1. All government-funded building project proposals for buildings up to four floors (including the ground floor) shall require that, at the initial concept stage with sketches and price estimates, a build-in-wood option (with the main structural materials being wood or wood-based materials) must be submitted, along with any other options using alternative materials.



2. There will be a 12 month phase-in period before this requirement comes into force (3rd quarter of 2008).



3. This requirement will not apply to buildings that are manifestly unsuitable for building in wood, such as storage for dangerous goods (explosives, for example).



4. Decisions on which option to accept will be based on normal criteria such as fitness-for-purpose and value for money, with options standing on their own merits.



5. These policies will be promulgated via a standard clause in government procurement tenders, contracts and/or advisory notes.


We draw your attention to point number 4 and would encourage industry members to vigorously promote their products to ensure that when the options are considered the build-in-wood options are the best "on their own merits".  In many ways, the success (or otherwise) of this policy will rely on the efforts of wood industry members.

 

 

 PROMOTION OF SUSTAINABILITY THROUGH USING TIMBER IN GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS

          Increasing the domestic use of timber

1. A key challenge for the New Zealand forestry industry over the next 5 to 10 years is to create value through wood processing and solution delivery, rather than being overly dependent on commodity exports. An associated challenge is to successfully exploit New Zealand’s increasing volumes of wood becoming available for harvest from plantation forests. Ways to reduce dependence on commodity exports include not only moving up the exports value chain but also increasing the domestic market for wood products. This should also reduce exposure to sea freight rates and currency exchange rate fluctuations.

 

2. Most New Zealand wood producers either use or have used the domestic market as a foundation to build their export business. Entry level and expansion thresholds are generally lower for companies operating domestically, thus providing more certain foundations from which to launch off-shore.

 

3. There is limited opportunity to significantly increase the use of timber in the residential sector, where light timber framing predominates (around 93% of the market) in single or multi-family homes up to three stories. There does not seem to be any market-failure here, given that specifiers and builders have considerable experience in using wood in these applications. The government is a significant purchaser of residential accommodation through Housing New Zealand. Much of this is already in wood and where it is not in wood, it is unlikely to be due to a ‘market-failure’ such as poor information.

 

4. One area where the use of wood could potentially increase, and it appears there is a market-failure, is in commercial-style and multi-story residential buildings, and this paper is limited to these. To investigate this for the New Zealand situation MAF commissioned research from BRANZ1.

 

5. The results indicated that timber could substitute for other materials in 50% of medium to large new buildings per year in the government-sector (Table 1). The report describes how this lead by the government could flow on to the private sector where conservatively there may well be a similar level of medium to large new buildings per year using wood.

Table 1: Additional new wood buildings (government sector) Projected total number of new buildings built per year (Note 1)	169
Number that could be built in wood	104
Number that probably would be built in wood anyway	21
So potential additional wooden buildings =	84
As a % of the total number built	50%
Note 1: all numbers are calendar yearly averages for 2004-2009

6. The research also demonstrated that build-with-wood options in two typical government buildings used less energy to manufacture the building materials, resulting in less embodied energy and that the life cycle costs were lower compared to the same buildings constructed from concrete and steel (Table 2).

Table 2: Government timber buildings and environmental impact analysis Type of building	Initial cost	50-year LCA2 cost
5% discount rate			10% discount rate
Health centre	Wood is 8% cheaper than concrete and 7% cheaper than steel	Wood is 5% cheaper than concrete and 4% cheaper than steel		Wood is 6% cheaper than concrete and 5% cheaper than steel
School gymnasium	Wood is 7% cheaper than concrete and 3% cheaper than steel	Wood is 4% cheaper than concrete and 3% cheaper than steel		Wood is 6% cheaper than concrete and 3% cheaper than steel

 

7. The research illustrated that there does not appear to be any technical or financial reason preventing greater use of wood in commercial buildings. The major barrier seems to be conservatism of building owners, quantity surveyors and building designers. The situation is probably compounded by there being few examples of commercial and/or public buildings constructed predominately with wood products, although it might well be a Catch-22 situation.

 

8. The use of sustainable, low energy materials is likely to be increasingly important in global markets. New Zealand could develop expertise and leading-edge technology in this area. This is already starting to be demonstrated through the work of Canterbury University, which is funded under the Forest Industry Development Agenda (FIDA) programme. With leadership from government we have the opportunity to convert this world-leading research into practical building solutions that can then be taken to global markets.

          Options for Promoting Wood Use

9. The advantages of wood over concrete or steel shown in Table 2 are significant enough both in initial construction cost and whole-of-life (50 years) cost to follow up with policy options for promoting the wider use of wood in government-funded building projects. These options range from a mandatory requirement that all government buildings of certain types must be built predominately in wood, to doing nothing.

 

10. A mandatory requirement to build in wood is probably not feasible or justified; there are currently limits on the number of stories that wooden buildings can reach (although the ground-breaking research underway in New Zealand noted earlier will probably increase this up to 10 stories). Doing nothing would maintain the status-quo whereby the environmental and financial advantages of using wood instead of energy intensive materials would not be not captured.

11. An alternative could be that government-funded building project proposals shall require that a build-in-wood option must be submitted, either on its own or alongside other options (steel, concrete, etc). This pro-active move by government is designed to break the Catch-22 situation mentioned above and at least have timber considered as an option. Selection of the building option would then be on normal criteria such as fitness-for-purpose and value-for-money, with options standing on their own merits.

Cost of a mandatory option

12. MAF asked the University of Canterbury to investigate potential extra costs to designers and architects of submitting a build-in-wood option as well as their usual option. It found that if a timber alternative was considered only to the initial concept stage with rough sketches and rough pricing, the extra fee would be about 1.5% of the building cost. If fully designed for consent application and full pricing, it would add about 5% to the cost.

13. Based on this a mandatory option would relate to the initial concept stage with rough sketches and rough pricing. If the build-in-wood option was chosen, the potential cost savings such as those shown in Table 2 should cover the extra design fee. If it was not chosen then the extra fee would remain as a cost.

Definition of a wooden building

14. If a policy (mandatory or not) is approved that calls for build-in-wood options for government buildings, a definition of build-in-wood will be required. At MAF’s request the Professor of Timber Design at Canterbury advised that a good working definition of a "wooden" building is that the main structural materials are wood or wood-based materials. Inclusion of other wood materials, e.g. in finishing and/or fit-out and/or services, can follow later if desirable; but because of the number of options for interiors the more generic structural definition is more useful.

15. The Professor also advises that while his department is researching the possibilities of 10-story wooden buildings, it would be prudent at this time to be conservative and limit the number of floors under this policy to four (including the ground floor). He advises that the engineering requirements of a three story commercial wooden building are known, even if not many are actually built at the moment.

16. Based on this information, it is recommend that all government-funded building project proposals for buildings up to four floors (including the ground floor) shall require that, at the initial concept stage with sketches and price estimates, a build-in-wood option (with the main structural materials being wood or wood-based materials) must be submitted, alongside other options (steel, concrete, etc), with final selection being on normal procurement criteria (fitness-for-purpose and value-for-money).

17. This requirement would not apply to buildings that are manifestly unsuitable for building in wood, such as storage for dangerous goods (e.g. explosives) or where a high level of security in needed, such as prisons and police cells.

18. A mandatory requirement of this nature could be promulgated via a standard clause in government procurement tenders and contracts and/or through advisory notes issued by agencies such as the Ministry of Education (e.g. its Design Standard Guidelines for School Boards of Trustees) and the Ministry of Health (e.g. its Capital Investment Guidelines).

Alignment with other government initiatives

19. Other related initiatives that the proposals will complement include:

• wood design professorships at the Universities of Auckland and Canterbury;

• the Government Timber Procurement Policy that directs government departments to seek timber from legally harvested forests with a preference for wood from sustainably managed forests;

• a project for generic promotion of wood in the domestic market, part funded under the Forest Industry Development Agenda;

• Ministry for the Environment’s sustainable buildings initiatives;

• work under the Govt3 initiatives; and

• longer-term objectives to make New Zealand a truly sustainable society.