leed india indd

8/6/2019 LEED India Indd

1/18

A Critical anlysis of

LEEDIndiastandards and its relevance to Indiaby

Somshankar Bose AIA Architect | PlannerBLIPSNCARB| PMP | LEED AP BD+C

1 18

Abstract: This paper is a critical analysis of LEED v.1.0 (India) green building standards and a commentary on the operational processes that went inevolving these standards by Indian Green Building Council (IGBC). Thepaper analyses the structure, content and metrics cited in the LEED v.1.0(India) standards. It challenges some of the metrics that are referenced forbuildings to achieve LEED certication. It does so by evaluating the metricsagainst the contextual competing pressures that are relevant to the Indianbuilding and construction industry. The paper also provides a commentary on the development of the LEED standards and the management of theprocess with limited information available. The paper nally brings out thefailures of LEED v.1.0 (India) and provides some correctional paths. In

view of the lack of transparency of IGBC, the paper relies on the limitedinformation available from sources available in the public domain and theIGBC website.

OperationalProcesses forLEED-India:For all purposes the Indian Green Building Council (IGBC) is modeledand nds itself as a derivative of the U.S. Green Building Council(USGBC). USGBC is a private 501(c)(3), membership based non-protorganization. At the end of February 2010, USGBC had more than18,500 member organizations from every sector of the building industry,including members representing the various construction trades, industry lobby groups, industry associations, trade membership association andunions representing the construction industry . As of 2010, the executivecommittee of USGBC did not comprise of any licensed architects, interior


2/18

Somshankar Bose AIA 20112 18

designers etc. The American Institute of Architects (AIA) has been reluctantto endorse LEED as the only green standard . Almost 90 percent of members of the board are represented by building manufacturers industry and trade associations. Having most of the funding raised through private

corporate donations and memberships, there is clear power equation ruledin the favor of large manufacturers of building materials, constructioncompanies and trade associations reected in the composition of theleadership at USGBC. Unfortunately, professional bodies like the AIA,

ALA, ASPE, ASME, NSPE, IEEE and AITP, ILSNA, ASHRAE, etc. areunder-represented .

Coming back to India, although on a much smaller scale, the operationalnarrative published by IGBC mirrors a model similar to USGBC claiming a membership of over 125 companies and organizations that contributesto what it describes as consensus based standards. It also claims of acoalition of committee members that volunteer and seek expert opinionthat seek to resolve differences, forge co-operative solution for inuencing change in all sectors of the building industry. Unlike the core values of transparency espoused by USGBC, it is glaringly absent in the IGBC with no


3/18

Somshankar Bose AIA 2011 3 18

information available on these members, their participation, the processes,the management structure, leadership and committees. The narratives alsospeak of setting policy, goals and working on strategies and devising work plans to address member needs. All these process description reads like an

exact text extract from the USGBC operation narrative. What is missing is the transparency of these background processes or any information inthe public domain.

LEED v.1.0 (India) certication is still in its nascent stages and the market

for project certication is very asymmetrical from many angles. There isa geographic imbalance in projects across the major metropolitan regionsas most projects are based in the North and South, with very few LEED. Across disciples from the construction industry, the interior industry has

What is missing is thetransparency of thesebackground process-es or any informationin the public domain.


4/18


embraced the standards more rapidly than the architecture and building industry. The certication of ofces buildings is clearly ahead in numbersamong project typologies, a denite result of most projects being interiort-outs. Having seen the trends stated above, we should ask explore some

of these issues related to the focus areas in further detail. Also, having observed these asymmetries in LEEDs acceptability in the Indian market,

we could better inform ourselves of the impact these standards couldmake to the sustainability goals of India and relevance of the standards inthe Indian market.

SustainableSites: Among the criteria listed under this focus area SS.Cr.1 is that land notprime farm land be not used for development. This should be assumedas a misprint, because the use of prime farmland is clearly works against

achieving a goal of sustainability, which preserves the existing farm

land. There is no elaboration of what is meant by public parkland fordevelopment. It also is silent on undeveloped land around water bodies,

which is a requirement in the USGBC LEED V.2.2 onwards. It should benoted the Protection of Water Bodies Bill, 2004 was tabled in parliamentbut is still not been accepted. More glaring is the requirements for theSS Credit 2 which deals with development density. LEED v1.0 requiresa development density of 60,000/acre, which is the exact standards, used


5/18

5 18 Somshankar Bose AIA 2011

by LEED US. One could easily conclude that therehave been no empirical basis to arrive for this gure by observing three simple differences between the US andIndia. The US has roughly the population of India

with 3 times the landmass, which equates that India hasroughly 12 times the pressure on resources as the US. Seethe graphic below is comparative difference of populationand density between the two countries.

Population density (person per km)

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

M u m b

a i D e

l h i

C h e n

n a i

S u r a t

a h m e

d a b a

d

H y d e

r a b a d

B a n g

a l o r e

K o l k a

t a K a

n p u r

P u n e

K a m a

r h a t i

J a i g a

o n

N e w Y

o r k

L o s A

n g e l e

s

Cities

Population density(personspersqkm)

Mum bai Delhi Chennai Surat ahmedabad

Hy derabad B angalore K olk at a K anpur Pune Kamarhat i

Jaigaon New York Los Angeles

While India has a population density of 363 person persq km, the United States has a population of 32 personsper sq km. This means that there is more than 10 times

the number of people in India than the US. Despitethis simple statistical comparison, the target density forLEED is bizarrely the same for both India and the US.If we consider some cases of the metropolitan areas thenumbers are even more confusing.

The US hasroughly thepopulation of India with 3 timesthe landmass,

which equatesthat India hasroughly 12 timesthe pressure onresources as theUS.


6/18


For SS Cr 3.0 there is no stated position on the standards fortesting contaminated soil, land and the US EPA guide is taken

as a guide for bro wn eld site development and rehabilitation.

For SS Cr 4.0 the metrics for Public transportation access isexactly the same as the US. It calls for 0.8km of the distance of the project from commuter rail, 0.4 km from two or more publicor campus bus linesetc. This is despite the fact that India hasa denser connectivity of bus lines and the clear asymmetry of population/density data between the US and India.(see gure)

There has been no incentive/credit assigned to co-operativehousing societies to adopt LEED certication, despite almost90% of housing in the private sector being co-op housing. ForSS Cr. 5.0 there is no requirement for vegetative space for site

without ordinances.

WaterEfciency:Unlike the US LEED, the water efciency credits do not haveany prerequisite requirement. Fresh water is acutely scarcein India and many cities are beginning to face acute watershortage. This is despite the fact that India gets a very goodmonsoon season every year. No incentive has been providedfor rainwater harvesting on site or the storage requirements for

potable water on a project using rainfall. There are numerousindigenous rain water harvesting technologies available in India. WE.Cr.2.1 addresses large Air-conditioned building, howeverthe water purity requirements and standards for capturing rain

No incentive hasbeen providedfor rainwaterharvesting on siteor the storagerequirements forpotable water ona project using rainfall.


7/18


water has not been mentioned. Resources available inIndia to perform these tasks will be crucial to make thiscredit successful. Many projects in India are hijackedto an infrastructure that does not feature promoting

sustainability like a separate sewage system (two pipe). This should have clearly been a stated goal to the authorsof LEED India by requiring on site capture/treatmentof rainwater in accordance with the rainfall zones of theprojects. There could also have been credits assigned todeveloper who adopt a two pipe system to the municipalconnection. Under WE Cr. 4, squat type water closetsare not addressed in the ow requirements and it will be

worthy to note India has a large number of squat-type water closest and these squat types WC uses less waterunder more gravity.

Many projectsin India arehijacked to aninfras t ructure

that doesnot featurep r o m o t i n g su s t a inab i l i t y like a separatesewage system

(two pipe).


8/18


Energy and Atmosphere: This credit is probably the only credit that seems to have Indianized andsome effort put it by the authoring committee. The credit refers to the

ECBC for the minimum energy performance of buildings. The compliancepath using modeling a base building in the ECBC is valid for building thatuse 500kW of power or buildings ,which are approximately 500K GSFor larger(1.0W/sqft base case). Considering this the ECBC is applicableonly for larger buildings. The ECBC also excludes buildings that do not

use fossil fuel or electricity and are engaged in manufacturing. This would


9/18


exclude the industry , currently a large emitter of green house gases. Alarge numbers of buildings in India use natural light, ventilation and noair-conditioning and the cumbersome requirements of the code withoutany incentive do not help to promote betterment and pursuit of this type

of buildings. The metrics for EA Cr. 2.0 for Renewable Energy is a directreplica of the US LEED and it is not clear how this will align with Indiasgoal for pursuing renewable energy. The associated 1.0 credit for EA is solimited that this is usually not attempted considering the cost implications.

The restriction to the use of ozone depleting HVAC refrigerants havebeen kept optional in LEED credits and do not really push the envelopefor India to get rid of HFCF or Halon free refrigerants. This in itself renders comparison of LEED systems across different parts of theglobe meaningless. The effort of a standard is to promote best practicesand it seems that accommodating the pro-HVAC refrigerant lobby is acompromise than a pursuit of best practice.

The Indian building sector offers a huge potential for greenhouse gas reduction, but only a small part can realistically be tapped by the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol. This is due to the fact that transaction costs may be prohibitive for all but the biggest commercial buildings or large-scale appliance diffusion programmes. The initial focus of the CDM projects should be on service sector buildings such as hotels, headquarters of banks and large companies with high specic energy consumption and with large potential for energy savings (Singh & Michaelowa 2004). Although the cumulative energy saving potential of the hospitals, schools and other public buildings in India is considerably bigger, the problem is that their energy bills are currently paid directly by the government through the respective ministries supervising their 25 operations. Such a situation completely discourages the operators of these buildings to introduce any energy saving initiatives. However, a large-scale unilateral CDM

programme of the Government could change the picture (Singh & Michaelowa 2004).

Although the cumulativeenergy saving potentialof the hospitals, schools

and other publicbuildings in India isconsiderably bigger, theproblem is that theirenergy bills are currently paid directly by the

government throughthe respective ministriessupervising their 25operations.


10/18


Materials andResources:Under storage & collection of recyclables, LEED India does not promoteor applaud the collection and recycling of waste by numerous salvagecollectors, which is uniquely an Indian model. The denition of local orregional materials under MR Credit 5 is an exact conversion of distancefrom US LEED. Considering in India short distances are the norm, it wouldbe worthwhile for this credit to be empirical with a reduced number and

promote use of the public transport system of railways, which is seriously considering freight corridors at different sections of the country. Thedistance could then be reduced by the amount that the shipped materialtravels by railways. Only a few rapidly renewable materials have been listedbut it would be worthwhile to promote use of local handicrafts for building nishes in lieu of materials listed. There should have been an incentive andllip to cottage industries by using their products in the building industry.

Traditional industry based building materials have a larger carbon footprintin construction. (see box below) Finally, Certied Wood refers to use of

50% wood-based materials in accordance with FSC principles and criteriadespite the fact that FSC does not have an Indian certication chapteror program. Only recently some wood merchants have adopted FSCcertications for Chain of custody documentation.

According to an Australian study, the reuse of building materials can

LEED India does notpromote or applaud thecollection and recycling of waste by numeroussalvage collectors, whichis uniquely an Indianmodel.


11/18


commonly save up to about 95% of embodied energy that would otherwisebe wasted. Savings from recycling of materials for reprocessing variesconsiderably with savings up to 95% for aluminum but only 20% for glass.

That is because some materials, such as bricks and roof tiles, suffer damage

losses up to 30% in reuse. Of course, it should also be kept in mind that thesingle most important factor in reducing the impact of embodied energy is

to design long life, durable and adaptable buildings (Milne 2005), however

the use of industry processed non recyclable products for the nishesand t-out of indoor environments could be minimized to reduce wastegenerated by changing tenant or building occupant needs. By extending the life span of a building, the energy and costs associated with demolitionand construction of new buildings are deferred until later. In conclusion,buildings should be designed with due consideration to factors such as local


12/18


climate, transport distances, availability of materials and budget, balancedagainst known embodied energy content. Building should also be designed

with the following strategies as listed below

Use locally sourced materials when possible (including materials salvagedon site) to reduce transport;

Select low embodied energy materials (which may include materials with ahigh recycled content) preferably based on supplier-specic data;

Avoid wasteful material use;

Specify standard sizes,

Avoid use of energy-intensive materials as llers;

Ensure that off-cuts are recycled and avoid redundant structures. Some very energy intensive nishes, such as paints, often have high wastage levels;

Select materials that can be re-used or recycled easily using existing recycling systems;

Use efcient building envelope design and ttings to minimize materials(e.g. an energy-efcient building envelope can downsize or eliminate theneed for heaters and coolers, water-efcient taps allow downsizing of

water pipes, etc);

Ask suppliers for information on their products if not provided (Milne2005).When choosing a building material, these guidelines should befollowed:

Design for long life and adaptability, using durable low maintenancematerials;

Use locally sourced material that helps the indigenous handicraft industry;

Ensure materials can be easily separated;

Avoid building a bigger house than you need. This will save materials;

Modify or refurbish instead of demolishing;


13/18


Ensure materials from demolition of existing buildings, and construction wastes are re-used or recycled;

Energy used by traditional building materials

Embodied energy in buildings


14/18


15/18


designed around ASHRAE standards for non air-conditioned buildings.No reference has been made to ECBC standards of GOI standards.Building mold, decay and immediate environment could be an area of focus for this building. Standard O&M for smaller building could included

by USGBC in their operational narrative and made mandatory requirementfor projects seeking LEED . Most building does not have such operating and maintenance standards because of the cost and lack of knowledgebase to adopt such O&M procedures. These areas could have been paidmuch more attention to make LEED India worthy of recommendation by the design community for adoption by their clients and building owners.

Endlogue: Anyone who knows Indian history would see many examples of how Indiahas always been at the forefront of global thought. Sustainability in itsholistic form is an Indian idea by design, knowledge and implementation. The Vedic thought, often referred to as Hinduism in the modern worldand its various Upanishads have time and again espouse the concept of the interdependence and interconnectivity of all living things. The Indianthought of the inherent interdependence of living beings as the basis of existence seen permeates across different religions, peoples, cultures that

have come or invaded India through centuries. The Vedic philosophy isthe harbinger of many modern philosophies that promote a more holisticlifestyle, including Yoga, vegetarianism, animal rights, democracy, reverenceand congruence of nature etc. and are being increasingly accepted in the

western world today.

Hindu philosophy has always had a humane and dignied view of the sacredness of all

life, and that humans are but one link in the symbiotic chain of life and consciousness.

Western philosophy, on the other hand, treats man and nature as separate entities believing that the former has the prerogative to exploit the latter. Thomas Carlyle in

Signs of the Times says, We war with rude nature; and by our restless engines, come

off victorious and loaded with spoils. Western world nds itself at the crossroads and is

desperately looking for a new philosophy to get rid of the ecological crisis which threatens

mans existence on earth. Global Warming Is an Immediate Crisis - By Al Gore


16/18


Despite this it pains me that as we come aboard the world stage by adopting westernscientic standards without critical analysis. We forget that the roots of these sciencesmay be amidst ourselves if we look far back into our history and culture. I draw someconcern from the lessons learnt from the NPT regime, which administered an inequity

of power in the world stage by a nuclear apartheid by the rst movers of technology.Drawing lessons from that, India and Indian institutions should stay clear and away from organizations that promote apartheid in ideas that would cancel access to the poorin India and create entry barriers to ideas from India and outside.

It will also be cognizant to recognize here that the burden of responding to the climatechange crisis still falls with the developed countries.

See graphic below

Western worldnds itself at thecrossroads andis desperately looking for anew philosophy

to get rid of theecological crisis which threatensmans existenceon earth.

By Al Gore

USGBC is a great organization but its efforts could serve well as a mentor than in thedriving seat. USGBC has a large membership of corporations and big US companies,

whose interest could be in conict with that of Indian companies and thereby couldjeopardize the indigenous nature of the Indian economy that is trying to get afoothold in the global economy.

USGBC referenced standards are welcome to be implemented in India; however thereare numerous differences in the context in, which the US standards were authored.


17/18


Professional bodies like the AIA in the US do not play an effective role in the authoring of these standards and should hint us to the nature of monopoly. Although, thesestandards are beginning to become benchmarks in the construction industry they arean industry enabler for companies that have power of capital, clout and reach that

many smaller manufacturers of better products do not have across the globe. It is alsobeen proven that LEED buildings and their rating often do not meet the performancestandards for which they were being designed.

The volume of construction spending in dollar terms in India is still a miniscule amountof what it is globally or even in the US. However, the growth of construction spending is the highest among the emerging nations and it will not only be important to align ourpolicies and standards well above and beyond the existing standards globally, but also tohave such standards free from dictatorship from outside our borders.

Having said that a few years back at an USGBC convention in Chicago, I had theopportunity to interact with the leadership of LEED India and I had appraised thespeaker on these asymmetries and despite verbal assurances of looking into theseasymmetries listed above, no change has occurred in the last three years since thatconvention. Also, The audience was assured that zero construction worker death

would be a basic pre-requisite for LEED projects, as death on construction sites werea common phenomenon, but the letter of the standards does not spell it out as such

a condition. It is evident these standards are not leading to better quality or designedbuildings, a case in point is the ITC Green center in Gurgaon, which received the LEEDplatinum. The building leaves a lot to be desired from an aesthetic perspective as wellas to be a posterchild of green design. By many measures as well as the comparison of credits in this white paper exposes the myth we always suspected that LEED buildingsin India are not exactly an apples to apples comparison with similar buildings in the US.

That leaves a lot of things to be desired with many questions that are to be answered.

The audience wasassured that zeroc o n s t r u c t i o n

worker death would be a basicpre-requisite forLEED projects,as death onconstruction sites

were a commonp h e n o m e n o n ,but the letter of

the standardsdoes not spellit out as such acondition.


18/18


Somshankar Bose AIA

Architect + PlannerM. Arch (USA) | B. Arch (India)NCARB | PMP | LEED AP BD+C

Address:C-23, 2:3 , Sector-4 , Palm Beach CHS,Off Palm Beach Marg, Nerul,Navi Mumbai -400706MH India.

Phone : +91 9167423648 /49email: [email protected] www.somshankarbose.com

The faith of the small clientele that would support LEED project and Green buildingscan be diminished if money and effort spent in on questionable standards. It is only inthe interest of IGBC to look into these matters at the earliest before LEED becomes ameaningless exercise.

(Endnotes)1 Information sourced from the USGBC website2 AIA Document D503-2011, Guide for Sustainable Projects, including Agreement

Amendments and Supplementary Conditions (Guide) does not endorse LEED as theonly green standard.

3 Information sourced from the USGBC website4 Status of Green Buildings in India, ENVJS, Center for Human Settlements, SPA-Delhi-025 Status of Green Buildings in India, ENVJS, Center for Human Settlements, SPA-Delhi-026 http://www.rainwaterharvesting.org/Rural/Traditional1.htm#kuis http://www.7 unepsbci.org/SBCIRessources/ReportsStudies/documents/Buildings__Climate_ 8 Change_/Buildings_and_climate_change.pdf 9 http://www.unepsbci.org/SBCIRessources/ReportsStudies/documents/10 Buildings__Climate_Change_/Buildings_and_climate_change.pdf

The faith of thesmall clientele that

would supportLEED project andGreen buildingscan be diminishedif money andeffort spent in

on questionablestandards.

leed india indd

Documents