Sustainable Consumption and Production - Development of an Evidence Base

Sustainable Consumption and Production - Development of an Evidence Base

Project Ref.: SCP001 Resource Flows

Dr Thomas Wiedmann1, Mr Jan Minx1, Dr John Barrett,1 Mr Robin Vanner,2 Professor Paul Ekins2

May 2006

Final Project Report

1Stockholm Environment Institute - York

Sally Baldwin Building - D Block

University of York, Heslington

York, YO10 5DD, UK

Tel.: +44 1904 43 2899

Email:

2Policy Studies Institute

50 Hanson Street,

London, W1W 6UP

Tel: +44 20 7911 7500

Email:

1 Executive Summary 9

2 Introduction: Background on Policy and Research Issues 13

2.1 General Policy Context and Project Background 13

2.2 Material Flow Analysis 15

2.3 Why Matter matters - Motivation and Classification of MFA methodologies 17

2.4 Changing Patterns – MFA and the government’s framework for Sustainable Production and Consumption 19

3 Approach to Assessment 22

4 Review of Resource Flow Methodologies 24

4.1 Introduction 24

4.2 Choice of Methods 25

4.3 Assessment 26

4.3.1 Economy-wide Material Flow Analysis 27

4.3.2 Bulk Material Flow or Material Systems Analysis – Assessing the methodological framework of the Biffaward studies 29

4.3.3 Analysis of Material Flows by Sector: NAMEAs, Generalised Input-Output Models, and Physical Input-Output Analysis 31

4.3.4 Lifecycle Inventories 34

4.3.5 Substance Flow Analysis 37

4.3.6 Integrating approaches – Hybrid Methodologies 39

4.3.7 Approaches with sustainability reference points 42

4.4 From Weight to Impact – Changing Perspective on Material Flows 44

4.5 Policy Analysis 46

4.6 Resource Flow Models in the UK 47

4.7 Synthesis – Painting the Bigger Picture 50

4.8 Answering DEFRA’s specific tender questions 52

4.9 A Brief Guide to Policy Makers: on the choice of MFA tools - Choosing MFA methods for SCP policy use – from general to specific 54

4.10 Establishing strategic evidence sources for informing the prioritisation of SCP policies 55

4.10.1 A general framework for tackling the most important material flows first 56

4.10.2 Using MFA methodologies for informing prioritised MFA policies 57

4.10.3 Towards a comprehensive and strategic evidence-based material flow approach for informing SCP policies 59

4.11 Examples – Applying a strategic evidence-based material flow approach 61

4.11.1 Example 1: Sector Benchmarking – Monitoring Success 61

4.11.2 Example 2: Integrated Product Policies 62

4.11.3 Example 3: Sustainable Waste Management 64

4.12 Towards a Research Agenda for Tracking Strategic Materials in the UK 67

4.12.1 Policy Background and Motivation 67

4.12.2 Identifying key materials based on environmental impacts 67

4.12.4 Prioritising materials based on environmental impacts 69

4.12.5 Towards a modelling framework for tracing strategic materials 72

4.12.6 Challenges for Data Collection and Modelling 74

4.12.7 Further considerations and recommendations for tracing strategic materials in the SCP policy context 76

4.13 Recommendations 78

4.14 References 80

5 Review of Biffaward Studies 87

5.1 Introduction 87

5.2 The Biffaward Studies 87

5.3 The Assessment 88

5.3.1 The process of assessment 88

5.3.2 Assessment specifications 89

5.4 The relationship with the Biffaward Movement report 90

5.5 Assessment results 90

5.6 Discussion of Results 93

5.6.1 Sectoral Studies 93

5.6.2 Product Studies 94

5.6.3 Consumption Studies 94

5.6.4 Waste Studies 95

5.6.5 Material Studies 95

5.7 Discussion and recommendations 96

5.7.1 The policy cycle and the Biffaward studies 96

5.7.2 Specific policy points arising from particular studies 96

5.7.3 The value of the Biffaward studies 98

5.7.4 Recommended additional funding of work 99

5.8 References 101

6 Development of an Indicator for Emissions and Impacts associated with the Consumption of Imported Goods and Services 102

6.1 Introduction 102

6.1.1 Principles of emissions accounting and ‘embedded emissions’ 102

6.1.2 About this part of the project report 104

6.1.3 Requirements for an indicator of embedded emissions and impacts 104

6.2 Assessment Results and Discussion 105

6.3 Specification of an indicator for embedded emissions 107

6.3.1 Main issues 107

6.3.2 Data handling 107

6.3.3 Interpolating time series data 109

6.3.4 Outline of a pragmatic start for a model for embedded indicators 109

6.3.5 Feasibility of extending the model 111

6.3.6 Advantages and strengths of the specified model 113

6.3.7 Assumptions, limitations and weaknesses specific to MRIO modelling 114

6.4 Policy and Other Applications 115

6.4.1 Indicator for environmental impacts embedded in trade 115

6.4.2 Sustainable procurement and business options – greening international supply chains 117

6.4.3 Other applications 118

6.5 Conclusions and recommendations 119

6.6 References 122

List of Figures

Figure 2.1 - Material Flows of the Domestic Economy 14

Figure 2.2 - Human induced physical flows 16

Figure 2.3 - Classification of MFA Methodologies 18

Figure 3.1 - Illustrative example of assessment matrix 23

Figure 4.1 - Software interfaces of REAP (left) and REEIO (right) 50

Figure 4.2 - MFA methodologies in relation to dematerialisaton, detoxification and policy analysis 52

Figure 4.3 - MFA methodologies in relation to policy demands on different level 54

Figure 4.4 - Framework for prioritising SCP material flow policies 56

Figure 4.5 - MFA methodologies in an integrated material flow approach 58

Figure 4.6 - Studying the physical flows associated with aluminium and steel production 73

Figure 5.1 The groupings for the Biffaward studies 88

Figure 5.2 - Assessment Matrix: the Biffaward studies 91

Figure 5.3 - The policy cycle and the Biffaward studies 96

Figure 6.1 - Consumer (“consumption emissions”) versus producer (“production emissions”) responsibility for CO2 emissions in the UK 102

Figure 6.2: Data handling protocol for a multi-region input-output model 108

List of Tables

Table 2.1 - The SCP policy agenda and other relevant environmental agendas 21

Table 4.1 - Material Flow Methodologies included in this review 26

Table 4.2 - Summary economy wide material flow analysis 29

Table 4.3 - Summary bulk material flow/ material systems analysis 30

Table 4.4 - Overview ecological footprinting and environmental space 42

Table 4.5 - Examples: results ES analysis 43

Table 4.6 - Comments on linkage of MFA methodologies to environmental impact categories 45

Table 4.7 - Overview assessment results DEFRA tender questions 53

Table 4.8 - Pollutant agents and their environmental impacts 69

Table 4.9 - Environmental impact categories applied by Van der Voet et al. (2005) 70

Table 4.10 - Ranks of environmental impacts per kg of materials 71

Table 4.11 - Ranks of total environmental impacts of materials 71

Table 4.12 - Shortlist of strategic materials 72

Table 4.13 - Specific Recommendations derived from the review of the individual methodologies 79

Table 4.14 - General Recommendation 79

Table 5.1 - Studies which van be used directly to inform policy 92

Table 5.2 - Studies which can be used for policy with an appreciation of the study's limitations 93

Table 5.3 - Studies which should not be used to inform policy without further work 93

Table 5.4 - The robustness of the evidence base provided by the Biffaward studies 93

Table 6.1 - Overview of approaches and assessment results 105

List of Boxes

Box 2.1 - Tender Questions 15

Box 4.1 - Policy questions economy-wide material flow analysis 27

Box 4.2 - Policy questions environmental input-output analysis 31

Box 4.3 - Policy questions LCI/LCA 34

Box 4.4 - Policy questions substance flow analysis 37

Box 4.5 – Key recommendations environmental impact assessment 46

Box 4.6 - Key recommendations policy analysis 47

Box 4.7 - Good practive sector benchmarking 62

Box 4.8 - Good practice prioritising product groups according to environmental themes 64

Box 4.9 - Good practice: The Japanese waste input-output model 66

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Jonathan Nobbes and David Aaron Thomas for their valuable contributions to the review of the Biffaward studies (Section 5). We are further indebted to Dr. Manfred Lenzen for his active involvement in Section 6.3 and Appendix III.3 and his very useful comments on the report as well as Dr. Karen Turner, University of Strathclyde for her contributions to Appendix III.3. We would also like to thank the Steering Group members and the reviewers for their comments on the interim report as well as Dr. Klaus Hubacek, University of Leeds, for commenting on earlier drafts.

The work has been funded by the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) through the programme ‘Sustainable Consumption and Production – Development of an Evidence Base’, Project code CTX0505/SCP1.1.

Glossary

ACORN A classification of residential neighbourhoods

BedZed Beddington zero energy development

BRE Building Research Establishment

BMFA Bulk material flow analysis

CDM Clean Development Mechanism

CO2 Carbon Dioxide

CSR Corporate social responsibility

Defra Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs

DMC Domestic material consumption

DTI Department for Trade and Industry

EA Environmental accounts

EC European Community

EF Ecological Footprint

EIOA Environmental input output analysis

EIOLCI Environmental input-output life-cycle inventories

EMFA Economy-wide material flow accounting

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ES Environmental Space

EU European Union

Eurostat Statistical Office of the European Communities

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GINFORS Global Inter-industry forecasting system

GIOA Generalised input-output analysis

GTAP Global Trade Analysis Project

IEA International Energy Agency

IIOHLCI Integrated input-output hybrid life-cycle inventories

IO Input-output

IOHLCI Input-output hybrid life-cycle inventories

IPA Impact Potential Approaches

IPP Integrated product policy

IPPC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

ISIC International Standard Industrial Classification

ISO International Organisation for Standardisation

IVEM Centre for Energy and Environmental Studies, University of Groningen

JI Joint Implementation

LCA Life-cycle analysis

LCI Life-cycle inventories

MFA Material flow analysis

MIOTs Monetary input-output tables

MOSUS Modelling opportunities and limits for restructuring Europe towards sustainability

MRIO Multi-regional input-output

MSA Material system analysis

NAMEA National accounting matrix including environmental accounts

NHS National Health Service

NISP National Industrial Symbiosis Programme

NOx Nitrogen oxides

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-ordination and Development

ONS Office of National Statistics

PIOA Physical input-output analysis

PM10 Particulate Matter of less than 10 millionths of a metre

POITs Physical input-output tables

Prodcom Products of the European Community

REAP Resources and Energy Analysis Programme (Stockholm Environment Institute)

REEIO Regional Environment-Economic Input Output model (Cambridge Econometrics)

REMAT Resource Management Tool (University of Surrey)

RMFA Regional Material Flow Accounting Model (University of Surrey)

ROW Rest of the world

RSWT Royal Society for Wildlife Trusts

SCP Sustainable consumption and production

SCPnet Sustainable consumption and production Network

SEI Stockholm Environment Institute

SD Sustainable Development

SFA Substance flow analysis

SPA Structural Path Analysis

TIOLCI Tiered input-output life-cycle inventories

TMI Total material input

TMC Total material requirement

UK United Kingdom

UN United Nations

UNCTAD United Nations Conference on Tariffs and Trade

WRAP Waste and Resources Action Plan

WSSD World Summit for Sustainable Development

WTO World Trade Organisation

Executive Summary

Part A – Review of Biffaward Studies

(by Robin Vanner and Paul Ekins)

This part of the report introduces the Biffaward series of reports which were commissioned following the publication in 1997 of an overview publication (Biffa 1997) relating to resource use and waste management in the UK. The rationale for the investment of more than £10.6 million from the landfill tax credit scheme was that information about resource flows though the UK economy is of fundamental importance to the cost effective management of those flows, especially at the point at which those flows become ‘wastes’. Now that the Biffaward programme of research is nearing completion, the purpose of this assessment is to identify those studies which are both sufficiently robust, and relevant to future policy agendas. The results of the assessment have been the subject of a formal consultation with the reports’ authors, as well as a dialogue with practitioners and policy makers through a project workshop. Of the 48 studies which have been assessed:

·  7 studies can be used to inform policy directly.

·  29 studies can be used to inform policy, but with a note of caution about some aspect of the study (in many cases this is due to the results representing modelled data’.

·  12 studies were assessed not to be usable in relation to future policy without further work.

Considering the results by how they relate to the chain of production and consumption:

·  The product, material and consumption type studies were all assessed to be robust and policy relevant, although many require a note of caution in relation to some study limitations.

·  There were mixed assessments of studies relating to production. There was only one completed primary production study available for assessment. All but one of the secondary production studies were considered to be usable in policy, although the age and lack of updateability of some of the datasets was identified as a significant limitation for some. The tertiary or service sector studies faced an even greater challenge in terms of the collection of data and only two of them were assessed as usable in policy,

·  10 out of the 15 waste studies were considered to be usable in policy in some way. It is difficult to make generalisations for such a varied group of studies. However, the studies relating to research and model development tended to be more robust than the sectoral level waste studies, due to the higher quality of the data that they used.

This part to of the project goes on to conclude that the Biffaward programme of studies generated many benefits for a large range of users and showed how a comprehensive or consistent classification of material flows within the economy might be achieved. A full and comprehensive reading of the reports has led to the conclusion that, in industry, there may be potential to enhance industrial symbiosis utilising the present knowledge base, through the development of industrial networks. Such networks need to be developed and shown to lead to mutual industrial advantages and benefits, on the basis of current knowledge, before further investment is made in extending the quantification and specification of industrial material flows. The process of mapping out consumption is now well developed but needs to be supported by better data sources so that the findings relate even more closely to actual consumption patterns.

Part B – Review of Resource Flow Methodologies

(by Jan Minx, John Barrett and Thomas Wiedmann)

Resource Flow or Material Flow Analysis (MFA) can be considered as the application of the biological concept of metabolism to human society. Society is depicted as a living organism which continuously withdraws resources from nature, digests them in the transformation processes of production and consumption and finally releases them back to nature as wastes/residuals. MFA can be seen as an attempt to describe and analyse all or a subset of these metabolic (material and energetic) processes quantitatively.