Five questions for

Over the past five years we have achieved a great deal and much has changed. We have grown significantly and important steps have been taken to make circular construction a reality. This brings us closer to a sustainable living environment, for today and for the future.

Several people have been closely involved in these developments and in the growth of Stichting NMD. Over the next ten weeks we will share the perspectives of ten of these people through a short interview based on five fixed questions. In this way, we present ten perspectives on five years of Stichting NMD.

This week we have five questions for Harm Verster:

1. How did you first come into contact with Stichting NMD?

In 2009 I started at the Construction Quality Foundation (SBK), the organisation from which Stichting NMD has continued since 2020. SBK aimed to promote quality and quality assurance in the Dutch construction sector. At the time, the focus was mainly on coordinating a system for reliable product information, in which the system of recognised quality declarations played an important role.

The recognised system was laid down in a tripartite agreement between SBK, the minister (then VROM) and the Dutch Accreditation Council (RvA). As a result, this essentially private system gained significant importance for the construction sector: manufacturers could obtain a certificate issued by an independent certification body. This demonstrated that a product possessed certain product characteristics or performance properties.

The recognition of the system also meant that these certificates had to be accepted by the competent authority, at that time usually the Building and Housing Supervision department, as evidence that the requirements of the Building Decree were met (insofar as this relationship applied). A key point of attention in this regard concerned European developments in legislation and avoiding conflicts.

That complex area of tension has always appealed to me. There were many initiatives aimed at promoting quality assurance in the construction sector, unfortunately not always aligned with one another. The same applied to determining the environmental impact of construction and of construction works. To achieve uniformity, an independent party was sought to take on the coordination. Ultimately, SBK was chosen, as the foundation had no vested interests in this area. At the same time, this coordinating role aligned well with SBK’s other activities.

I was only involved in the phase in which the parties came together and the Dutch Environmental Database was placed under SBK, including the establishment of the TIC (Technical Content Committee) and the policy committee (now BMNL).

ith the Quality Assurance for Building Act on the horizon, I left SBK in 2017 and spent seven years working in the field of fire safety. Here too, the influence of European legislation played an important role.

With the preparations for the new Construction Products Regulation (the current CPR 2024/3110), two things became clear:

• the environmental aspects of construction products will, unlike under CPR 305/2011, be given concrete substance
• environmental data must become universally available to users

I brought the latter to the attention of Jan-Willem Groot, director of Stichting NMD, because the implications for a national environmental database were unclear, both in terms of opportunities and risks. The conversation that followed ultimately led to my joining Stichting NMD.

2. In your experience, what has changed the most in your work or in the sector over the past five years?

As mentioned earlier, I have always had a strong focus on the influence of the European landscape at the level of operational activities. In this case, the first major challenge lies with the industry, which must determine the soon-to-be mandatory environmental aspects of their products and communicate them in a way that is compliant with European requirements. This is proving to be a significant challenge, given the upcoming obligations and the pressure they place on the industry.

But the user side of this information also needs attention. What information will become available compared to the needs, and what are the expectations regarding its application? In addition to the importance for clients with sustainability ambitions, it is essential—though easier said than done—to ensure that designers are brought along, as they are the ones who will actually use the system to design sustainably.

I see that obligations and expectations, supply and demand, are increasingly being aligned and related to one another. Many disciplines within the construction sector are becoming better connected, although we still have a long way to go before uniformity and efficient usability for all participants becomes a reality.

Sustainable construction is no longer only on the agenda in the Netherlands (and other national initiatives), but increasingly across Europe as well.

3. What change or development would you still like to see?

In Europe the focus is currently mainly on reducing CO2 emissions. This is an understandable choice given the need to manage climate change. It already leads to very intensive and sometimes complex technical discussions, but I have now seen enough examples to conclude that an improvement in a CO2 score does not always result in a more sustainable product. Within the current Dutch system we already pay attention to this, but I would like to see greater international attention and progress on this issue.

In my view, particularly through the new CPR, this will be addressed in due course. I am concerned that a focus that is too narrow and solely aimed at CO2 reduction may lead to other environmental effects having a greater negative impact than what we gain through CO2 reduction.

4. What are you proud to have achieved together with Stichting NMD?

At the moment I have officially been working at Stichting NMD for only a year and a half, and I have gained a great deal of insight into and appreciation for how we in the Netherlands have an operational system in place to support the sustainability of the built environment. This is not my achievement, but that of all the parties who look beyond their own interests, as well as the skilled colleagues at Stichting NMD.

All the pitfalls and bottlenecks we identify from a Dutch perspective have been raised and discussed within my European network. Many of these signals from Stichting NMD are being acknowledged, and concrete work is being done to provide clarification and solutions. As a result, our visibility and recognition at the European level have increased significantly.

We can be genuinely proud of how we have built the Dutch system and secured its place within national regulations.

5. Where do you see the Dutch Environmental Database Foundation in five years?

The ultimate goal is, of course, a sustainable built environment — both buildings and civil engineering works, including their surrounding areas. At present this is still mainly approached from a new-build perspective. Fortunately, attention for the existing building stock is growing, including renovation and transformation. Here I see a connection with other regulations currently under development, such as WLC-GWP or the EPG. Environmental performance is also becoming increasingly important in asset management, for which solid documentation is indispensable; this aligns with the current building dossiers that are also being encouraged at European level.

I expect that in the future a clear link will be established with the Quality Assurance for Building Act (Wkb), especially as the scope of the Wkb expands further. On the market side, clients, building owners and investors will increasingly integrate environmental considerations into their asset management and procurement criteria — a development that is already visible today. To support this, Stichting NMD will remain an important central information point by continuously responding to changing needs arising from the market and from regulations.