1 / 16

Resource efficiency indicators: material resource use and ecosystem capital maintenance

Resource efficiency indicators: material resource use and ecosystem capital maintenance. Jean-Louis Weber Special Adviser Economic-Environmental Accounting European Environment Agency. Mapping the issue. Ecosystem capital maintenance. Material resource use. Import-Export.

tavon
Download Presentation

Resource efficiency indicators: material resource use and ecosystem capital maintenance

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Resource efficiency indicators: material resource use and ecosystem capital maintenance Jean-Louis Weber Special Adviser Economic-Environmental Accounting European Environment Agency

  2. Mapping the issue Ecosystem capital maintenance Material resource use

  3. Import-Export Total EcosystemPotential TEP Air Atmosphere/ Climate CO2 Total material Input DMC Carbon Conventional DMC Fossilenergy TEP Land Biomass/carbonacccounts (agriculture, forestry, …) Biomass/ Carbon Biomass/ Carbon Biodiversity DMC other Metal Chemicals Landscape DMC Sand/ gravel Sand, gravel Water accounts DMC Water Water Water TEP Sea Decoupling (2) from environmental impacts Sea Decoupling (1) from material/energy inputs Resource efficiency: Double decoupling GDP

  4. DMC Carbon Import-Export Total EcosystemPotential TEP Air Atmosphere/ Climate CO2 Total material Input Conventional DMC Fossilenergy TEP Land Biomass/carbonacccounts (agriculture, forestry, …) Biomass/ Carbon Biomass/ Carbon Biodiversity DMC other Metal Chemicals Landscape DMC Sand/ gravel Sand, gravel Water accounts DMC Water Water Water TEP Sea Decoupling (2) from environmental impacts Sea Decoupling (1) from material/energy inputs Phase 1: TMI/DMC-Carbon & TEP Land GDP

  5. Interest and feasibility – First decoupling • TMI/DMC carbon: • Conventional DMC sets aside water because of highnumberswhichcouldblurr the indicator; as a consequence, sand and gravel (named « non-metallicminerals ») make 50% of conventional DMC in Europe; the remainingmaterialsis made of more than 90% of carbonmaterials (half-halffossil and biomass). • Carbonmaterials are part of all the economicflows (as material or energy) whensand and gravel relate to the construction sector • Carbonmaterials are important elements in international tradewhen the use of sand and gravelis local  itmakessense to focus on DMC Carbon (and TMI carbon) separately • Broad spectrumindicator, including the construction sector (highenergy consumer for cement) • Clear & focussedindicator: entropy of the economic system • Fossil and biologicalcarbon: • Main issues: energy, food, tradeoffs…, climate change mitigation • Balance economy-ecosystem • Numeraire: tons of carbon or energyunits • Supported by existing agriculture, forestryfishery and energystatistics, national accounts, imports and exports statistics… • Supported by IPCC assessments and models • Possible computation of carbonembeddedinto import and exports

  6. Interest and feasibility – Second decoupling • Change in Total EcosystemPotential • Clear and focussedindicator: loss of TEP = ecosystemdegradation = future loss of ecosystem services • Main dimensions (quantity and health) integrated via specific balances and multicriteria diagnoses • Land/landscapeaccountsproduced for 1990-2000-2006; nowcasting 2010 of LandscapeEcologicalPotentialunderdevelopment • Carbonecosystemaccounts (first generation) under production • Water accounts: • first accounts for soil water stress, 2000-2010 under production; • rivers and aquifersunderdevelopment • Biodiversityaccountsunder test • TEP/ EcosystemDegradationmethodologyunder test • Accountssupported by existingstatistics on resource use and consumption (agriculture, forestry, fishery…) • Accountssupported by Earth Observation monitoring programmes and by in situ monitoring

  7. Land cover flows 1990-2006 and mean LEP by landscape ecosystem units Land cover flows are measured according to the EEA LEAC methodology based on Corine land cover (J-L Weber and E. Ivanov, 2011)

  8. Landscape Ecological Potential change 1990-2006, by ecosystem landscape unit (J-L Weber and E. Ivanov, 2011)

  9. Net Ecosystem Carbon Balance by ecosystem landscape units (J-L Weber and E. Ivanov, 2011)

  10. Soil water stress: % of days when no water is available for plants One point in Germany Surplus streaming to rivers or infiltrating to groundwater Surplus streaming to rivers or infiltrating to groundwater No water available for plants below this point (Wilting point) No water available for plants below this point (Wilting point) One point in Spain Source: Blaz Kurnik, EEA, 2011

  11. From specific balances to integrated diagnosis of ecosystem health and TEP Change • Preliminary results

  12. Dominant landscape types Intensive broad pattern agriculture areasAgriculture areas with mosaic landscape

  13. Net Landscape Ecosystem Potential by 1km2 standard European grid, 2000 and Change 1990-2000 NLEP summarises landscape greenness, natural value and fragmentation by main transport networks. It is produced for 1990-2000 and 2006 . Improvements of NLEP Degradation of NLEP Intensive broad pattern agriculture areas Agriculture areas with mosaic landscape

  14. Net Ecosystem Carbon Balance by 1km2 standard European grid. 2000 NECB is the difference between biomass/carbon resources (NPP…) and uses (harvest of timber, crops as well as grazing). NECB is negative where tree clearing has taken place – which will be in general compensated by new vegetation in following years. NECB is very low and sometimes negative in intensive broad pattern agriculture areas – which is a structural deficit reflecting bad resource efficiency. Agriculture areas with mosaic landscape (e.g with hedgerows) have a positive NECB.

  15. Biodiversity index: here proportion of BAD/ALL in Art. 17 Reporting 2008 Intensive broad pattern agriculture areas have bad performance regarding biodiversity (purple cells) because of low NECB (little biomass left available for biodiversity) and use of chemicals.Agriculture areas with mosaic landscape have not the good performance expected regarding biodiversity (because of hedgerows and positive NECB). The cause is likely to be the use of pesticides…

  16. Deadlines and coverage • Version 0 (proof of concept) under production/development • Land accounts and NLEP 1990-2000-2006; interpolation and nowcasting (up to 2010) ongoing • Carbon accounts (NECB): 2000 produced, 2000-2010 time serie under production • Water accounts: first accounts of soil water stress 2000, time serie 2010 under production • Biodiversity accounts and index under development, based on exisitng data: EU reporting (Art.17), Species Specialisation Index and Ecotones 1990-2006. • All accounts for EU 27 (and more), assimilated at the level of the standard Inspire 1km² grid to allow reporting by ecosystme landscpae units, river basins and subbasins, NUTS 0, 2, 3… biogeographic regions, coastal zones, mountain areas etc… • TEP/ Ecosystem Degradation: Test in July 2011 • Accounts are simplified but capture main traits at the EU scale • Version 1 will start this summer

More Related