Eurostat

Urgent Need For Harmonized European Fire Statistics & The ‘FIRESTAT’ White Elephant !

Posted by CJ Walsh

2023-08-21:  In an earlier Post here, dated 2022-12-19, I presented a Road Map for Sustainable Fire Engineering (#SFE) … which finished on an Urgent Call to Action targeting three specific, fundamental aspects of a Creative Fire Engineering which is capable of answering the challenges of our Complex Built Environment in the 21st Century … under severe threats from Global Climate Disruption, Climate Synergies leading to near-term Climate Tipping Points … and a startling lack of Global Resilience, refer to the CoVID-19 Pandemic, and Supply Chain Chaos initiated by an old-fashioned Cold War I Warrior in Washington’s White House.

      1. Mainstreaming a Transformed Fire Engineering
      2. Ethical Practice of Fire Research and Science
      3. Reliability of Fire Statistics …
Colour Image showing the #SFE Road Map’s Conclusion, Page 31 in a series of 36, from the updated (June 2022) Presentation on Sustainable Fire Engineering ~ its essential and critical role in realizing a Safe, Resilient and Sustainable Built Environment For ALL.  Click to enlarge.

.

From Any Point Of View … the Final Report of ‘EU FIRESTAT’, a project financed by the European Parliament and commissioned by European Commission Directorate-General DG GROW, is a white elephant … a plodding hippopotamus … a retrograde step … a bitter disappointment !!!  Completed in July 2022, it comes nowhere near outlining a viable system for the development of urgently needed Harmonized European Fire Statistics … which must be managed and co-ordinated by #Eurostat, in Luxembourg.

The #FIRESTAT Objectives were extremely limited …

‘ The review proceeds from the assumption that fire incident data can serve a number of important purposes – helping to reduce fires and losses, identifying opportunities for safety interventions and education programs, guiding the allocation of public resources to areas of greatest need and impact, and monitoring progress of safety initiatives.’

Nowhere, in this Report, is there any reference to Sustainable Human and Social Development.  Where there are references to ‘sustainability’, these are specifically concerning the long-term financial resourcing of statistical systems.

And nowhere is there even the faintest understanding that Fire Engineering has an essential and critical role in the realization of a Safe, Resilient & Sustainable Built Environment For ALL.  Fire Engineering Performance Indicators, Targets and Benchmarks must be developed to facilitate that realization ; and Reliable Fire Statistics are their starting point and basic ingredient.

[ The European Standards Organization (#CEN) has a Webpage dedicated to its part in reaching the Sustainable Development Goals (#SDG’s) at … https://www.cencenelec.eu/european-standardization/sustainable-development-goals-sdgs/ ]

The Report’s Executive Summary (in English, French, and German) covers the limited range of the Project pretty well … and it is almost easy to read.  The ‘great and the good’ of Conventional Fire Engineering, both organizations and individuals, were involved in this Project …

.

Colour Image showing the cover of the EU Project ‘FIRESTAT’ Final Report, completed in July 2022, with the full title of the Project: ‘EU FIRESTAT – Closing Data Gaps & Paving The Way For Pan-European Fire Safety Efforts’ in the middle of the Page ; the European Commission Logo at the top of the Page ; and against a background of an EU Flag in the lower half of the Page, the list of 9 International Fire Safety Organizations in the Consortium which carried out the Project.  Click to enlarge.

EU ‘FIRESTAT’ – Closing Data Gaps & Paving The Way For Pan-European Fire Safety Efforts

(Download PDF File, 128 Pages, 2.56 MB)

.

The Final Report’s Boxed Recommendation 3, on Page 8, lists 8 Variables / Statistics to be collected as a Tier 1 / 1st Priority across Europe, from Ireland all the way down to Türkiye :

  •  Number of Fatalities ;
  •  Number of Injuries ;
  •  Age of Fatalities ;
  •  Primary Causal Factor ;
  •  Type of Building ;
  •  Incident Location ;
  •  Incident Date ;
  •  Incident Time.

So, for instance … the only Fire Statistic related to the Human Condition of Fatalities and Injured which would have been gathered after the 2017 Grenfell Tower Fire in #London was … Age of Fatalities … which, in the context of what actually happened on that tragic night and knowing the very large numbers of People with Activity Limitations (2001 WHO ICF) and other Vulnerable Building Users who died, or were injured, in the fire … is a very serious error, and entirely ridiculous !!??!!   FUBAR !!

Essential Variable / Statistic Correction: Age, Gender and Vulnerability of Victims (whether Fatality or Injured).  This is critical information and, whatever the resource implications, must be collected.

And if that wasn’t bad enough … this cack-handed approach to the development of Harmonized European Fire Statistics opens up the probability of another Morán with a computer, after a similar fire incident, again showing that a similar High-Rise Residential Tower could be evacuated down a single, narrow, badly designed staircase in 7 minutes.  Say no more !!!

.

J’Accuse / I Accuse the International Fire Engineering Community of being intentionally and maliciously Deaf, Dumb and Blind to the desperate Fire Safety Needs of People with Activity Limitations, including People with Disabilities, and other Vulnerable Building Users !

.

Concerning Incident Date … the Consortium appears to be completely unaware that the European Standard Short Format Date is … Year-Month-Day (YYYY-MM-DD) !!   See 4.2.2. in the Final Report.  Sloppy, Sloppy, Sloppy.

Generally concerning Tier 1 Statistics … where is there any serious consideration of the deep and substantial Green / Environmental / Climate Disruption Mitigation and Adaptation Measures being imposed on the Design and Operation of New and Existing Buildings … which are already causing serious fire safety problems ???   See many previous Posts on this Technical Blog.

.

Colour Image showing #IPCC AR6 Synthesis Report Figure 5a: ‘Limiting warming to 1.5 C and 2 C involves rapid, deep and in most cases immediate greenhouse gas emission reductions’ … from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 6th Assessment Report.  Current emission reduction policies will result in global warming of approximately 3.2 C, which is far off target.  Click to enlarge.

.

The Final Report’s Boxed Recommendation 3, on Pages 8 & 9, goes on to list 6 Extra Variables / Statistics to be collected as a Tier 2 / 2nd Priority across Europe, from Portugal all the way up to Finland :

  •  Number of Floors ;
  •  Area of Origin ;
  •  Heat Source ;
  •  Item First Ignited ;
  •  Articles Contributing to Fire Development ;
  •  Fire Safety Measures Present.

Concerning Fire Safety Measures Present … my patience is at an end !  I am heartily sick and tired of pointing out that there is no such thing as a ‘Fire Door’ ; it does not exist !!   It is ALWAYS a Fire Resisting Doorset !!!   See 4.4.3.

.

This EU ‘FIRESTAT’ Report properly belongs to the Twilight Zone of the last Century … and in today’s Recycling Bin !

.

And Even More Worrying …

.

Concerted Resistance to answering the Fire Safety Needs of Vulnerable Building Users ;

The mistaken view that ‘Sustainability’ is merely a graft-on / optional extra to Conventional Fire Engineering ;

Constraining Building Fire Safety Performance within the boundaries of Current Fire Codes ;

.

Is the EU ‘FIRESTAT’ Final Report another disturbing sign of the growing Trend towards #GREENWASHING in International Fire Engineering ?

.

.

END

#Twitter … @sfe2016dublin …

#RoadMap #SustainableFireEngineering #Reality #Reliability #Redundancy #Resilience #SustainableDevelopment #SDG #SustainableBuildings #GrenfellTowerFire #ClimateDisruption #ClimateSynergies #ClimateTippingPoints #Cities #FireCodes #Architecture #FireEngineering #SpatialPlanning #DesignTools #BIM #BeyondCodes #Ethics #CodeOfEthics #EthicalDesign #DefenceInDepth #FireSafety4ALL #VulnerableBuildingUsers #Firefighters #FFsafety #Creativity #Sustainability #SIA #SustainabilityImpactAssessment #SocialTransformation #SocialWellbeing4ALL #FireStatistics #PerformanceIndicators #Benchmarking #PerformanceTargeting #FireResearch #Green #Environmental #GreenWashing #ClimateAdaptation #GHG

GB Climate Change’s Green Deal – National Audit Office Report !

Posted by CJ Walsh

2016-04-23:  Yesterday … Earth Day … and also the Official Signing Ceremony for the 2015 Paris Climate Change Agreement at United Nations Headquarters, in New York City …

UN Official Signing Ceremony for the 2015 Paris Climate Change Agreement
Click image to enlarge.

On the day before that, 21 April, in a Press Release issued by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) …

A prolonged run of record global temperatures and extreme weather, the rapid melting of Arctic ice, and widespread bleaching of ocean coral reefs underline the urgent need to sign and implement the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, according to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).

WMO Secretary-General Petteri Taalas said that 2016 has so far overshadowed even the record-breaking year of 2015.

“The magnitude of the changes has been a surprise even for veteran climate scientists. The state of the planet is changing before our eyes,” said Mr Taalas.

.

A little earlier in April 2016 … and within the above international context came this problematic, but not-entirely-unexpected tale from Great Britain … the tip of a foul-smelling iceberg in quite a few countries …

Green Deal & Energy Company Obligation

“Improving household energy efficiency is central to government achieving its aims of providing taxpayers with secure, affordable and sustainable energy.  The Department of Energy and Climate Change’s ambitious aim to encourage households to pay for measures looked good on paper, as it would have reduced the financial burden of improvements on all energy consumers.  But in practice, its Green Deal design not only failed to deliver any meaningful benefit, it increased suppliers’ costs – and therefore energy bills – in meeting their obligations through the Energy Company Obligation (ECO) Scheme.  The Department now needs to be more realistic about consumers’ and suppliers’ motivations when designing schemes in future to ensure it achieves its aims.”

Amyas Morse, Head of the British National Audit Office (NAO), 14 April 2016.

[ And as you read further down … consider how important it must be for future effective climate change policy implementation in all of our countries, particularly those countries with an ‘historical responsibility’ …

  • that accurate, precise and reliable climate change data and statistics be gathered together and properly managed … and this means, for example, that at European Union Member State level, the national statistics organization must be in control of the process … and at EU level, Eurostat must be in control ;
  • that implementation be stringently and independently monitored for long-term effectiveness ;
  • that economists be removed from core decision-making in this area … and the veto they currently exercise over necessary mitigation and adaptation actions be removed. ]

The National Audit Office has today concluded that the Department of Energy and Climate Change’s (DECC) Green Deal has not achieved value for money.  The scheme, which cost taxpayers £240 Million including grants to stimulate demand, has not generated additional energy savings.  This is because DECC’s design and implementation did not persuade householders that energy efficiency measures are worth paying for.

The NAO Report: Green Deal and Energy Company Obligation also found that DECC’s design of its Energy Company Obligation (ECO) scheme to support the Green Deal added to energy suppliers’ costs of meeting their obligations.  This reduced the value for money of ECO, but the Department’s information is not detailed enough to conclude by how much suppliers have met their obligations for saving carbon dioxide (CO2) and reducing bills.

The report finds that while the Department achieved its target to improve 1 Million Homes with the schemes, this is not a direct indicator of progress against the objective of reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.  This is because different types of energy-efficiency measures save different amounts of CO2.

The schemes have saved substantially less CO2 than previous supplier obligations, mainly because of the Department’s initial focus on ‘harder-to-treat’ homes, as its analysis showed that previous schemes had absorbed demand for cheaper measures.  The Department expects the measures installed through ECO up to 31 December 2015 to generate 24 Mega Tonnes of carbon dioxide (Mt CO2) savings over their lifetime, only around 30% of what the predecessor schemes achieved over similar timescales.

Demand for Green Deal finance has fallen well below the government’s expectations, with households only funding 1% of the measures installed through the schemes with a Green Deal loan.  The schemes have not improved as many solid-walled homes, a key type of ‘harder-to-treat’ homes, as the Department initially planned.  As part of changes to ECO in 2014, the Department enabled suppliers to achieve their obligations with cheaper measures, moving away from its focus on harder-to-treat properties.  ECO has generated £6.2 Billion of notional lifetime bill savings to 31 December 2015 in homes most likely to be occupied by fuel poor people.  Beyond this, the Department cannot measure the impact of the schemes on fuel poverty.

There are significant gaps in the Department’s information on costs, which means it is unable to measure progress towards two of its objectives: to increase the efficiency with which suppliers improve the energy efficiency of ‘harder-to-treat’ houses, and to stimulate private investment.  The lack of consistency in the government’s approach during the schemes could increase the long-term costs of improving household energy efficiency.

In the NAO’s accompanying investigation into DECC’s loans to the Green Deal Finance Company, also published today, it found that the Department expects that it will not recover its £25 Million stakeholder loan to the finance company, plus £6 Million of interest that has accrued on it.  The Department based its stakeholder loan on forecasts of significant consumer demand for Green Deal loans.  But demand for Green Deal finance was lower than the Department forecast from the outset, meaning the finance company could not cover its operating costs.  The Department agreed a second loan worth up to £34 Million in October 2014, of which the finance company has drawn down £23.5 Million.  The Department still expects to recover this loan in full as it will be repaid before other investors in the finance company.

.

Is it any wonder that the ‘real’ Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Numbers continue to climb relentlessly ?!?

.

.

END