TY - RPRT A1 - Schmidt, Wolfram A1 - Tchetgnia Ngassam, Ines Leana ED - Schmidt, Wolfram ED - Tchetgnia Ngassam, Ines Leana T1 - Cement proficiency testing scheme 2016/2017 - Final report N2 - The cement proficiency testing (PT) scheme was set up by the German Metrology Institute (PTB) and the Federal Institute for Materials Research and Testing (BAM) in 2012. The PT scheme was a spin-off from a European Commission and African, Caribbean and Pacific-Group of States funded project entitled SPIN – Spearhead Network for Innovative, Clean and Safe Cement and Concrete Technologies (www.spin.bam.de). The SPIN project aimed at crosslinking experts in industry and policy making bodies, with the prospect of establishing a sustainable cement and concrete construction capacity in Africa. After a successful first pan-African proficiency testing scheme in 2012/2013, it was decided to establish the scheme permanently and independent of the SPIN project. The main focus of setting up a testing scheme was to enable all cement testing laboratories in Africa to evaluate their competence and efficiency in cement testing and further enhance their capacity to obtain better quality products according to their environment. The acronym developed for the PT scheme is PACE-PTS (Pan-African Cement Proficiency Testing Scheme). The framework for the PT scheme was set up jointly among the organisers and the first participants. The first PT scheme was initiated in Dar Es Salaam in 2012 followed by a final workshop in Berlin in 2013. The second PT scheme began in 2014. A final workshop was organised in Dar es Salaam in 2015. The third and current scheme was started in 2016 and the final workshop is held in Yaoundé. KW - PACE-PTS KW - Round Robin KW - Proficiency testing KW - Cement KW - Quality infrastructure PY - 2017 VL - 3 SP - 1 EP - 74 PB - BAM CY - Berlin AN - OPUS4-43546 LA - eng AD - Bundesanstalt fuer Materialforschung und -pruefung (BAM), Berlin, Germany ER - TY - RPRT A1 - Schmidt, Wolfram A1 - Dauda, Risikat Oladoyin A1 - Reitz, Judith A1 - Misselwitz, Philipp A1 - Bassioni, Ghada A1 - Olonade, Kolawole Adisa A1 - van Damme, Henri A1 - Marangu, Josep Mwiti A1 - Dias Toledo Filho, Romildo A1 - Stürwald, Simone A1 - Schiewer, Gesine Leonore A1 - Hanein, Theodore A1 - Boru, Zamzam Bonaya A1 - Christensen, Randi A1 - Mack Vergara, Yazmin Lisbeth A1 - Hoelzel, Fabienne A1 - Apollo, Buregyeya A1 - Kyarisiima, Hope A1 - Thiedeitz, Mareike A1 - Suraneni, Prannoy A1 - Lorenz, Werner A1 - Osmani, Mohamed A1 - Lesutis, Gediminas A1 - Hanhausen, Rosa A1 - Lehmann, Steffen A1 - Madundo, Mariam Marco A1 - Bader, Vera Simone A1 - Rashdi, Rabia A1 - Landrou, Gnanli A1 - Hafez, Hisham A1 - Howe, Lindsay A1 - Kamashanju, Kabibi Charles A1 - Mohtashami, Nazanin A1 - Opoku, Richard Addo A1 - Erhahon-Nanna, Aisosa A1 - Mellinghoff, Zanele ED - Schmidt, Wolfram ED - Kamashanju, Kabibi Charles ED - Dauda, Risikat Oladoyin ED - Reitz, Judith ED - Misselwitz, Philipp T1 - Renewable, low-carbon materials and (infra)structures for inclusive and equitable human habitat - A position paper derived from the ReLive Habitat Scoping Workshop in August 2025 at the Xplanatorium in Hannover N2 - In order to create sustainable lifestyles and societies in the long term, sustainability goals must be balanced in terms of the environment, the economy and society. However, these targets are sometimes in conflict with each other and cannot be balanced without compromise. Today, the sustainability debate focuses primarily on balancing environmental/climate and economic targets. Social aspects tend to play a marginal role in the debate. This is also the case in the construction industry, which contributes significantly to global energy consumption and high grey and operational CO2 emissions worldwide. For this reason, research and politics have focused intensively in recent decades on ways to reduce climate emissions while maintaining economic efficiency. Historically, the focus in construction has been on structural safety. The classic credo in engineering was ‘more is more’. In the context of the climate debate, however, ‘less is more’ often applies, so that engineers and architects today face an economic conflict of objectives between the classic requirements for failure probability and the requirements for sustainable, resource-saving construction, which calls for completely new, much more holistic approaches to material development and structural design. The aim here is to build in a way that is both economical and climate-friendly without compromising structural safety, which is already a complex undertaking. However, the influence of the use of materials, architecture and construction technology on social aspects is often given much less consideration in the sustainability debate, even though enormous population growth and urbanisation processes are expected in the future, particularly in developing economic areas. This inevitably requires a stronger focus on the socio-economic aspects of construction, especially since, in contrast to many current metropolises, many conurbations in these regions will emerge in areas that are not yet densely populated. This provides freedom for innovative concepts that avoid the mistakes of the past and can consider all aspects of sustainability as largely equal. This freedom enables construction methods and urban concepts that use renewable, circular, local materials to create adaptable, accessible and liveable structures that are equitable, inclusive and fair for society. This position paper deals with the socio-economic footprint of materials and buildings. It was compiled by an interdisciplinary group of international experts and attempts to develop approaches for effective socio-economic life cycle analysis using similar concepts to those used in environmental life cycle analysis of products and buildings. In contrast to economic analyses or environmental life cycle assessments, which can work with reasonably available and clearly defined units to develop indicators, it is often impossible to determine units for socio-economic indicators, data is more difficult to obtain and there is a lack of benchmarks. During the discussions, a number of relevant parameters were developed, which can provide clearly quantifiable indicators for socio economic effects. These are related to largely available economic and employment data and consider the distribution of project contracts during implementation and the employment figures associated with project implementation. Particularly in the implementation of large-scale projects involving international investors and financial institutions, ‘(green) compliance value extractivism’ effects can occur, whereby partners from the donor countries are given preference over local project partners. This fraction of the loan flow directly abroad and can no longer serve the local economy to grow. This results in economic follow-up costs, even with lower project costs, which can promote social injustices. The higher the proportion of local companies and employees at engineering levels, the more fairly the construction project serves the local economy. T2 - ReLive Habitat-Scoping-Workshop: Renewable, Low-carbon Materials and (Infra-)structures for Inclusive and Equitable Human Habitat CY - Hannover, Germany DA - 13.08.2025 KW - Socio-economic footprint KW - Life cycle analysis KW - Sustainability KW - Urbanisation KW - Low carbon materials KW - Low carbon structures KW - Human habitat KW - Inclusiveness PY - 2026 UR - https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:kobv:b43-654742 DO - https://doi.org/10.26272/opus4-65474 VL - 2026 SP - i EP - 24 PB - Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung und -prüfung (BAM) CY - Berlin AN - OPUS4-65474 LA - eng AD - Bundesanstalt fuer Materialforschung und -pruefung (BAM), Berlin, Germany ER -