Thursday 24 th May 2012Shelter Meeting 12a Day 1 is hosted by the Norwegian Refugee Council...

Thursday 24th May 2012Shelter Meeting 12a Day 1 is hosted by the Norwegian Refugee Council

Developing an environmental decision making tool

Shelter Centre and the Norwegian Refugee Council

Phase 3

Phase 1 & 2

Key findings

Next steps

Feedback

Environmental Assessment Tools

Development of an online tool

What have we found?

What others have to say

Where now?

Phase 1 & 2 Environmental Assessment Tools

Phase 1 & 2

Phase 3

Key findings

Feedback

Next steps

Phase 1 & 2

Phase 1• Research BREEAM and LEED

• Draw comparisons

• Assess suitability for humanitarian shelter sector

Phase 1 & 2

Phase 3

Key findings

Feedback

Next steps

Phase 1 & 2

Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM)– First EAT– UK developed, 1990– Allows comparison of buildings– Green Building Challenge, 1996– Based on 10 criteria

Phase 1 & 2

Phase 3

Key findings

Feedback

Next steps

Phase 1 & 2

6. Materials

7. Pollution

8. Transport

9. Waste

10. Water

BREEAM Criteria

1. Energy

2. Indoor environment

3. Innovation

4. Land use and ecology

5. Management

Phase 1 & 2

Phase 3

Key findings

Feedback

Next steps

Phase 1 & 2

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)– US based, developed 1994-98– Most widely recognised– Designed for hot climates with air conditioning– Used in all US states– Based on 10 categories

Phase 1 & 2

Phase 3

Key findings

Feedback

Next steps

Phase 1 & 2

6. Materials

7. Regional priority

8. Resources

9. Site

10.Water

LEED Criteria

1. Awareness and education

2. Energy

3. Indoor environment

4. Innovation

5. Locations and linkages

Phase 1 & 2

Phase 3

Key findings

Feedback

Next steps

Phase 1 & 2

1. LEED assessor separate USGBC

2. ASHRAE standards

3. Rewards on improvements

BREEAM

1. Trained BREEAM assessor is architect BRE

2. UK/EU regulations

3. Absolute benchmarks

Phase 1 & 2

Phase 3

Key findings

Feedback

Next steps

Phase 1 & 2

Phase 2– Research and compare EATs• 18 found in total• With 29 different categories

– Assess suitability for humanitarian sector

Phase 1 & 2

Phase 3

Key findings

Feedback

Next steps

Phase 1 & 2

10.EEWH – 711. Estidama – 712.GBCS – 713.BEAM – 614.DGNB – 615.GRIHA – 616.Green Mark – 517.HQE – 318.Minergie – 3

18 EATs sorted by number of criteria

1. Aspire – 12

2. BREEAM – 10

3. LEED – 10

4. CASBEE – 9

5. Green Star – 9

6. SI-5281 – 9

7. Green Globes – 8

8. LiderA – 8

9. 3-Star – 7

Phase 1 & 2

Phase 3

Key findings

Feedback

Next steps

Phase 1 & 2

16. Awareness and education - 2

17. Culture - 2

18. Sustainable use - 2

19. Institutional enablers - 1

20. Off-site environment - 1

21. Pollution - 1

22. Preference items (strategic targets) - 1

23. Processes - 1

24. Quality of service - 1

25. Regional priority (extra weight given to existing criteria) - 1

26. Soil water content - 1

27. Sustainable construction - 1

28. Techniques - 1

29. Vulnerability - 1

29 different criteria sorted by frequency

1. Indoor environment quality - 17

2. Energy - 15

3. Water - 12

4. Materials - 9

5. Environmental management - 8

6. Land use and ecology - 8

7. Innovation - 7

8. Site - 7

9. CO2 emission reduction - 6

10. Management - 5

11. Resources - 5

12. Transport - 5

13. Waste - 5

14. Locations and linkages - 3

15. Socioeconomic experience - 3

Phase 1 & 2

Phase 3

Key findings

Feedback

Next steps

Phase 1 & 2

16. Awareness and education - 2

17. Culture - 2

18. Sustainable use - 2

19. Institutional enablers - 1

20. Off-site environment - 1

21. Pollution - 1

22. Preference items (strategic targets) - 1

23. Processes - 1

24. Quality of service - 1

25. Regional priority (extra weight given to existing criteria) - 1

26. Soil water content - 1

27. Sustainable construction - 1

28. Techniques - 1

29. Vulnerability - 1

29 different criteria sorted by frequency

1. Indoor environment quality - 17

2. Energy - 15

3. Water - 12

4. Materials - 9

5. Environmental management - 8

6. Land use and ecology - 8

7. Innovation - 7

8. Site - 7

9. CO2 emission reduction - 6

10. Management - 5

11. Resources - 5

12. Transport - 5

13. Waste - 5

14. Locations and linkages - 3

15. Socioeconomic experience - 3

Phase 1 & 2

Phase 3

Key findings

Feedback

Next steps

Phase 1 & 2

• Indoor environment quality; • Energy;• Water; • Materials; • Environmental management; and• Land use and ecology.

Phase 1 & 2

Phase 3

Key findings

Feedback

Next steps

Phase 1 & 2

Findings of comparison

– Regionally specific tools

– Generally comprehensive thus complex

– Centralised method of certification

Phase 1 & 2

Phase 3

Key findings

Feedback

Next steps

Phase 1 & 2

Outcomes of Phase 1 & 2

– Is another tool feasible with• limited time and money; and• available skills and human resources?

– Is a framework assessment tool the best direction for us?

Phase 3 Development of an online tool

Phase 1 & 2

Phase 3

Key findings

Feedback

Next steps

Phase 3

Compliance or education?

Phase 1 & 2

Phase 3

Key findings

Feedback

Next steps

Phase 3

Compliance– Accrediting institute

– Training of assessors

– Support of sector

– Regionally specific

Phase 1 & 2

Phase 3

Key findings

Feedback

Next steps

Phase 3

Education– Tool to assist decisions – develop

– Large body of vocational and academic knowledge – already available

– Tool to assess results – available

– Education and training material – available

Phase 1 & 2

Phase 3

Key findings

Feedback

Next steps

Phase 3

Education– Tool to assist decisions – develop

– Large body of vocational and academic knowledge – already available

– Tool to assess results – available

– Education and training material – available

Phase 1 & 2

Phase 3

Key findings

Feedback

Next steps

Phase 3

Phase 1 & 2

Phase 3

Key findings

Feedback

Next steps

Phase 3

From EAT researchTop criteria:• Indoor environment quality; • Energy;• Water; • Materials; • Environmental management; and• Land use and ecology.

Key findings What have we found?

Phase 1 & 2

Phase 3

Key findings

Feedback

Next steps

Key findings

• Direct reliance on local environment

• Understand decisions of affected people

• Good programming requires training

• Focus on continuous resource needs

Phase 1 & 2

Phase 3

Key findings

Feedback

Next steps

Key findings

Questions we have– How best to market this concept?

– How to include complexities of environment?

– When to realistically involve this?

Feedback What others have to say

Phase 1 & 2

Phase 3

Key findings

Feedback

Next steps

Feedback

• Generally positive

• Needs to be more specific to:

– be obvious it’s about shelter; and

– define a decision making process.

Phase 1 & 2

Phase 3

Key findings

Feedback

Next steps

Feedback

“an endless list of all things I could do if I had bottomless buckets of money”

Phase 1 & 2

Phase 3

Key findings

Feedback

Next steps

Feedback

Focus on the local environment– Maintain or improve?

– Increase resilience

– Ensure humanitarian imperative

– Support income generation

Phase 1 & 2

Phase 3

Key findings

Feedback

Next steps

Feedback

• Still collating feedback

• Feel free to use computers

Next steps Where now?

Phase 1 & 2

Phase 3

Key findings

Feedback

Next steps

Development of site

– Where will this be hosted?

– What system to use – Drupal, Wordpress, etc?

– Refine usability and navigation

Phase 1 & 2

Phase 3

Key findings

Feedback

Next steps

Decision making tree(s)

– Further research

– Consultation

– Method of presentation?

Phase 1 & 2

Phase 3

Key findings

Feedback

Next steps

Collaboration

– Assessment tool creators

– Training providers

– Development sector

Phase 1 & 2

Phase 3

Key findings

Feedback

Next steps

Discussion

– Challenges

– Benefits

– Opportunities

Thursday 24 th May 2012Shelter Meeting 12a Day 1 is hosted by the Norwegian Refugee Council...

Documents

Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) Afghanistan ... your enquiry regarding the publication of the above-mentioned invitation to tender, please find enclosed the following documents, which

NORWEGIAN REFUGEE COUNCIL JORDAN YOUTH PROGRAMME EVALUATION · 2016-06-10 · norwegian refugee council jordan youth programme evaluation prepared by women’s refugee commission

Catalogue of quality funding practices to the humanitarian response · Catalogue of quality funding practices to the humanitarian response Development Initiatives and Norwegian Refugee

Cougars'74! Angela Albanese 12A Dave Blanchard …Cougars'74! Angela Albanese 12A asilverthorn@ sympatico.ca John Anderson 12A Dave Blanchard 12A davidhotwire@ yahoo.ca Moira Brennan

Norwegian- Teach Yourself Norwegian

THIS MANUAL CONTAINS IMPORTANT INFORMATION …...Owner's Manual Pure Sine Wave Power Inverter SSW-350-12A SSW-600-12A SSW-1000-12A SSW-1500-12A SSW-2000-12A. 2 INDEX ... 1 IMPRTANT

: 12 a : , 12a · : 12 a : , 12a

Evaluation of five Humanitarian Programs of the Norwegian … of five... · 2016-03-29 · Evaluation of five Humanitarian Programs of the Norwegian Refugee Council and of the Standby

Norwegian refugee-council-rapport2014

How Norwegian Refugee Council's security failed in June 2012, Dadaab Kenya kidnapping. Report by Security Adviser Chris Allen

WASH Sector Nigeria Emergency Technical Guidance Red Cross (ICRC), Caritas, Norwegian Refugee Council, International Rescue Committee, ... Handpump and elevated storage with solar

Case Study Report Norwegian Refugee Council, Dadaab, Kenya · 2017-08-10 · Kenya Institute for Curriculum Development’s (KICD) non-formal basic education syllabus and curriculum

Appendix 12a

Case Study Report Norwegian Refugee Council, Dadaab, Kenyas3.amazonaws.com/inee-assets/resources/AEWG-Case-Study-Report-Kenya... · 2 / 26 Case Study Report Norwegian Refugee Council,

Campaña 12a

KURUMSAL KİMLİK KILAVUZU · 2020-02-22 · OSTİM OSB KURUMSAL KİMLİK KILAVUZU TEMEL UNSURLAR Amblem - Logotype a 12a 12a 12a Adım 1 Adım 2 12a a 6a 12a 30a Dış kısımda

Norwegian Refugee Council IRAQ - nrc.no · PDF file1.2 The successful Bidder will be expected to complete the assignment by the Intended ... Norwegian Refugee Council may amend or

Moonwalk Presentation – Norwegian Refugee Council May 21 2015

CASH TRANSFER PROGRAMMING LEVEL TWO …...5 A. INTRODUCTION By Urayayi Gregory Mutsindikwa, Norwegian Refugee, Cash Transfer Programming Regional Focal Point and Lead Facilitator This

DESK REVIEW NORWEGIAN REFUGEE COUNCIL EDUCATION … · 1 INTRODUCTION As of mid 2016, the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) works in urban areas in 20 out of 25 country programs. NRC’s