relevance of post-handover modules, which thus highlights upfront carbon. However, care should be taken to avoid applying overly optimistic scenarios that suggest minimal action is needed to lower the impact from the use stage poses. Additionally, applying such factors to future climate impacts from products with inherent carbon (biogenic and fossil) entails preparing GWP data for relevant disaggregation and increases calculation error risk.

Application of dynamic accounting over time has the effect of increasing the influence of current emissions over future emissions. This approach results in negative impact values for wood products due to the lacking biogenic carbon neutrality (-1/ + <1), and provides incentives for using large amounts of wood, thus compromising an efficient use of renewable resources.

Acting:
Policymakers
Authorities
Academia

Affected:
Consultants
Designers
Clients

 

Introducing novel carbon regulations entail potentially far-reaching consequences. The construction sector has to adapt to the new regime implying new practices for planners, designers and contractors, but also for material suppliers and the rest of the supply chain (Section 4.4).

For allowing capacity building and increasing preparedness, carbon regulation methods and limit value levels should be implemented incrementally, and the steps be laid out on a long-term roadmap.

A gradual expansion of life cycle scope and affected projects can be supported by stakeholder involvement and impact assessments.

Acting:
Authorities, policymakers, industry

Affected: All

Currently the Nordics and Estonia employ different definitions of Global Warming Potential, where biogenic carbon is only included where end-of-life stage forms part of the scope. Harmonisation is expected to be achieved in the mid-term, as compliance with EPBD requires expanding to full life cycle scope. However, a module-by-module comparison will still not be feasible without the introduction of a separate biogenic carbon declaration. While the declaration of information on carbon removal associated with the temporary storage of carbon is only a suggestion in EPBD, at least the reporting of GWP-biogenic, and to the extent possible of the capability of products to temporarily store carbon, are essential requirements according to the CPR recast (Section 4.2).

Separate reporting of the amount of biogenic carbon stored in the building is advisable as it:

-  reflects the reality better and is crucial to understanding and tracking the amount of carbon withheld from the atmosphere over the building’s lifetime or longer.

-  allows quantifying potential future benefits, such as continued storage of biogenic carbon if a building's life is extended or wood products are reused.

- increases mutual compatibility and preparation for an extended version of the EPC certificate in line with EPBD’s suggestion. 

On the other hand, reporting of additional information may add substantial workload to the process for both administration (creation of relevant generic data) and the industry.

Acting:
Authorities, academia

Affected: All

The inclusion or exclusion of deep foundations, soil stabilisation, external works, internal finishes, fixed furniture and building services causes considerable variability (Section 4.3.1).

The structure and level of detail of building models should be harmonised, or a Nordic mapping table for national classifications systems should be developed to automatically convert building inventories across countries.

Eventually, classification and completeness will have to comply with overall principles given in Level(s).

Acting:
Authorities, academia, industry

Affected: All

Reference area is the functional unit for carbon assessments. Its definition varies in the Nordic countries. The expected mandatory usable floor area (UFA) stipulated in the revised EPBD may offer an opportunity for harmonisation (Section 4.2). However, the level of definition in the expected EPBD Delegated Act is not known yet.

Comparability of carbon calculations may be achieved by either introducing a harmonised Nordic definition of the usable floor area or by providing conversion factors between national definitions.

 

Acting:
Authorities, academia, industry

Affected: All

Differences in Nordic reference areas affect the inclusion of external walls, basements, stairs, corridors and common facilities, rooftop terraces, balconies, and other areas outside the building enclosure, see (Section 4.3.2).

The influence of secondary spaces including basement, attic, external stairs/ramps and balconies should be analysed and a common definition for the inclusion of their area be considered.

Although all limit value definitions are based on a reference area, there are other ways of normalising LCA results, which provide alternative steering opportunities for carbon emissions, as discussed in the Nordic countries (Section 4.2).

Supplementary carbon metrics based on occupancy or users should be considered in order to incentivise an efficient use of space and support a sufficiency perspective.

In Nordic countries, there is growing interest in assessing the climate impact of deep renovations. Sweden plans to incorporate deep renovation projects into its carbon declaration by 2027, following Norway's existing requirement. In most countries, discussions are ongoing, on the one hand, with concerns about the workload of building supervision and permit processes if renovations are included, and on the other hand, about impeding low-carbon innovations for renovations when excluding them, affecting national and EU carbon neutrality goals (Section 2.4.2).

Carbon regulation for renovations must avoid creating burdens for renovations with environmental benefits such as energy retrofits, life-extending renovations or use adjustments.

A harmonised approach for a carbon declaration method for renovations should be developed, starting with deep renovations and repurposing.

More research is needed to identify the environmental value of renovation and proposing regulative measures for mitigating carbon impacts.

Acting:
Authorities, academia, Industry

Affected: policymakers

Variation in current national generic emission factors in the Nordics affect impact results considerably (Figure 14). Some of the differences between generic emission factors rely on actual product differences in national markets and eventually from import. The other part of the differences comes from different assumptions and methods behind generic data.

In order to ensure that comparisons of building case results in the suggested Nordic case data base (see Part B of recommendations) are based on different building systems, technologies, and designs rather than potential methodological variations or non-representative product data, a thorough study and analysis should be carried out to compare emissions factors for materials and products in the Nordic region, including EPDs (as they also form the basis for the generic impact data).

Acting:
Authorities, academia, construction product manufacturers

Affected:
EPD programme operators, consultants designers

The current carbon monitoring approach in the Nordic countries is based on national environmental accounts. None of the sectors in the national accounts sufficiently describe the GWP related to buildings directly (Section 3.2).

Monitor carbon emissions, related to the developing building stock, with a dual-level monitoring system in place: sectoral accounts based on already established national environmental accounting and building-level accounts based on life cycle assessment.

The Swedish model for sectoral accounting can be introduced in other Nordic countries for a harmonised detailed sectoral monitoring approach.

Acting:
Authorities, academia

Data collection
New buildings

All Nordic countries has soon implemented mandatory climate declarations for new buildings. By aggregating data, climate declarations can be used to monitor the climate impact related to new buildings in building stock scale.

Only one Nordic country (Sweden) has introduced a mandatory reporting format for collecting data from climate declarations and method for utilising it for building stock monitoring (Section 3.3.1).

A building-level monitoring approach needs to be established, including approaches to collect and analyse carbon declarations from new buildings.

Sweden has introduced a method for collecting carbon declarations and disclosing data for new buildings, which can serve as inspiration for the other Nordic countries’ authorities.

Iceland has introduced a simple online submission format for carbon declarations which can also serve as inspiration for the other Nordic countries’ authorities.

Authorities

Data collection
Buildings-in-use

There are currently no available databases in the Nordic countries containing information on emissions from buildings in use (Section 3.3.1).

For a cost-effective and harmonised approach to building-level monitoring of emissions related to operational energy use, data from the EU building stock observatory with relevant emission factors could be utilised.

Authorities

Data collection
Renovations

No countries have yet introduced mandatory climate declarations for renovations, but some are planning to in the coming year (Section 2.4.2).

No other databases are available in the Nordic countries containing information that can be utilised to monitor emissions related to renovations (Section 3.4.2).

As for new buildings, climate declaration for renovations could be introduced to monitor the environmental impact from renovations (potentially starting with larger renovations)

Acting:
Policymakers, authorities

Data collection
Demolishing of buildings

There are currently no system or databases in place in the Nordic countries to directly monitor the emissions related to the processes from demolishing a building or taking down parts of a building (Section 3.4.2).

For building-level monitoring of emissions related to the demolishing of buildings, the data collection on the amount of construction waste divided in fractions could be utilised with emission factors for waste management. The quality of construction waste data should be considered for this approach.

Acting:
Authorities

Data collection
Reporting format

Sweden (mandatory), Iceland and Denmark (voluntary) have introduced a reporting format developed for each country’s specific method (scope, area, building part etc.) (Section 3.3.1).

For a robust and harmonised reporting format, make sure that the format aligns with the future guidelines according to EPBD by reporting according to Level(s) (whole life cycle, and reporting of useful floor area).

Acting:
Authorities

Dynamic variables represent specific variables that are altered within a model to explore alternative scenarios of an input. To implement decarbonisation efforts into projection models it is important to implement dynamic variables (Section 3.5).

For projections of carbon emissions related to the development of the building stock consider dynamic variables such as:

Acting:
Authorities