bps 5102 group assignment final 2011 03 10

1 BPS 5102 Group Assignment: The Green Mark Scheme in Singapore

BPS 5102 Group Assignment

T H E G R E E N M A R K S C H E M E I N S I N G A P O R E

POLICY, LEGISLATION & EFFECTIVENESS FOR CLIMATE CHANGE & GHG EMISSIONS

March 11, 2011

Project Team

Desmond Lee A0066585R Eric Phang Siew Boon HT095704L Julian Goh HT095684W Robert J Baird HT0905706J Sweta Sorab A0079783J Vanitha Sri D HT095713L


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................ 3

Singapore’s Approach to Climate Change ................................................................................................................... 4

Vulnerability to Climate Change.............................................................................................................................. 4

National Strategy and Targets ................................................................................................................................ 4

The Pragmatic Approach ........................................................................................................................................ 5

Environmental Challenges: GHGs and the Building/Construction Industry .................................................................. 5

The Green Mark Scheme & Supporting Legislations ................................................................................................... 7

GMS Incentives for New and Old Buildings ............................................................................................................. 7

Legislations Supporting the Green Mark Scheme ................................................................................................... 8

Critical Review & Recommendations .......................................................................................................................... 9

1. Clearer Roadmap to 2030............................................................................................................................... 10

2. More Direct Linkage With GHG Reduction .................................................................................................... 10

3. Clearer Alignment Across Policy Areas .......................................................................................................... 11

4. Innovative Financing Models ......................................................................................................................... 11

5. Continuous Performance Monitoring ............................................................................................................. 11

6. Incorporating Demand Management Considerations .................................................................................... 12

7. Public Awareness and Demand for Green Buildings ....................................................................................... 12

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................................ 13

References ................................................................................................................................................................ 14


INTRODUCTION

As the adverse effects of climate change are better understood, countries have begun to respond with diverse

strategies for mitigation and adaptation. Singapore, a highly urbanized, economically advanced and resource-

constrained tropical island nation, makes an interesting study in this regard.

Singapore has addressed the challenges of population growth, limited land area and the near-absence of natural and

physical resources partly through urbanization. During the 2008-2009 global economic downturn, Singapore’s

construction sector continued to grow, clearly demonstrating the sector’s importance to the nation’s economy.1 As a

significant user of energy and emitter of greenhouse gases (GHGs), it is essential that the construction and building

industry plays an active part in sustainability efforts. The Singapore Government puts major emphasis on this sector

when developing legislation and policy initiatives to address climate change.

This paper provides an overview of the challenges Singapore faces from climate change, particularly GHG emissions,

and describes the country’s strategy to address them. It provides an in-depth review and critique of the nation’s key

policy instrument towards encouraging green buildings, the Green Mark Scheme (GMS), and makes a number of

recommendations to improve and accelerate the adoption of the GMS.

1 Ministry of Trade and Industry, 2009 Economic Survey of Singapore, pp. 40.


SINGAPORE’S APPROACH TO CLIMATE CHANGE

The Singapore Government aims to build and sustain a dynamic economy while ensuring a superior quality of life.

To achieve this, the Government takes a holistic and long-term view. Its approach towards policymaking can be

broadly described as deeply pragmatic and flexible, with a strong emphasis on cost-effectiveness.

VULNERABILITY TO CLIMATE CHANGE

As a tropical island state, Singapore is under threat from increased flooding, coastal land loss, water scarcity,

extreme weather events and heat stress, among others. Academic studies show that the cost of protecting

Singapore’s coast will rise in tandem with sea level rises – projections range from US$0.3-5.7 million in 2050 to

US$0.9-16.8 million by 21002. Thus, Singapore’s very survival depends on its ability to mitigate and adapt to climate

change; simultaneously, to achieve a better quality of life, the pressures of economy and society must be balanced.

NATIONAL STRATEGY AND TARGETS

In 2006, the National Climate Change Strategy (NCCS) committed to improving energy efficiency, technological

innovation, and promoting the use of clean, less carbon-intensive energy.

As climate change issues gained prominence, an Inter-Ministerial Committee on Sustainable Development (IMCSD)

was formed, which in 2009 pledged to3:

Undertake mitigation measures to reduce GHG emissions by 16% below 2020 business-as-usual levels4

Aim for 35% improvement in energy efficiency from 2005 levels by 2030

Make 80% of Singapore’s existing building stock ‘green’ by 2030

Together, these declarations provide the targets set and the means by which Singapore plans to meet them.

2 Ng, Wei-Shiuen, Mendelsohn, Robert, 2005, The Impact of Sea Level Rise on Singapore, Journal of Environment and Development Economics,

pp. 201-205. 3 Report of the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Sustainable Development, 2009.

4 Note, however, that no estimate of the expected GHG emissions in 2020 was provided.


THE PRAGMATIC APPROACH

Singapore takes the position that, being an ‘alternative energy disadvantaged country’ (i.e., unable to tap sources

such as solar, hydro, wind and nuclear) with low total carbon emissions, it is prepared to reduce its CO2 emissions if

a globally binding agreement is in place. In other words, Singapore will not take drastic action to reduce its CO2

emissions unilaterally, but is willing to do its fair share as part of a global effort.

This pragmatic approach is clearly due to economic considerations. Singapore would not want to be economically

disadvantaged by self-imposed stringent standards that would drive up business costs. On the other hand,

conscious that climate change would ultimately affect all countries, it is in Singapore’s interest to seek agreement at

the United Nations level.

ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES: GHGS AND THE BUILDING/CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

Singapore’s energy comes from oil (including oil derivatives, 19%) and natural gas (79%)5, supplemented by waste

incineration and, to a lesser extent, solar power. The government believes that geographical and technological

constraints preclude the adoption of alternative energy sources for the present. To ascertain the magnitude of the

environmental challenges facing Singapore, the National Environment Agency (NEA) published the National

Greenhouse Gas Inventory using year 2000 data6.

These data showed that CO2 contributed 97.3% of Singapore’s total GHG emissions in 2000, with other GHGs

making up the remaining 2.7%7. These proportions have remained relatively stable in the decade since. Hence

controlling CO2 emissions is the biggest challenge by far.

In 2007, Singapore contributed less than 0.2% of global CO2 emissions. However, Singapore’s emissions increased

by about 83% from 1990 to 2007, before stabilizing slightly. Per capita emissions peaked in 2004 and began a slow

decline subsequently, possibly due to cleaner natural gas and other energy efficiency measures. Although CO2

intensity has dropped 39% from 1990 to 20078, in terms of absolute emissions the situation is still dire9.

5 World Green Building Council, 2010, Tackling Global Climate Change – Meeting Local Priorities, pp. 34.

6 National Environment Agency, 2010, Singapore’s Second National Communication, pp. 29.s

7 Greenhouse gases represented are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydro fluorocarbons (HFCs), per fluorocarbons

(PFCs) and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6). 8 0.17 kg/S$2000 in 2007.


Figure 2: Singapore’s CO2 emissions from 1990 to 200710

Figure 3: Singapore’s carbon intensity from 1990 to 200711

Having established the pre-eminence of CO2 in Singapore’s GHG emissions, we now focus our attention on the

contributions of the building and construction industry to the GHG problem, and the CO2 problem in particular.

In Singapore, the built environment contributes significantly to the total energy consumed and hence the CO2

emissions. The following statistics12 define the scope:

Buildings and their occupants (consumers and households) contributed fully one-quarter of Singapore’s CO2

emissions in 200513

In 2005, buildings consumed 31% of end-use electricity; household consumption a further 18%14

Most of the electricity consumed during operation was from air-conditioners; it is expected that, with

temperatures rising, air-conditioner usage will increase

Approximately 4 million sqm of new buildings are constructed annually

Apartments comprise 97% of the housing stock; the remaining 3% is detached or semi-detached houses;

80% of all housing is public-sector

9 Low Carbon SG, Singapore’s Carbon Dioxide Emissions Per Capita and Carbon Intensity, May 2009; statistical data from the Ministry of

Environment and Water Resources, NCCS and the Singapore Department of Statistics. 10

Low Carbon SG, Singapore’s Carbon Dioxide Emissions Per Capita and Carbon Intensity, May 2009; statistical data from the Ministry of Environment and Water Resources, NCCS and the Singapore Department of Statistics. 11

Low Carbon SG, Singapore’s Carbon Dioxide Emissions Per Capita and Carbon Intensity, May 2009; statistical data from the Ministry of Environment and Water Resources, NCCS and the Singapore Department of Statistics. 12

Unless otherwise specified, all statistics in this section are from World Green Building Council, 2010, Tackling Global Climate Change – Meeting Local Priorities, pp. 35. 13

National Environment Agency, 2008, National Climate Change Strategy, pp. 21. 14

Lee, Chuan Seng, Singapore Green Building Council, 2010, Building Green… The Singapore Way.


THE GREEN MARK SCHEME & SUPPORTING LEGISLATIONS

Launched in 2005 by the Building & Construction Authority (BCA), this flagship programme aims to drive

Singapore’s construction industry towards more environment-friendly buildings and reduced carbon emissions.

Instead of adopting LEED15 or equivalent standards, the BCA decided from the outset to develop Singapore’s own

framework, reasoning that LEED and the like did not adequately consider the needs of buildings in the tropical

environment, especially given extra air conditioning requirements16.

There is also a strategic advantage in developing a framework indigenously: Singapore is able to better calibrate its

own balance in meeting both economic and environmental sustainability objectives. Adopting LEED would have

rendered Singapore vulnerable to the imposition of externally determined standards that might counter the

interests of business, whereas the GMS allows the government to be pragmatic.

The GMS is a points-based scheme to assess performance on energy and water efficiency, site/project development

and management17, indoor environmental quality, environmental protection and innovation. The criteria cover both

mitigation and adaptation measures; for example, energy efficiency includes improved air conditioner efficiency,

renewable energy sources, and better O&M18, improved designs for natural ventilation and light, passive design, and

reflective surfaces – adaptive strategies to cope with inexorably rising temperatures. The GMS also rewards

sustainable construction, encouraging recycled material use and more concrete-efficient designs.

GMS adoption is facilitated through a ‘carrot and stick’ approach, a mix of incentives and regulations described in

the following sections.

GMS INCENTIVES FOR NEW AND OLD BUILDINGS

Financial incentives and additional GFA19 are used to encourage the development of new buildings under

environment-friendly principles. Stringent land sales conditions have been set for new developments in selected

strategic growth areas20.

15

Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design. 16

To Green Mark’s credit BCA is more aggressive than LEED on energy efficiency; Green Mark places over 50% weight on energy efficiency, where LEED is at approximately 25%. 17

Building management and operation in the case of existing buildings. 18

Operations and maintenance. 19

Through the Green Mark Incentive Scheme for New Buildings (GMIS-NB) and the Green Mark Gross Floor Area Scheme (GM-GFA). 20

Marina Bay, Downtown Core, Jurong Gateway, Kallang Riverside and Paya Lebar Central.


To promote environment-friendly practices for existing buildings, financial assistance is offered to offset the upfront

costs involved in improving energy efficiency21. In total, S$100 million and S$20 million have been allocated for

existing and new buildings respectively.

LEGISLATIONS SUPPORTING THE GREEN MARK SCHEME

The 2003 Building Control Act, amended to include the Building Control (Environmental Sustainability) Regulations

of 2008, requires certain buildings to attain environmental sustainability standards equivalent to GMS ratings.

The new regulations22 are applicable to:

New buildings with GFA 2,000 sqm or more

Additions or extensions to existing buildings that increase GFA by 2,000 sqm or more

Major retrofitting of existing buildings with existing GFA of 2,000 sqm or more

Previously, the regulations focused on compliance with minimum energy efficiency standards. The new

requirements are integrated into the building planning process. Qualified Persons (QPs)23 submitting the building

plan must assess the building works under their charge, using the criteria and scoring methodology in the

Environmental Sustainability Code24.

21

Through the Green Mark Incentive Scheme for Existing Buildings (GMIS-EB). 22

The updated legislation went into effect in April 2008. 23

Or other appropriate practitioners. 24

http://www.bca.gov.sg/EnvSusLegislation/others/Env_Sus_Code2010.pdf .

http://www.bca.gov.sg/EnvSusLegislation/others/Env_Sus_Code2010.pdf


CRITICAL REVIEW & RECOMMENDATIONS

The GMS has undergone several revisions. The latest, Version 4.0, was released in December 2010. Recent changes

include:

Wider scope: The GMS has expanded to cover not just existing and new buildings, but parks25 and urban

precincts26 as well.

Higher standards: The minimum standards for GMS ratings have risen with each version. The GMS

Certification (entry-level rating), generally requires energy efficiency improvements of 10-15%; proposals to

increase this to 28% are under discussion27.

Faster adoption: GMS adoption is being accelerated through revised regulations adopted in 2008 and the

requirement to make GMS ratings compulsory for new public development.

The evolution of the GMS is in tandem with industry developments and the maturity of R&D efforts. For instance,

one key improvement in Version 4.0 over Version 3.0 is the promotion of specific sustainable construction materials

such as Recycled Concrete Aggregates (RCA) and Washed Copper Slag (WCS). This is clearly due to growing

understanding and confidence in the usage of such materials in the construction industry in recent years. Thus, the

GMS strike a practical balance in incorporating mature and proven solutions (which are cost-effective) against

newer, less established ones (which may be more expensive).

On the whole, the GMS has achieved some measure of success, with a mid-2010 scorecard as follows:

Singapore had 486 GMS-rated buildings, from 17 in 200528

Approximately 16.2 million m2 of GFA was GMS-rated

About 8% of Singapore’s built environment was GMS-rated

25

In the form of the Green Mark for Parks programme launched by the URA in conjunction with NParks. 26

The Green Mark for Districts programme, launched in 2009, has so far rated two green precinct developments at Punggol and the National University of Singapore’s UTown. 27

Neng, Jeffery, 2010, Greening Singapore’s Built Environment, BCA. 28

The CAGR is over 95%, though from a very small baseline. This includes all Green Mark ratings from Certification to Platinum.


Figure 4: Gross Floor Area in Singapore covered by the BCA Green Mark Scheme29

Notwithstanding this, some suggestions for further improvements are discussed below:

1. CLEARER ROADMAP TO 2030

The Government is targeting 80% existing building stock GMS Certified by 2030. Despite tightening regulations in

2008, it is unclear how and whether this target is achievable. It would be useful for the Government to set out a

clearer road map that better articulates its strategy and projections. This could include interim targets so that the

industry and the general public can clearly understand the progress and interim milestones.

2. MORE DIRECT LINKAGE WITH GHG REDUCTION

The GMS clearly focuses on reducing the environmental impact of the building and construction sector. However,

the linkage with GHG reduction is not explicit. Looking ahead, the ongoing Climate Change discussions by the

Conference of Parties would likely lead to mandatory GHG-reduction targets by countries. Singapore can prepare

for this scenario by aligning its various sustainability initiatives towards monitoring and reporting GHG

reductions. The impact of the GMS in GHG mitigation should be quantified and made transparent. Adopting an

outcome-based approach will also sharpen the focus and direction of future improvements to the GMS.

29

BCA, 2010.


3. CLEARER ALIGNMENT ACROSS POLICY AREAS

Besides the GMS, there are many other building- and land use-related policies that affect the environment; some of

them might have unintended effects. One obvious example that requires careful review is en-bloc redevelopment.

Current land use policies implicitly encourage redevelopment of existing buildings for higher intensity (and greater

economic returns) before they have outlived their physical utility. While the buildings that replace them may be

more GHG-efficient, the redevelopment process itself causes more GHG emissions than the original building would

have caused over its natural lifetime. A more balanced framework to evaluate the total costs and benefits of en-

bloc redevelopment, considering environmental factors, would be beneficial.

4. INNOVATIVE FINANCING MODELS

One of the most commonly cited barriers to the adoption of green buildings is the higher upfront costs in installing

green features. While these features are expected to reduce operational costs, developers have concerns about the

extended payback period and the uncertainty of operational savings. The mismatch between upfront costs and

mid- to long-term payback can be addressed through innovative financing. The Singapore Government could

facilitate the establishment of third party entities (companies or funds), that can invest in green development

projects. Operational savings from such investments would accrue to these entities as income streams (i.e.,

investment returns). While this business model can bridge the funding gap, an appropriate policy framework must

be established to protect the interests of stakeholders.

5. CONTINUOUS PERFORMANCE MONITORING

Presently, buildings are assessed for GMS rating at the application stage and thereafter reassessed every three years

to maintain their accreditation. This can be problematic:

If new buildings that received incentives based on their GMS rating were to fail the reassessment, how are

the incentives previously granted, recovered? In particular, it would be impractical to withdraw the bonus

GFA, which is incorporated into the physical structure of the buildings.

The environmental performance of GMS-rated buildings could fall short of standards in the interim between

assessments.

To address this, GMS-rated buildings can be assessed on a continuous basis. Specifically, to ensure real and

measurable reduction of GHG emissions, the energy efficiency of GMS-rated buildings should be continuously

monitored and benchmarked. Technology readily available in the market can be used.


GMS 4.0 has taken a significant step in this direction by mandating the monitoring of non-residential buildings using

water-cooled chiller plants. There is scope to expand such real-time monitoring.

6. INCORPORATING DEMAND MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

The effectiveness of green buildings in environmental sustainability ultimately depends on the behaviour of their

occupants30. A GMS Platinum building may consume a large amount of resources if its occupants do not adopt

sustainable practices.

Changing occupant behaviour requires a multi-faceted approach. One strategy is demand management through

information technology. Traditionally, occupants have little knowledge of their consumption behaviour.

Consumption of resources (e.g., electricity and water) is reported monthly, doing little to influence behaviour. The

emergence of Smart Grid-related technologies such as smart meters that allow the occupant to monitor the usage

of resources in real time, will aid in changing behaviour. The GMS could include award points for the adoption of

demand management tools to influence occupant behaviour.

7. PUBLIC AWARENESS AND DEMAND FOR GREEN BUILDINGS

As awareness of sustainability issues grows among the general public, introducing mandatory eco-labelling of

buildings is a timely step. The approach is already widespread for electricity-hungry household appliances like air-

conditioners and washing machines. The mandatory display of fuel efficiency of vehicles has, to some extent,

influenced purchasing patterns among potential vehicle buyers.

Though the GMS were launched in 2005, public awareness is low. Since buildings form an important part of daily life,

whether as homes or workspaces, it is logical to raise public awareness and support for green buildings. Over time,

this would encourage buyers, tenants and other users to choose green buildings, providing an impetus for

developers to incorporate green features as standard.

30

The expression ‘occupants’ is used to denote users and tenants of the building, i.e., any persons who occupy the building whether permanently or temporarily.


CONCLUSION

Climate change is one of the most complex long-term challenges we face today. For all nations, mitigation efforts

impact policies on environment, economy and energy security. They are politically difficult. This is because the measures

are costly but the benefits are not only uncertain but would accrue over the long term and then too for the global

commons.

Professor S Jayakumar

Senior Minister & Coordinating Minister for Climate Change

Prof. S Jayakumar aptly sums up the challenges faced by policymakers worldwide in dealing with climate change.

The trade-off between the upfront costs needed to address climate change and the long-term benefits is a complex

one, further complicated by the international nature of climate change issues.

It is accepted that green buildings play a major role in improving energy efficiency and consequently reducing GHG

emissions. The question is how strongly countries are prepared to push for green buildings, considering the upfront

costs – whether these are borne by the public or private sector.

The GMS is Singapore’s key policy instrument to encourage green buildings. Since its launch in 2005, it has

undergone four iterations; its scope has expanded, its requirements are more stringent. What began as a voluntary,

incentive-based scheme now has a more regulation-based approach. The shift clearly reflects a recalibration by

Singapore’s policymakers, perhaps driven by a greater awareness of the direct impact of climate change on

Singapore.

Detractors may argue that progress is too slow and that more should be done. Some might expect Singapore to take

bolder steps or even assume a leadership position in addressing climate change. However, such expectations may be

unrealistic, given the pragmatism of the Singapore Government. Ultimately, each country will find its own balance

in addressing climate change, based on consideration and calculation of its national interests.


REFERENCES

1. Ministry of Trade and Industry, 2009, 2009 Economic Survey of Singapore

2. Ng, Wei-Shiuen & Mendelsohn, Robert, 2005, The Impact of Sea Level Rise on Singapore, Journal of

Environment and Development Economics

3. Inter-Ministerial Committee on Sustainable Development, 2010, Report

4. World Green Building Council, 2010, Tacking Global Climate Change – Meeting Local Priorities [Presentation]

5. National Environment Agency, 2010, Singapore’s Second National Communication

6. National Environment Agency, 2008, National Climate Change Strategy

7. Lee, Chuan Seng, 2010, Building Green… The Singapore Way, Singapore Green Building Council

[Presentation]

8. Building & Construction Authority, 2010, Singapore Environmental Sustainability Code

9. Neng, Jeffery, 2010, Greening Singapore’s Built Environment, Building & Construction Authority

[Presentation]

10. Ho Bee Lan, 2009, A critical review of BCA Green Mark Scheme (Version 3) with particular reference to

sustainable material usage, National University of Singapore

11. Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources, 2009, A Lively and Liveable Singapore – Strategies For

Sustainable Growth

12. Singapore Green Building Council, 2010, Will it pay to build green? Singapore as a green building hub

13. Building Construction Authority, 2010, Revised BCA Green Mark Criteria For New Buildings (Version 4.0)

14. www.bca.gov.sg

15. www.ura.gov.sg

16. www.hdb.gov.sg

http://www.bca.gov.sg/

http://www.ura.gov.sg/

http://www.hdb.gov.sg/

bps 5102 group assignment final 2011 03 10

Documents