Resource efficiency indicators: material resource use

and ecosystem capital maintenance

Jean-Louis WeberSpecial Adviser

Economic-Environmental AccountingEuropean Environment Agency

Mapping the issue

Material resource use

Ecosystem capital maintenance

DMCCarbon

GDP

Fossil energy

Sand, gravel

Water

Biomass/ Carbon

MetalChemicals

Landscape

Water

Biodiversity

Atmosphere/ Climate

Biomass/ Carbon

Sea

TEP Land

TEP Air

TEPSea

Biomass/carbon acccounts (agriculture, forestry, …)

CO2

DMCSand/gravel

DMCWater

DMCother

Water accounts

Total Ecosystem Potential

Import-Export

Decoupling (1)from

material/energy inputs

Decoupling (2) from

environmental impacts

Resource efficiency:Double decoupling

DMCCarbon

GDP

Fossil energy

Sand, gravel

Water

Biomass/ Carbon

MetalChemicals

Landscape

Water

Biodiversity

Atmosphere/ Climate

Biomass/ Carbon

Sea

TEP Land

TEP Air

TEPSea

Biomass/carbon acccounts (agriculture, forestry, …)

CO2

DMCSand/gravel

DMCWater

DMCother

Water accounts

Total Ecosystem Potential

Import-Export

Decoupling (1)from

material/energy inputs

Decoupling (2) from

environmental impacts Phase 1:

TMI/DMC-Carbon & TEP Land

Interest and feasibility – First decoupling• TMI/DMC carbon:

– Conventional DMC sets aside water because of high numbers which could blurr the indicator; as a consequence, sand and gravel (named « non-metallic minerals ») make 50% of conventional DMC in Europe; the remaining materials is made of more than 90% of carbon materials (half-half fossil and biomass).

– Carbon materials are part of all the economic flows (as material or energy) when sand and gravel relate to the construction sector

– Carbon materials are important elements in international trade when the use of sand and gravel is local

it makes sense to focus on DMC Carbon (and TMI carbon) separately – Broad spectrum indicator, including the construction sector (high energy consumer for

cement)– Clear & focussed indicator: entropy of the economic system– Fossil and biological carbon:

• Main issues: energy, food, tradeoffs…, climate change mitigation• Balance economy-ecosystem

– Numeraire: tons of carbon or energy units – Supported by existing agriculture, forestry fishery and energy statistics, national accounts,

imports and exports statistics…– Supported by IPCC assessments and models– Possible computation of carbon embedded into import and exports

• Change in Total Ecosystem Potential– Clear and focussed indicator: loss of TEP = ecosystem degradation = future loss of

ecosystem services– Main dimensions (quantity and health) integrated via specific balances and

multicriteria diagnoses– Land/landscape accounts produced for 1990-2000-2006; nowcasting 2010 of

Landscape Ecological Potential under development– Carbon ecosystem accounts (first generation) under production– Water accounts:

• first accounts for soil water stress, 2000-2010 under production; • rivers and aquifers under development

– Biodiversity accounts under test– TEP/ Ecosystem Degradation methodology under test– Accounts supported by existing statistics on resource use and consumption

(agriculture, forestry, fishery…)– Accounts supported by Earth Observation monitoring programmes and by in situ

monitoring

Interest and feasibility – Second decoupling

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

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

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

Soil water stress: % of days when no water is available for plants

One point in Germany

One point in Spain

Surplus streaming to rivers or infiltrating to groundwater

Surplus streaming to rivers or infiltrating to groundwater

Source: Blaz Kurnik, EEA, 2011

No water available for plants below this point (Wilting point)

No water available for plants below this point (Wilting point)

From specific balances to integrated diagnosis of ecosystem health and TEP Change

• Preliminary results

Intensive broad pattern agriculture areas

Agriculture areas with mosaic landscape

Dominant landscape types

NLEP summarises landscape greenness, natural value and fragmentation by main transport networks. It is produced for 1990-2000 and 2006 .

Net Landscape Ecosystem Potential by 1km2 standard European grid, 2000 and Change 1990-2000

Agriculture areas with mosaic landscape

Improvements of NLEP

Degradation of NLEP

Intensive broad pattern agriculture areas

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.

Net Ecosystem Carbon Balance by 1km2 standard European grid. 2000

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…

Biodiversity index: here proportion of BAD/ALL in Art. 17 Reporting 2008

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