Construction Management and Economics (January 2007) 25, 6776

A strategic framework for sustainable construction in

developing countries
CHRISNA DU PLESSIS*
Programme for Sustainable Human Settlements, CSIR Building and Construction Technology, PO Box 395, Pretoria
0001, South Africa

Received 17 September 2004; accepted 9 January 2006

There is no doubt that large-scale development in the built environment and its physical infrastructure is
needed in the so-called developing countries. However, these problems need to be addressed in a way that is
socially and ecologically responsible. There is great urgency to make sustainable interventions now, while these
built environments are being created, rather than try and change things after the fact. However, there are a
number of challenges to the introduction of sustainable construction technologies and practices, and certain
enablers need to be developed to help these countries adopt a more sustainable path. The Agenda 21 for
Sustainable Construction in Developing Countries suggested a strategy for addressing some of these challenges by
developing a Research and Development Agenda, based on a matrix of immediate, medium-term and long-
term technological, institutional and value enablers. This Agenda is supported by a Stakeholder Plan for
Action. The challenge now is to find the means to implement these suggestions at a local level by developing
regional and national action plans.

Keywords: Sustainable, construction, development, developing countries, strategy

Introduction worlds population who currently live without these

services.
On 18 September 2000, in its 55th session, the General In 2002, the UN World Summit on Sustainable
Assembly of the United Nations adopted its now Development adopted the Johannesburg Plan of
famous Millennium Declaration (United Nations, Implementation (WSSD, 2002), which undertook, apart
2000). Paragraph 11 of this declaration proclaimed from the protection of biodiversity and encouraging a
the following undertaking: number of economic equity measures, to forever
banish underdevelopment. To achieve this goal, the
We will spare no effort to free our fellow men, women
following critical areas of intervention for the global
and children from the abject and dehumanizing condi-
sustainable development agenda were identified: clean
tions of extreme poverty, to which more than a billion of
them are currently subjected. We are committed to
water, improved sanitation, energy, adequate shelter,
making the right to development a reality for everyone healthcare and food security. The kind of built
and to freeing the entire human race from want. environment that is created in the next few years, and
the processes by which it is created, will be a
The Declaration then sets out a number of resolutions determining factor in achieving the objectives of these
that became known as the Millennium Development priority areas.
Goals. These include achieving by 2020 a significant Both the Millennium Development Goals and the
improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum Johannesburg Plan of Implementation show an interna-
dwellers as proposed in the Cities Without Slums tional shift in emphasis from the mainly Green Agenda
initiative (paragraph 19), as well as the provision of issues of the Agenda 21 to the Brown Agenda (as
clean water and improved sanitation to half of the identified by the IIED, 2001). While the Green Agenda
was a response to the impact of ecologically detrimental
development, such as deforestation, climate change,
*E-mail: cdupless@csir.co.za pollution, and the over-consumption of non-renewable
Construction Management and Economics
ISSN 0144-6193 print/ISSN 1466-433X online # 2007 Taylor & Francis
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/01446190600601313
68
resources, on the earths life-support systems, the
Brown Agenda focuses on the problems of poverty
and underdevelopment. The difference in approach
between these two Agendas is described in Table 1.
However, a Green or Brown Agenda approach alone
will not result in sustainable development. While the
Brown Agenda is the development part of the equation,
the Green Agenda is what will make this development
sustainable. The one without the other is not sustain-
able development. Without making decisions from the
long-term systemic view that characterises the Green
Agenda, the short-term focus on tangible development
delivery that characterises the Brown Agenda will only
perpetuate the negative effects of development on the
environment and eventually on people. In turn, not
addressing human well-being and meeting basic human
needs will impact negatively on long-term social and
environmental sustainability. The understanding that
sustainable development is about both meeting human
needs and the integrity of the biophysical environment
is captured in both the Well-being Index (Prescott-Allen,
2001) and the 2005 Environmental Sustainability Index
(Esty et al., 2005, p. 22), which includes both human
well-being and environmental well-being indicators.
The construction sector sits right at the interface
between the Brown and Green Agendasit is both the
vehicle for improving quality of life and the actor that
will determine the environmental and social sustain-
ability of development endeavours. Thus, the challenge
for the construction sector in developing countries is
not just to respond to the development challenges of
adequate housing, rapid urbanisation and lack of
infrastructure, but to do it in a way that is socially
and ecologically responsible.
Considering the rapid rate of urbanisation experi-
enced by most developing countries, and the accelera-
tion of infrastructure development occasioned by the
Millennium Development Goals and the Johannesburg
Plan of Implementation, there is a real need for urgency
in introducing sustainable construction practices into
the developing world. The level of underdevelopment
in these countries provides an opportunity to avoid the
problems experienced in developed countries, but also
Table 1 Difference between the Brown and Green Agendas
Brown
Key concern Human well-being
Timeframe Immediate
Scale Local
Concerned about Low-income groups
View of nature Manipulate and use
Environmental services Provide more
Source: McGranahan and Satterthwaite (2000)
du Plessis
an imperative not to waste scarce resources by making
sure that what is being constructed now will be
sustainable in every sense of the word. This, in turn,
will require a concerted effort to ensure that the role
players within the broader construction sector have
what they need to make sure that their solutions
support sustainable development.
To facilitate the development of a strategy for
introducing sustainable construction into developing
countries, the International Council for Research and
Innovation in Building and Construction (CIB), in
partnership with the United Nations Environment
Programme, commissioned the preparation of an
Agenda 21 for Sustainable Construction in Developing
Countries (A21 SCDC). This document, based on input
from 22 experts from 12 different countries, was
launched at the World Summit on Sustainable
Development. The A21 SCDC (Du Plessis et al.,
2002) provides a common vocabulary and a basic
understanding of the issues, challenges, barriers and
opportunities related to sustainable construction in
developing countries, as well as a comprehensive
framework for a research agenda and a generic strategy
for action that now has to be populated at a regional or
national level, according to local priorities.
This paper will discuss the rationale behind the
research framework and the resultant recommenda-
tions for a research and development agenda and
stakeholder strategy for action suggested by the A21
SCDC. However, it is necessary to first clarify the
specific interpretation of the terms construction and
sustainable development as used in this paper and the
A21 SCDC, and to provide a brief introduction to the
challenges to which the framework is responding.
The terminology of sustainable construction
Construction and sustainable are both highly com-
plex concepts, and as a result there is an ongoing debate
about their scope and meaning. Placing these two terms
together to form a third further magnifies the inter-
pretative dilemma. It is not possible simply to define
Green
Eco-systemic well-being
Delayed
Think global, act local
Future generations
Protect and work with
Use less
Sustainable construction in developing countries 69

sustainable construction as construction that is Sustainable construction

sustainable without first asking: sustainable for whom
While the terms green building, ecological building
and sustainable in what way? Construction itself also
and sustainable architecture have been in use for some
has narrow and broad interpretations. As there are no
time, the first definition of sustainable construction was
agreed common definitions yet, this section of the
proposed by Charles Kibert during the First
paper sets out to explain the specific interpretations of
International Conference on Sustainable Construc-
these concepts that informed the A21 SCDC.
tion in Tampa, 1994: Sustainable construction is
the creation and responsible management of a
Construction healthy built environment based on resource efficient
and ecological principles (cited in Bourdeau, 1999,
Construction can be interpreted at four levels: as site
p. 41).
activity, as the comprehensive project cycle, as every-
Other definitions include: Sustainable construction,
thing related to the business of construction, and as the
in its own processes and products during their service
broader process of human settlement creation (Irurah,
life, aims at minimizing the use of energy and emissions
2001). The most common interpretation is as the site
that are harmful for environment and health, and
activities that lead to the realisation of a specific
produces relevant information to customers for their
building or other construction project (e.g. road, bridge
decision making (Huovila and Richter, 1997, cited in
or dam). At this simplest level construction is viewed as
Huovila, 1998, p. 7); or as a way of building which
a specific stage in the project cycle. However, inter-
aims at reducing (negative) health and environmental
vention at this level is limited to those aspects under the
impacts caused by the construction process or by
direct control of the contractor. Broader concerns need
buildings or by the built environment (Lanting, 1998,
to be addressed at stages earlier or later in the project
p. 6).
cycle, leading to the second interpretation of construc-
The International Council for Research and
tion as the comprehensive cycle of a construction
Innovation in Building and Construction (CIB) defined
project, covering key stages such as feasibility, design,
sustainable construction as the sustainable production,
building/construction, operation, decommissioning,
use, maintenance, demolition, and reuse of buildings
demolition and disposal. While interventions in the
and constructions or their components, while sustain-
construction life cycle as outlined above can consider-
able buildings and built environments are seen as the
ably reduce the impact of the construction product, it
contributions by buildings and the built environment to
still does not cover the full scope of activity allied to
achievingcomponents ofsustainable development
construction. Construction by itself is a large sector of
(CIB, 2004, p. 02)
the economy, responsible for millions of jobs and a
The A21 SCDC (Du Plessis et al., 2002, p. 8)
significant proportion of GDP in most countries. When
defined sustainable construction as a holistic process
allied to other sectors and industries in material
aiming to restore and maintain harmony between the
production and distribution, as well as service sectors
natural and the built environments, and create settle-
such as transport, finance and the property market, its
ments that affirm human dignity and encourage
impact on society and the environment and its
economic equity. This definition takes sustainability
influence on the character of our world is tremendous.
further than just reducing negative impact, as implied
In Latin America, the term construbusiness has been
in the earlier definitions, by introducing the idea of
coined to denote this broadest interpretation of the
restoring the environment, as well as highlighting the
construction sector (John et al., 2001). The fourth level
social and economic aspects of sustainability, explicitly
entails the broader process of creating human settle-
defining what the goals for these aspects are.
ments, including the planning, design and implementa-
None of these definitions is wholly satisfactory, but
tion processes. To capture this broad understanding of
they do serve to outline three aspects of sustainable
construction, the A21 SCDC (Du Plessis et al., 2002,
construction:
p. 4) proposed the following definition:
(1) It requires a broad interpretation of construction
Construction is the broad process/mechanism for the
as a cradle to grave process, involving many
realisation of human settlements and the creation of
infrastructure that supports development. This includes more role players than just those traditionally
the extraction and beneficiation of raw materials, the identified as making up the construction
manufacturing of construction materials and compo- industry.
nents, the construction project cycle from feasibility to (2) It emphasises both environmental protection
deconstruction, and the management and operation of and value addition to the quality of life of
the built environment. individuals and communities.
70
(3) It embraces not just technological responses, but
also the non-technical aspects related to social
and economic sustainability.
Underlying these (and other) definitions is the
assumption of a common understanding of what terms
such as sustainable, sustainability and sustainable
development mean. However, despite a large body of
literature and countless conferences, the interpretation
of these terms is still contentious.
Sustainability and sustainable development
It is now more than 30 years since the 1972 UN
Conference on Human Environment in Stockholm
suggested that the post-war economic development
model based on continuous growth in consumption,
and fuelled in part by the drive to develop the so-
called developing countries, may exceed certain basic
environmental limits, and in the process upset the
delicate balance of the ecosystem on which the human
species depends for its survival. From this under-
standing grew the gradual formulation of a new model
for development that: meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations
to meet their own needs, as defined by the World
Commission on Environment and Development
(WCED, 1987).
In essence sustainable development is about mana-
ging the relationship between the needs of humans and
their environment (biophysical and social) in such a
way that critical environmental limits are not exceeded
and modern ideals of social equity and basic human
rights (including the right to development) are not
obstructed. The purpose is to avoid environmental and/
or social meltdown, thus sustaining the existence of
not only modern society, but the future of the human
species.
The relationship between humans and their environ-
ment is determined by a number of factors. The first is
the interpretation of quality of life held by a particular
society. This is the main determinant of the needs that
have to be met. The second factor is the choices made
in terms of the technological, political, economic and
other systems adopted by mainstream society. These
two factors are informed by the particular value system
a society subscribes to. This value system not only
determines the relationship between people within that
society, but also how a society responds to its
biophysical environment. The biophysical, in turn,
influences these choices through the limitations of its
source and sink capacities. Within this complex
relationship (described in Figure 1) a number of
responses are possible, some wiser than others.
Sustainable development tries to identify and promote
du Plessis
Figure 1 A relational model of sustainable development
the responses that will allow the continued existence of
the community (or species) at the best possible quality
of life.
The requirements that a sustainable development
path will place on the relationship between humans and
their biophysical environment and with each other has
been well defined in documents such as the Agenda 21
(UNCED, 1992), the Habitat Agenda (UNCHS,
1996) and the Earth Charter (Earth Charter
Commission, 2001). However, while there is reason-
able consensus on the drivers and the requirements of
sustainable development, the details of how they can,
and should, be achieved differs between the developed
and the developing sectors of society. Understanding
the important role of value systems in determining
quality of life and the nature of relationships, and that
these value systems may differ from culture to culture,
is key to understanding why, for instance, sustainable
development as interpreted by the business sector in
capitalist countries will be very different from how a
community-based organisation in a developing country
will interpret it. How exactly these interpretations differ
is a different debate that falls outside the scope of this
particular paper. However, the acceptance that these
differences do exist was one of the main motivators for
formulating a sustainable construction strategy aimed
specifically at developing countries.
The challenge of sustainable construction in
developing countries
There are a number of systemic problems facing
developing countries, such as rapid rates of urbanisa-
tion, deep poverty, social inequity, low skills levels,
institutional incapacity, weak governance, an
uncertain economic environment and environmental
Sustainable construction in developing countries
degradation, which by themselves create a challenging
environment within which to work. The sheer enormity
of this developmental challenge often results in confu-
sion between what are developmental interventions and
what are interventions that aim to ensure that the
development that needs to happen will follow the
principles of sustainable development. The result is
delivery wish lists based on a specific cultural inter-
pretation of development and acceptable economic
models, and underpinned by powerful commercial and
political interests (e.g. the Johannesburg Plan of
Implementation) masquerading as sustainable develop-
ment plans and strategies.
One of the reasons why these Plans confuse devel-
opment with sustainable development is the frame-
work used to guide their formulation. In 1987,
economist Ed Barbier published a model of sustainable
development that has formed the basis of almost every
subsequent framework (Barbier, 1987). He postulated
that sustainable development rests on three pillars or
spheres of developmentsocial, economic and envir-
onmental. While subsequent thinkers have added
pillars such as technical, political or institutional pillars
(see for example Hill and Bowen, 1997), the three pillar
idea stuck and still continues to inform interventions
from the triple bottom line of sustainability reporting to
building assessment tools.
However, it can be argued that sustainability lies not
in actions within each of these spheres, but in the
relationships between them. A sustainable development
strategy that creates jobs at the expense of the
environment, or a renewable energy project that ignores
its environmental and social impact and displaces
thousands of people and reduces biodiversity, defeats
its own purpose. Thus, while the three pillars (Barbier,
1987) model has been useful to highlight that a
multifaceted approach is required, this model itself
does not encourage the holistic thinking necessary to
deal with what is, in essence, a systems problem. The
notion that sustainable development should be seen as
a holistic solution (the whole being more than the sum
of its parts) to the complex systems problems of the
interconnected and interdependent relationships that
determine the interactions between humans, their
society, economy and technology, and the biosphere,
is well supported in the literature (Capra, 2002;
Girardet, 1996; Hawken et al., 1999; McDonough
and Braungart, 1999; Rees, 1999; etc.)
The biggest challenge for the construction sector in
developing countries thus lies in finding a holistic
approach to making sure that its contribution to the
physical, economic and human development of these
countries meets the requirements of sustainable devel-
opment as defined by locally identified needs and value
systems (which may differ from the needs and values of
71
the economic elite in these countries). The objective of
the A21 SCDC was to create a framework for such a
holistic approach.
Enabling sustainable construction
For developing countries to embark on a path of
sustainable development and construction a two-
pronged approach is required: it is first necessary to
create a capable and viable local construction sector;
second, it is necessary to ensure that the sector is able
to respond to the demands sustainable development
places on its activities. This can only be possible if all
the different stakeholders cooperate in the implementa-
tion of a clear strategy that involves specific supportive
actions by all role players and the development of a set
of enablers. The A21 SCDC (Du Plessis et al., 2002,
p. 45) identified three types of interdependent and
multi-dimensional enablers: technological, institutional
and enablers related to value systems (both how things
are valued and the social, spiritual or moral values that
guide decisions).
These enablers are informed by local development
needs (human needs) and both local and global
environmental considerations (environmental limits).
These needs and limits drive the development of value
systems that determine the preferred way of addressing
the relationship between meeting human needs and
protecting the integrity of the biosphere. The value
system enablers drive stakeholder action, and guide the
development of the technological and institutional
enablers. The technological enablers provide the
necessary knowledge base and technical capacity for
stakeholder action and the development of institutional
enablers, while the institutional enablers enable and
encourage both stakeholder action and the adoption of
the technological enablers. Figure 2 describes this
relationship.
Developing these enablers requires an approach that
operates simultaneously at different scales, as well as
different time horizons. In terms of scale, enablers need
to cover a range of needs from an urban level to
materials and components. The kinds of enablers that
have to be developed also respond to different time
scales, with certain immediate enablers to be developed
to provide a sound basis from which to work.
Concurrently with these immediate enablers, a set of
medium- and long-term enablers would also have to be
developed. The immediate enablers relate to the
creation of an enabling environment and the collection
and sharing of information for benchmarking and
assessment. The medium-term enablers relate to the
mitigation of impact and actual implementation of
72 du Plessis

The technology enablers

Technology enablers fall into three areas:

N Hard technology related to equipment and

materials, industrial processes, and physical
infrastructure solutions.
N Soft technology such as systems, mental models
and those tools (ICT-based or otherwise) that
support decision making, monitoring and evalua-
tion.
N Knowledge and information (e.g. databases,
benchmarks, guidelines and manuals, hand-
books, indigenous knowledge systems).
Some of the key R&D areas for the development of
technology enablers identified in the A21 SCDC are
captured in Table 3.
Figure 2 A strategy for enabling sustainable construction

sustainable construction, while the long-term enablers

relate to the creation of a totally new and more
sustainable built environment paradigm (Du Plessis
et al., 2002, p. 45). This enabler framework is outlined
in Table 2.
A specific problem such as rapid urbanisation, self-
help housing or energy efficiency is then mapped on to
the matrix, ensuring that all the necessary enablers to
support sustainable solutions to the specific problem
are developed.
A number of key areas for R&D have been identified
as part of the A21 SCDC document, and are briefly
discussed below. However, this list is neither exhaustive
nor prioritised and is open for further development at a
regional, national or local level.
Institutional enablers
Technology by itself is useless, unless supported by
processes for technology transfer and functioning
institutions to facilitate the uptake of new technologies.
To create an enabling environment for sustainable
construction, it is necessary that institutions such as the
different levels of government, development agencies,
academic and research institutions, professional asso-
ciations and non-governmental organisations adopt
sustainable development and its principles as a seminal
aspect of their operations and develop their own
capacity to support sustainable construction and use
the associated technology. To assist them with this, the
following key areas (described in Table 4) were

Table 2 Framework of enablers for the A21SCDC R&D Agenda

Time Technological Institutional Values
Immediate N Benchmarking & Assessment N Clarified roles and N Mapping the route to change
responsibilities
N Knowledge systems & N Education N Understanding the drivers
data-capturing
N Advocacy & awareness N Re-evaluating heritage
N Cooperation and
partnership
Medium N Technologies to N Linking research to N Develop a new way of measuring
mitigate impact implementation value and reward
N Develop regulatory N Develop codes of conduct
mechanisms
Long term N Technologies of the future N Strengthening N Corporate social responsibility
implementing reporting
mechanisms
N Changing the N Using institutions
construction process as drivers
N Regional centres
of excellence
Sustainable construction in developing countries 73

Table 3 Key R&D areas for technology enablers

Benchmarking and N Establish the impact of the construction industry in developing countries
assessment (immediate) N Establish the impact of the built environment in developing countries
N Establish the capacity of the broader construction industry
N Develop an expanded life cycle analysis for existing technologies that uses local conditions/
benchmarks
N Develop a vulnerability index
Knowledge sharing N A global database of relevant developing country studies
(immediate) N An inventory of design and assessment tools appropriate to developing countries
N The collection and publication of best practices from developing countries (buildings,
processes, capacity building, etc.)
Technologies to mitigate N Identify and adapt existing technologies and practices appropriate for developing country
impact (medium term) conditions
N Promote technology transfer between developing countries
N Identify remaining technology gaps
Future technologies N Ecosystemic/biomimetic buildings and infrastructure
(long term) N Renewables (energy and materials)
N Biotechnology
N Recycling as a resource
N Rethinking traditional technologies
Changing the N Develop processes and tools that encourage integration and a synergistic and ecologically
construction process responsible approach to delivery
(long term) N Develop construction and deconstruction processes that minimise environmental impact
while maximising job creation and local prosperity

identified where institutional enablers need to be A strategy for action

developed.
Value system enablers
Even when the technology is available and an enabling
institutional environment has been created, people still
have to choose to adopt the technologies and make use
of the opportunities created. Whether society as a
whole will move towards a more sustainable approach
to development will be determined by the decisions
individuals and groups make regarding their own
behaviour. Sustainable development requires attitudi-
nal and behaviour changes that will only come about
through personal commitment to what is, in the end, a
moral choice informed by a personal value system.
However, value systems are also a product of broader
social interactions and the construction industry can
assist with the redefinition of its current value system
through the development of new ways of measuring
value and reward, developing shared codes of conduct,
and instituting corporate social responsibility reporting
for the construction sector. Here, government can play
a critical role by showing leadership through example,
ensuring that departmental operations, management
practices, policies and programmes follow a vision that
supports sustainable development and is evaluated
against the achievement of objectives that support this
vision. Some of the enablers identified are captured in
Table 5.
The development of specific enablers is, however, only
one part of the strategy. To ensure the development
and uptake of these enablers all the different stake-
holders in the creation of the built environment need to
take specific actions to create a supportive environ-
ment. These actions are centred on the following
elements:
N Capacity building (internally and externally).
N Developing sustainable and accessible funding
streams and methods for accessing these.
N Establishing partnerships and other vehicles for
cooperation across sectoral and national borders.
N Internal housekeeping to bring organisational
practices in line with sustainability principles.
N Developing programmes and mechanisms to
encourage and support implementation.
N Developing and using appropriate mechanisms
and tools for monitoring and evaluating organi-
sational and industry performance.
The specific actions under each of these categories
will differ for research and education, the private sector,
service providers, governments and regulatory stake-
holders and civil society. In developing countries,
where the business case for sustainable construction is
still weak, and civil society is focused on the satisfaction
of immediate, survival needs, government will have to
play a decisive role in setting such a strategy in motion.
74
Table 4 Key R&D areas for institutional enablers
Clarification of roles and responsibilities
Education
Advocacy & awareness
Cooperation & partnerships
Linking research to implementers
Develop regulatory mechanisms
Strengthening implementing mechanisms
Using institutions as drivers
Regional centres of excellence
Table 5 Key R&D areas for value enablers
Mapping the route
and landmarks of change
Re-evaluating heritage
and tradition
Understanding what drive
current value systems
New ways of measuring
value and reward
Develop codes of conduct
based on shared ethic
Corporate social
responsibility reporting
du Plessis
N Institutional power relationships and how these will drive change
N Roles of players within the construction process
N Role of traditional governance systems
N Revise curricula and training programmes
N New methods of teaching to reflect new complexity and integration of
processes
N Identify gaps in learning for role players and stakeholders
N Continued professional education training programmes
N Methods of rating and auditing curricula, as well as institutions
N Pilot projects
N Best practices databases
N Monitoring and evaluation tools and systems
N Establish research networks
N Partnerships between developing country institutions
N Partnerships between research and industry or other non-research
partners
N Update existing regulations to enable sustainable construction
N Develop regulatory tools (e.g. financial incentives) to encourage
sustainable construction
N Identify enforcement problems and develop more effective enforcement
mechanisms
N Develop more progressive standards
N Determine gaps incapacity and skills levels and develop a strategy to
address these
N Financial mechanisms (including incentives and disincentives) to
encourage and enable innovation and sustainable construction
N Rating schemes to assess projects and practitioners
N Rethink professional fee structures
N Systems and tools to enable and monitor the use of institutional
procurement as a sustainability driver
N Mechanisms for auditing and accreditation of institutions and
practitioners
N Establish regional centres for training, technical support, information
capturing and knowledge sharing
N Mapping the pace of growth/change of threats and negative impacts (climate change,
pollution, etc.)
N Mapping the successes achieved
N Identify where heritage and tradition hinder or help sustainability
N Identify the contribution traditional and cultural heritage in developing countries can make to
the development of enablers
N Restore respect for and value of heritage and traditions
N Identify the drivers of value systems both in the construction sector and in broader society
N Identify more sustainable options to satisfy these drivers
N A process for identifying a common set of values and shared ethics
N Different systems for professional reward
N Different ways of measuring intrinsic (non-economic) value
N Develop a shared vision and ethical statement for the construction sector
N Develop internal codes of conduct for professional organisations and industry sectors based on
this shared vision
N Develop common CSR reporting mechanisms for the construction sector
Sustainable construction in developing countries
While it can be argued that in developing countries
government itself is often weak, it does have the ability
to create the necessary institutional enablers to improve
the business case and build the capacity and skills levels
of the industry through its own procurement practices,
incentive programmes and taxation.
The way forward
The evidence is mounting up that developmental
activity is exceeding the environmental limits of the
planet and may be endangering a large percentage of
the worlds population. The seriousness of the situation
is highlighted in a report prepared by the Pentagon
(Schwartz and Randall, 2003, pp. 19, 22) on the risks
of abrupt climate change as a result of human activity:
Ocean, land, and atmosphere scientists at some of the
worlds most prestigious organizations have uncovered
new evidence over the past decade suggesting that the
plausibility of severe and rapid climate change is higher
than most of the scientific community and perhaps all of
the political community is prepared for And
paleoclimatic evidence suggests that such an abrupt
climate change could begin in the near future it
seems that the questions to ask are: When will this
happen? What will the impacts be? And, how can we best
prepare for it? Rather than: Will this really happen?
Apart from the dire predictions of climate change
related disaster, the recently completed Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment Report (Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment, 2005) found that human activity has had a
detrimental impact on the ability of the biophysical
environment to deliver necessary life-support services
to the human species.
The construction sector is a significant contributor to
global climate change and a number of other environ-
mental threats, and few would argue that the sector
needs to make a radical shift in its practices if we are to
mitigate the impact of these threats.
Yet, as Milford (2004) rightly pointed out, we are not
seeing enough demands from civil society or govern-
ments for changes in the construction sector, nor is the
sector held accountable for its social and environmental
impact. There are no street protests against unsustain-
able construction in Pretoria, Sao Paulo or Shanghai,
no international e-mail campaigns against multina-
tional construction companies or materials manufac-
turers. The voices calling for a better world have little to
say about the way the built environment is being
created. It is therefore up to the construction sector
itself to do the responsible thing and recognise that it is
no longer about choicesfundamental change in the
construction sector has become a moral imperative.
75
As developing countries will increasingly become
the arena for infrastructural and industrial deve-
lopment, the construction sector in these countries
has a critical role to play in responding to this
imperative. The currently low levels of physical devel-
opment provide a (limited) window of opportunity in
which to steer construction on to a more sustainable
path. To fully capitalise on this opportunity, a clear
and coordinated response is required as a matter of
urgency.
The strategy developed by the A21 SCDC provides a
broad framework to guide the development of such a
response. It has identified a number of tasks for
immediate action that respond to the most critical
obstacles that are holding back the shift to more
sustainable construction: capacity building, raising
awareness, finding access to funding, building networks
and partnerships, and providing benchmark informa-
tion relevant to developing countries.
However, numerous sustainable development and
construction strategies have been developed, yet we are
seeing very little impact of these strategies for a number
of reasons (Milford, 2004). Chief among these reasons
are a lack of integration with mainstream decision-
making systems, few links between policy and on-the-
ground realities, a very narrow base of participation,
and the fact that many strategies are little more than
wish lists, lacking clear priorities or achievable targets
(see Bass and Dalal-Clayton, 2002 and Dalal-Clayton,
2003).
From this understanding, it is clear that a meaningful
strategy for sustainable construction in developing
countries cannot be formulated by a small group of
experts cloistered in a conference room. It can only
come from a dialogue between the different levels of
government, the broader construction industry, uni-
versities and research centres and civil society at
national, regional and international levels. Such a
strategy will require a consultation process similar to
that used in the formulation of the Earth Charter to
determine global and regional strategy, as well as a
process at national level that situates the global strategy
in a local context and responds to local needs and
priorities.
The first steps at regional and international coordi-
nation are being taken through a series of regional
conferences on sustainable building and construction
took place in 2004 and the early part of 2005. One
of the aims of this conference series is to recommend
a stakeholder plan of action for each region that can
act as a starting point for identification and
prioritisation of the enablers that need to be developed.
The results of these conferences were presented for
further discussion at the World Sustainable Building
Conference in September 2005 in Tokyo.
76
References
Barbier, E.B. (1987) The concept of sustainable economic
development. Environmental Conservation, 14(2), 10110.
Bass, S. and Dalal-Clayton, B. (2002) Bridging the Knowledge
Gap in SD strategies: Research Partnerships for Sustainable
Development, IIED Opinion Paper, available at http://www.
iied.org/pubs/pdf/full/11037IIED.pdf (accessed 10 April
2006).
Bourdeau, L. (ed.) (1999) Agenda 21 on Sustainable
Construction, CIB Report Publication 237, CIB, Rotterdam.
Capra, F. (2002) The Hidden Connections, HarperCollins
Publishers, London.
CIB (2004) 50 Years of International Cooperation to Build a
Better World, CIB, Rotterdam.
Dalal-Clayton, B. (2003) The MDGs and sustainable
development. The need for a strategic approach, in
Satterthwaite, D. (ed.) The Millennium Development Goals
and Local Processes: Hitting the target or missing the point?,
IIED, London, available at http://www.iied.org/Gov/mdgs/
documents/MDG-ch5-pdf (accessed 10 April 2006).
Du Plessis, C., et al. (2002) Agenda 21 for Sustainable
Construction in Developing Countries, CSIR Report BOU/
E0204, CSIR, CIB & UNEP-IETC, Pretoria.
Earth Charter Commission (2001) The Earth Charter,
available at http://www.earthcharter.org (accessed 10
April 2006).
Esty, D.C., Levy, M., Srebotnjak, T. and De Sherbinin, A.
(2005) 2005 Environmental Sustainability Index:
Benchmarking National Environmental Stewardship, Yale
Centre for Environmental Law & Policy, New Haven.
Girardet, H. (1996) The Gaia Atlas of Cities, Gaia Books,
London.
Hawken, P., Lovins, A. and Lovins, L.H. (1999) Natural
Capitalism, Back Bay Books, New York.
Hill, R.C. Bowen, P.A. (1997) Sustainable construction:
principles and a framework for attainment. Construction
Management and Economics, 15(3), 22339.
Huovila, P. (1998) Sustainable construction in Finland in
2010, Report 2 in CIB, Sustainable Development and the
Future of Construction. A Comparison of Visions from Various
Countries, CIB Report Publication 225, CIB, Rotterdam.
Huovila, P. and Richter, C. (1997) Life cycle building design
in 2010, in Proceedings of the 11th International
Conference on Engineering Design ICED 97. Tampere
University of Technology, 1921 August, Vol. 2,
pp. 63543.
IIED (2001) Reconciling the Green and Brown Agendas
for urban environmental improvement, Briefing Paper 6 in
Urban Environmental Improvement and Poverty Reduction,
IIED Human Settlements Programme, London.
du Plessis
Irurah, D.K. (2001) Agenda for Sustainable Construction in
Africa. An Invited Contribution to CIBs Agenda for Sustainable
Construction in the Developing World and Agenda 21 on
Sustainable Construction, available at http://www.sustainable-
settlement.co.za/policy (accessed 10 April 2006).
John, V.M., Agopyan, V. and Sjostrom, C. (2001) An Agenda
21 for Latin American and Caribbean Construbusiness. A
Perspective from Brazil, available at http://www.sustainable-
settlement.co.za/policy (accessed 10 April 2006).
Lanting, R. (1998) Sustainable construction in the
Netherlands, Report 9 in CIB Sustainable Development
and the Future of Construction. A Comparison of Visions from
Various Countries, CIB Report Publication 225, CIB,
Rotterdam.
McGranahan, G. and Satterthwaite, D. (2000)
Environmental health and ecological sustainability: recon-
ciling the Brown and Green Agendas in urban develop-
ment, in Pugh, C. (ed.) Sustainable Cities in Developing
Countries, Earthscan, London.
McDonough, W. and Braungart, M. (2002) Cradle to Cradle,
North Point Press, New York.
Milford, R. (2004) Re-valuing sustainable construction.
Paper for CIB World Congress 2004, Toronto, Canada,
4 May.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Living Beyond our
Means: Natural Assets and Human Well-being, Island Press,
Washington, DC.
Prescott-Allen, R. (2001) The Wellbeing of Nations: A Country-
by-Country Index of Quality of Life and the Environment,
Island Press, Washington, DC.
Rees, W.E. (1999) Achieving sustainability: reform
or transformation?, in Satterthwaite, D. The Earthstar
Reader in Sustainable Cities, Earthscan, London.
Schwartz, P. and Randall, D. (2003) An Abrupt Climate
Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States
National Security, Pentagon Research Unit, Washington,
DC.
United Nations (2000) United Nations Millennium Declaration,
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 55/2, 18
September 2000, United Nations, New York.
UNCED (1992) Agenda 21: The United Nations Programme of
Action from Rio, available at http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/
documents/agenda21/index.htm (accessed 10 April 2006).
UNCHS (1996) The Habitat Agenda, available at http://
unchs.org/unchs/english/hagenda/index.htm (accessed 10
April 2006).
WCED (1987) Our Common Future, Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
WSSD (2002) The Johannesburg Plan of Implementation,
available at www.johannesburgsummit.org/html/documents/
summit_docs/2309_planfinal.htm (accessed 10 April 2006).