Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
13thAnnualMeetingoftheInternationalSocietyofEnvironmentalEthics
Who is to Blame for the Footprint: The Producer, the Consumer or theScientist?TheroleofWaterandLandFootprintswithinEnvironmentalJusticeContext
RitaVasconcellosOliveira1*,MayThorseth1,HelgeBrattebø21ProgrammeforAppliedEthicsandDepartmentofPhilosophyandReligiousStudies,NTNUNorwegianUniversityofScienceandTechnology,Dragvoll,7491Trondheim,Norway.2IndustrialEcologyProgrammeandDepartmentofEnergyandProcessEngineering,NTNUNorwegianUniversityofScienceandTechnology,7491Trondheim,Norway.
ABSTRACT
Presently, humanity faces several global environmental challenges that will impact very
differently individuals and nations. The fast growth of human population and of industrialization
createsapressureonresources,beingfreshwaterandbiologicallyproductivelandamongthemost
relevantones.
One way to understand the impact of human action on resources is to quantify the total
environmental pressures via footprints. Footprint iswidely used by environmental scientists,with
greatsuccessamongthepublicandpolicy-makers.Itassessesconsumer’sresponsibilitybyaccounting
for thetotaldirectand indirecteffectsofaproductoraconsumptionactivity.Suchmeasurement
creates a principle of (sole) consumer responsibility, which is highly debatable. Although the
limitations of the method in assigning responsibility are recognized by scientists, the moral
implications,forbothindividualandcollectivejustice(nations),havenotbeenfullyaddressedinan
ethicalperspective.
ByanalyzingUNandUNEPdocuments,weaimatunderstandingthemoralroleoffootprintas
anassessmenttoolinthecontextofenvironmentaljustice.
Wepresentanddiscusstheroleoftheagents involved inthefootprintmethod,aswellas
someofthetensionsofwaterandlandfootprintsasmeanstoquantify(in)justiceinresourceuse.For
thatpurpose,wewilladdress(1)thedualapproachofconsumptionandproductionfootprintsinterms
offairness; (2)thenormative implicationsfortheagents involved inthefootprintmethod,and(3)
eventualconsequencesoftheapplicationoflandandwaterfootprintsintheresourcejusticedebate.
Lastly,we(4)discusstheadvantagesandlimitationsofweightingsustainabilitywithfootprints.
KEY-WORDS:Footprint-EnvironmentalJustice-LandUse-Water–Responsibility-Fairness
2ISEE13thAnnualMeeting
I-INTRODUCTION
Environmental indicatorswerecreatedtounderstandandquantifyhumanimpactonearthsoto
formulate strategies that can lead to present and future sustainability. According to OECD (2001) ‘an
environmental indicator is a parameter, or a value derived from parameters, that points to, provides
informationaboutand/ordescribesthestateoftheenvironment,andhasasignificanceextendingbeyond
thatdirectlyassociatedwithanygivenparametricvalue’.Inconsequence,indicatorshavebeenpreferential
interfacesbetweenscientistsandpoliticians,andalso,morerecently,asmeansofcommunicationtoa
wideraudience.
The advantage of using an indicator is the possibility of translating the state of very complex
systemsinto‘humanlydigestible’information.Onthataccount,tobetterportraytheimpactofhumans
ontheecosystems,environmentalindicatorsareappliedinscientificandpoliticaldiscourses.Besidesthe
overallcombinedimpact(e.g.environmentalfootprints), it isalsovitaltounderstandmorespecifically,
theeffectontheelementslikeair,waterorland.
These environmental elements are key issues in the environmental justice (EJ) debate.Many
times,theyareassociatedwithdifferentialaccessandqualityaccordingtogeographical,genderorsocial
boundaries,orevenassociatedtogenerationalresourcejustice.
Tobetteraddress thesetopics,knowingthestateofaffairsonresourceuseanddistribution is
invaluable since it canprovideamoreaccurateandnuancedpictureof thepresent (andeven future)
situation.Environmentalassessmentcreatedtoolsforsuchtask:environmentalindicators.
Theaimofthearticleistoprovideanaccountofthesomeoftheethicalimplicationsanddilemmas
thatarise,inthecontextofresourcejusticedebate,byusingawell-establishedenvironmentalindicator:
footprint.
Itisrelevanttopointoutthatthescientificdevelopmentanduseofenvironmentalindicatorsis
doneinaverypoliticizedway,astherestofthesustainabilitydiscussionaboutresources.Thepolarized
debate on resource justice sets the standard for the application of footprints,which in consequence,
createsparticularlyrelevantethicalconcernsaboutthemethodandtheagentsinvolved.
3ISEE13thAnnualMeeting
One of implications of using footprint assessment is the begetting of responsibility. It can be
attributedtodifferentagents,withdifferentnormativeimplications.Besidesthisnormativefacet,there
is a methodological layer that holds procedural and distributive issues. Despite the relevance and
connection between these two aspects, this paper, will focus primarily on the normative aspects of
footprints,leavingtheotherfacetforfurtherresearch.
Thearticleisorganizedinthefollowingway:firstly,itisestablishedthe(1)necessityofaccessing
(landandwater)resourcesand(2)whatisafootprint.After,(3)differentfootprintaccountingmethods
will be summarized. Next, there is a (4) brief overview of footprints application in international
environmental policy on land and water resources, followed by (5) a reflection on the attribution of
responsibilityforresourceuse.Furthermore,(6)wewilldiscusssomecontroversialimplicationsofusing
thedifferenttypesoffootprintaccounting.Lastly,wewilldraw(7)conclusionsaboutthestrongpointsand
limitationsofthinkingaboutsustainabilitythroughthelensesoffootprint.
II-THENEEDTOASSESSHUMANLANDANDWATERUSEFORENVIRONMENTALJUSTICEREASONS
The levelofhuman impact innaturehasbeenproblematic toquantify,however theeffectsof
humanactionsintheenvironmentare,onthecontrary,easytomeasure.Internationalorganizations,like
theUN,warnusabout theperil thatmanypopulations face, in regard todeterioratingenvironmental
conditions.
‘783millionpeopledonothaveaccesstocleanwaterand[…]6to8millionpeopledieannuallyfromtheconsequences of disasters and water-related diseases. […] With expected increases in population […]increasingagriculturaloutput,forexample,willsubstantiallyincreasebothwaterandenergyconsumption,leadingtoincreasedcompetitionforwaterbetweenwater-usingsectors’(UNWater,2013).
Oneofthemostproblematicpresentandfuturesituationsconcernswaterresources.Theaccess
tocleanwateranestablishedhumanright(Salman&McInerney-Lankford,2004).Itdeterminesahigher
levelofobligation(moralobligation)towardstheunderstandingofhow,why,andtowhatextenddo(can
and should) we use water. Questions about the utilization of this resource are not only scientific or
economic,buttheyarealsopolitic,andaboveall,moral.
Besides water resources, humankind is also utterly dependent on land for food, shelter,
community development, or religious reasons. In consequence, the growth of world population, in
combinationwithhighlydemanding resource lifestyles, creates increased stresson land (Bilsborrow&
4ISEE13thAnnualMeeting
Ogendo,1992).Theincreasingscarcityofproductivesoil,grassingareasorbuildingzonesisadriverof
environmentalproblems(Foleyetal.,2005)and(socialandgender)ofinequality(Agarwal,1994)(Peters,
2004).
Aswellaswateruse, landuse isamatterofmoralconsiderationtoo.Land issubjectofmoral
consideration, for example regrading stewardship (Worrell & Appleby, 2000) or in cases of disruptive
effectsofspecificpolicies(Beatley,1991).
Theenvironmental resourcecrisis, fueledbythe increasingdemand inenergy,waterand land,
creates a global conscience of the urge to establish sustainable policies and praxis, based on solid
knowledgeofthestateofaffairs.
Indirectresponse,UN,viatheirenvironmentalprogramme(UNEP),launched‘UNEP'sResource
EfficiencyProgramme’withtheobjectof‘promot(ing)resourceefficiencyandsustainableconsumption
and production […] in both developed and developing countries. […] This includes the promotion of
sustainableresourcemanagementinalifecycleperspectiveforgoodsandservices’(UNEP,s.d.-c).
In order to be able to generate coherent sustainable strategies, UN launched ‘Life Cycle
ApproachesandIndicators’programmetofightagainstthe‘lackofactionablesynthesizedinformationon
alternativesandefficienciesandaneedformoretimelyalertsofimpendingresourcescarcitiestoinform
policies,research,andmanagement’(UNEP,s.d.-b).
InUNEP’scorrespondingreport,footprint,amongstotherindicators,isdiscussedandclarifiedwith
theaimofestablishingsomenormalization.Nevertheless,andinspecializedliteratureitstillispossibleto
seequitealargevariabilityintermsofthenumberofindicatorsavailabletoassessgeneralandspecific
environmental conditions. Additionally, and in the case of numerous indicators, there are several
pathwaysforcalculation,beingfootprintastrikingexampleofthis.
In this paper, we argue, in line with UN directives mentioned so far, that environmental
assessment iskey toaproperaddressingofenvironmental justice (Fredericks,2012;Todd&Zografos,
2005;Veisi,Liaghati,&Alipour,2016).Inconsequence,footprintscan(orshould)helpustounderstand
andclarify(atleastsomeof)themostpressingissuesinEnvironmentalJustice(EJ)context.
Ifweassume theargument tobecorrect, inorder for footprints tohelpelucidating (some)EJ
issues, it is relevant to analyze the consequencesof theprocess in policy and in thepolitical decision
5ISEE13thAnnualMeeting
making process. Furthermore, a conscious, and in context, application of this tool, requires reflection
about the implications for the agents involved (producers, consumers, nations, institutions and
individuals).
Onthefollowingsection,wewillfocusinclarifyingwhatisafootprintandthetwomaintypologies
offootprintsotounderstandthejusticeimplicationsofeachoneofthem.
II.1-WhatisaFootprint?
Footprint is loosely used word different types of methods used to understand the use of a
resource,thelevelofemissionsand/orimpactofaparticularecosystemiccomponent.
In this particular paper,wewill address only the footprints as quantifications of direct and/or
indirectaggregatedenvironmentalindicatorssuchascarbondioxideequivalentemissions,wateruse,and
landimpacts.
Inthecaseofresources,footprintmeasurestheamountoftheresourceusedtoproducegoods,
servicesornations.Theresourceusecanbemeasuredforasingleprocess,suchasmeatproduction,a
product,suchasacar,oraninstitution,likeamulti-nationalcompany.Thewaterfootprintcanalsobe
calculatedforaparticularriverbasin,aquifer,regionorcountry.
Literaturepresentsabundantexamplesoffootprintcalculationsusingdifferentmethodsanddata.
Inthispaper,weshallfocusonthefollowing:(1)production-basedand(2)consumption-baseaccounting
usedinfootprintcalculation.
I.1.1-Production-basedaccounting
At the beginning of the implementation of accounting impacts methodologies, the system
boundariesweresetwithinageographicallyororganizationaldefinedarea.Suchapproachwaschosen
duetoguidelinescomingfrominternationalinstitutionssuchastheIntergovernmentalPanelonClimate
Change(IPCC)orWorldResourcesInstitute(IPCC,2006;WRI&WBCSD,2004).
Forexample,ifwewantedtocalculatethewaterfootprint(WF)production-basedof1kgofbeef
comingfromproducerX,thewaterconsideredwouldbethecows’drinkingwater,watertowashthemor
tocleanthefacilitiesofXfarm.Forexample,thewaterusedtogrowtheanimalfodder,thatproducerX
buysonthemarket,wouldnotbe included inthe inventory.Thereasonforthisexclusion isthat,only
6ISEE13thAnnualMeeting
direct (i.e. within the limits of the study scope) uses are accounted for. In otherwords, all the uses,
emissionsorimpactsassociatedwithproductsandservicespurchasedbytheconsumers(e.g.producerX)
areleftoutsideofthescope(e.g.waterusedforelectricityproduction).
Somerecent literaturegoes furtherandconsiders thatproductionbaseaccounting isdifferent
from ‘footprint’. Many times, especially in research context, it is presented, as a separate typology
(Kanemoto, Lenzen, Peters, Moran, & Geschke, 2011). However, such method is still in use, even if
occasionallywithadifferentlabel(Meyer&Jacob,2008).
I.1.2-Consumption-basedaccounting
On the contrary to the previous approach, in the case of consumption-based accounting, the
system boundaries are open. The inventories include a life-cycle perspective. This means that they
integrate resource use, emissions and/or impacts caused by the production of goods and services
consumedbytheorganizationornationinstudy.Thisinclusionisindependentofwhethertheresource
useemissionsand/orimpactsoccurinsideoroutsidetheorganizationallimitsofthepopulationoractivity
ofinterest(Cazcarro,Pac,&Sánchez-Chóliz,2010;Larsen&Hertwich,2009).
Consumption-basedaccountingisusedforfootprintcalculationwhentheaimistoquantifyallthe
usesand/oremissionsinthesupplychain.Forexample,thismethodischosenwhentheobjectiveisto
knowtheWF,forexample,ofa1kgofbeeforofacarfrombrandZ.Inthiscase,thewaterisaccounted
inalltheprocesses,productsandservicesthatdirectlyandindirectlycontributetotheuserphase(e.g.
drinkingwaterforcowsorwaterusedforpaintingthecar),plustheupstreamprocesses,productsand
servicescreatedtheinfrastructuretooriginatetheproduct(e.g.waternecessaryforthesteelmanufacture
thatgoesinthefarmorindustryfacilities)plusthewaterusedforend-of-lifepurposes(e.g.recyclingof
carorofthemanure).
Consumption-basedaccounting isappropriatetoquantifyfootprintsofnations/regions,sectors
andproductgroupsi.e.largeaggregatedunits.Forexample,itiswellsuitedtoestimatethewaterfootprint
ofNorway’smeatproductionsector.
It is usually the nature of the study that defines the boundary settings, which dictate the
accountingmethodusedfororiginatingthefootprinti.
Production-basedandconsumption-basedaccountingrepresentdistinctpartsofthesamereality.
Whenthescopeofthestudyisbroader,consumption-basedaccountingisusedforthecalculationofthe
footprint,meaningthattheresourceusealongthefullsupplychainresourceuse(emissionsorimpact)is
7ISEE13thAnnualMeeting
included.Footprintoriginatedwithproduction-basedaccountinghasanarrowerscope.Itonlyaccounts
fortheuse(impactsandemissions)withinaspecificarea,likeanation.Itisimportanttomakeclearthat
anation’swaterorlandfootprintcanbecalculatedbybothaccountingmethods.Theinformationobtained
fromthetwofootprintswillbedifferent:production-basedfootprintwillaccountforthewaterusesin
domesticproduction (fordomestic consumptionand forexports)plus thewater inexports and in the
domesticfinalconsumption;consumption-basedfootprintwillintegratethewaterin(directandindirect)
importsfordomesticconsumptionplusthewaterusedindomesticproductionfordomesticconsumption
andforthewaterusedindomesticfinalconsumption.
Summarizing, the great majority of footprint studies prefer just one of the approaches.
Nevertheless, thetacitchoiceofasingleaccountingmethod(usually,consumer-basedaccounting)has
insufficiently considered implications for the global effort on tackling environmental challenges. The
choice for one of these accounting methods will partake justice implications on how nations and
institutionsaddressenvironmentalaccountability,especiallyclimatechange.suchconsiderationswillbe
furtherdevelopedinthisarticle.
II.2-Assessingwaterandlandresources
Oneofthemostdisseminatedprocedurestoassessnaturalresources,suchaswaterandland,is
byapplyingthefootprintmethod.Asmentionedbefore,footprintcalculationscandifferagreatdealand
tocounterthispolysemousness,therehasbeenaneffortfromscientists,withthesupportofpolicymakers,
toestablishcommonandcoherentguidelinestoperformfootprints.SomeEuropeanresearchinstitutions,
suchastheonesthatoriginatedtheprojectCREEA1,haveputeffortinthistask.
CREEA considers WF the best method to understand the global situation of water resources
because‘itallowslocalizingthepressuresputontheenvironmentbroughtaboutbyconsumptioninoften
completelydifferentpartsoftheworld’(Lutteretal.,2014:9).
1Formoreinformation,pleasegotohttp://creea.eu/.
8ISEE13thAnnualMeeting
Ingeneralterms,WFaccountsforwaterextraction(orwateruse),waterconsumption2andthe
nexus water-energy (water used in the production of electricity). ‘Green’3 and ‘grey’4 water are also
discussed5inCREAA’sdocuments,buttheirfocusis‘blue’water6.
‘[Theapproach]allowscalculatingwaterquantitiesincorporatedindomesticproductionandconsumptionactivities via complete supply and use chains; it also enables to set water use into relationwith otherenvironmentalpressuressuchasmaterialuse’(Lutteretal.,2014:8).
Inthecaseof landasaresource,theassessmentmethodologiesvarymorethaninthecaseof
water.Thisdiversityisrelatedtothespecificaimsofeachstudyonthissubjecthasbeenconducted-for
example to assess products such asmeat (Steinfeld et al., 2006), soy (Macedo et al., 2012), biofuels
(Rathmann,Szklo,&Schaeffer,2010).Forexample,landfootprint(LF)wasappliedtonations(Steen-Olsen,
Weinzettel,Cranston,Ercin,&Hertwich,2012)andtodifferentiatetypesof‘land’(e.g.forest,pastureand
cropland)(Lambin&Meyfroidt,2011).
However,inthispaper,wewillfocusonlyonfollowingfootprintstoaccountforlandresources:
landfootprint(LF),land–usefootprint(LUF)andecologicalfootprint(EF),sincetheyarethemostfrequent
inliterature.
According to CREEA, LF ‘assesses the domestic and foreign land areas,which are directly and
indirectly required to satisfy domestic final consumption’ (Giljum et al., 2013) p.9. In otherwords, LF
measures‘thelandusedtoproducethegoodsandservicesdevotedtosatisfythedomesticfinaldemand
ofacountryregardlessofthecountrywherethislandwasactuallyused’(Arto,Genty,Rueda-Cantuche,
Villanueva,&Andreoni,2012).
2CREEAreportonwaterintroducesimportantdistinctionsaboutthedifferenttypesof‘water’.‘Waterusevs.waterconsumption:Waterappropriationbyeconomicactivitiesexerts twodifferent typesofpressureson theenvironment. First, it is thewaterabstractionwherewaterispumpedoutofe.g.agroundwaterbodyordivertedfromariver.Thepressureexertedconsistsintheloweringofthewatertableandthereducedavailabilityofwaterinthewaterbodyfortheecosystemtomaintainitsfunctioning.Inaccountingtermswaterabstractioniscalled“wateruse”.Thesecondtypeofexertingpressureinaccountingtermsis“waterconsumption”.Inmanycases,waterisabstractedfromawaterbody,usedindifferentproductionprocessesandthenreturnedtothesamewaterbody,oratleasttothesameecosystem.Thestatusofthewatermighthavechanged(itmightbepollutedorwarmer), but normally only a small share of the water originally abstracted is incorporated into the product or lost to theecosystem it was taken from (e.g. water evapotranspirated throughout a production process). In literature, this “waterconsumption”(abstractionminusreturnflows)isalsocalled“consumptiveuse”’(Lutteretal.,2014:9-10).3Greenwateris‘waterfromprecipitationthatisstoredintherootzoneofthesoilandevaporated,transpiredorincorporatedbyplants.Itisparticularlyrelevantforagricultural,horticulturalandforestryproducts’(WaterFootprintNetwork,s.d.).4Greywateris‘theamountoffreshwaterrequiredtomixanddilutepollutantsenoughtomaintainwaterqualityaccordingtocertain standards (like the ones established in the US Clean Water Act) as a result of making a product’(GraceCommunicationsFoudation,2016).5Inthefinalreport,CREEAstipulatesaseparatefootprintfor‘grey’water(GreyWaterFootprint).6 Blue water is the ‘surface water and groundwater required (evaporated or used directly) to make a product’(GraceCommunicationsFoudation,2016).
9ISEE13thAnnualMeeting
LFprovidesinformation,inrespecttocountriesorworldregions,ontheamountofforeignland,
whichisembodiedinimports(Lugschitz,Bruckner,&Giljum,2011).Inadditionitalsoaccountsfor‘virtual’
land7flows(Meieretal.,2014;Würtenberger,Koellner,&Binder,2006).
Itisimportanttoclarifythatwhentheobjectiveistounderstandtheenvironmentalimpactofland
use,LFisnolongertheadequateenvironmentalindicator.Forexample,whenitisintendedtoanalyzea
trend towardsmore intensive typesof landuse, generic environmental pressure indicators arebetter
suited. They can quantify the final impacts on biodiversity or ecosystems, and they can parameterize
drivingforcesintheproductionandconsumptionsystemsofsinglecountries(Monfreda,Wackernagel,&
Deumling,2004)whileLFcannot.
Landusecanbetranslatedtoanotherfootprint,theEcologicalFootprint(EF).Onthecontraryto
landorvirtual landfootprints,EFmeasuresa theoretical landarea (continentaland/orsea)neededto
supplytheresourcesandtoabsorbemissionsforaspecificeconomicactivity.
EF‘representstheproductivearearequiredtoprovidetherenewableresourceshumanityisusing
andtoabsorbitswaste’(GlobalFootprintNetwork,2016a),includingproductiveareasbeingoccupiedby
humaninfrastructures8.
InthecaseofEF,theaccountabilityfortheresourceuseandfortheemissionsrestuponsolelyon
theconsumer.
‘(I)fsomethingisproducedincountryXandusedincountryY,thelandrequirementisregisteredtotallywithincountryY.[…]TheGHGinventory,carriedoutonthebasisoftheEcologicalFootprintapproach,wouldasaresultassignalowerlevelofGHGemissionstodevelopingcountriesandahigherleveltodevelopedones’(Bastianoni,Pulselli,&Tiezzi,2004:225).
AnotherimportantcharacteristicofEFisthefactthatitmeasuresthesupplyofanddemandon
the environment done by humankind. For doing so, a new concept is integrated in the calculation:
biocapacity.
7AccordingtoVonWitzkeandNoleppa(2010)virtuallandis‘theamountoflandthatisrequiredtoproduceoneunitofagivenagriculturalgood’.8‘Theecologicalfootprintrepresentsthecriticalnaturalcapitalrequirementsofadefinedeconomyorpopulationintermsofthecorrespondingbiologicallyproductiveareas.Evidently,theareaofthefootprintdependsonthepopulationsize,materiallivingstandards,usedtechnologyandecologicalproductivity’(Wackernageletal.,1999:377).
10ISEE13thAnnualMeeting
‘On the supply side, biocapacity represents theplanet’s biologically productive land areas includingourforests,pastures,croplandandfisheries.Theseareas,especiallyifleftunharvested,canalsoabsorbmuchofthewastewegenerate,especiallyourcarbonemissions’(GlobalFootprintNetwork,2016a).
Despite enjoying great success among institutions, general population and even some
environmentalscientists,EFisfarfrombeingunchallenged9.
Othermoregeneralchallengestoaccountingresourcesincludesomekindambiguity,concerning
whatresourcesarebeingmeasured,sincefootprintcanintegrateseveralspecificmethodologicalpaths
thatmeasureandassessdifferentrealities.Thisdissimilaritymakesabsolutelynecessary,acarefulreading
andinterpretationoftheresults,asasimplecomparisonofnumbersandofstudiesisnotenoughtoobtain
thedesiredanswer.Despite thesedemurs,aswewill showonthenextsection, footprint isamethod
frequentlypresentininternationaldocumentsonsustainability,especiallyregardingresourcedistribution
anduse.
III-THEROLEOFWATERANDLANDUSEFOOTPRINTSININTERNATIONALPOLICY
There isat leastoneveryclearapplicationof footprints in thecontextofEJ, connected to the
highly polarized arena of natural resources’ sustainability debate. The footprintmethod is present in
severalpolicydocumentsregardingtheclimateandnaturalresources.Sinceoneofthepaper’sobjectives
istoreflectonthenormativesideoffootprints(WFandLF),wechoosetofocusondocumentsthatare
both,influentialinenvironmentalpolicycontext,andatthesametime,werepartofthepoliticaldiscourse
onresourcejustice.Forthat,weanalyzeUNdocumentationaboutwaterandlandresources.
III.1-TherelevanceofWaterFootprintinUNdocuments
InternationalenvironmentalpolicyisregulatedthroughUnitedNations(UN)anditsagencies.In
thecaseofwaterresources,theUNhasbeenconsistentlyproducingreportsonthesubjectsince2003.
Worldwaterdevelopmentreports(WWDR)arethematicdocumentsthat‘focus(es)ondifferentstrategic
waterissueseachyearandaimstoprovidedecision-makerswiththetoolstoimplementsustainableuse
ofourwaterresources’(UNWater,2016).
9WiedmannandBarrett(2010)offeragoodaccountontheadvantagesandlimitationsofEF.
11ISEE13thAnnualMeeting
InordertounderstandtowhatextentWFispresentinandinfluencesinternationalwaterpolicy,
we analyze all sevenWWDR, in search for different uses of the concept and its overall impact in the
politicaldiscourse.
ThefirstWWDR-‘WaterforPeople,WaterforLife’(2003)focuses‘essentiallyonevaluatingwhat
progresshasbeenmade,andnotmade,sincetheRioSummitandondevelopingeffectiveassessment
methodologies’(UNESCO,2016b).Thereportdiscussesessentiallyhumanstewardshipoffreshwatervia
policies, social programmes, economic approaches and management strategies with the objective of
reachingwatersustainability.Inthedocument,methodologiesandindicatorsareproposedformeasuring
sustainability (UNESCO,2016b).Despite the focuson indicators,WFdoesnotappear in thedocument
(UNESCO,2003).
WF is first integrated in the second WWDR- ‘Water, a Shared Responsibility’ (2006). WF is
presentedhereasawayof (1)accountingnationwide the impactof ‘water trade’ (virtualwater). The
documentstressesthequalityofthisindicatortobetterunderstandthefluxesofthenaturalresourceat
aglobalscale(UNESCO,2006)p.391-2.
ThewidespreadpresenceoftheconceptWFonlystartsonthethirdWWDR-‘WaterinaChanging
World’(2009).Forthefirsttime,thereportdedicatessomespacetodefinetheconceptofWFanduses
theexampleofanation´sWF(USA)tooperationalizeitsdescription10.Despitetheeffortforclarification,
atthetime,therewerestillsomecontroversialissuesregardingwhatactivitiesshouldbeincludedinWF
(rainfedagriculture).
The thirdWWDR, usesWF in new contexts. Besides (1) ‘water trading’ and its dangers,WF is
presentedaspreferential (2)globalwateraccountingtool thatallowscomparisonsbetweencountries,
givingagoodinsightofwatertrendsinemergenteconomiesandonchangingconsumingpatterns.Forthe
firsttime,UNalertsforthe(3)nexusenergy-water,usingWFasameasureoftheproblemofspreading
useofhighcarbonfossil fuels (e.g. tarsands). In thesamereport,UNstarts toexpandWFconcept to
business, calling for the necessity to calculate (4) companies WF as means to gain ‘good will from
consumers’(UNESCO,2009)p.36.
10AccordingtoUNEP,‘acountry’swaterfootprintisthevolumeofwaterusedintheproductionofallthegoodsandservicesconsumed by inhabitants of the country. […] The fourmajor factors determining a country’s water footprint are volume ofconsumption,consumptionpattern(forexample,highorlowmeatconsumption),climate(growingconditions)andagriculturalpractices(wateruseefficiency)’(UNESCO,2009:101).
12ISEE13thAnnualMeeting
The 2012 WWDR report (fourth)- ‘Managing Water under Uncertainty and Risk’- is the most
comprehensivereportonfreshwaterresourcesoftheseries.Itbuildsfromtheformerdocument‘inthe
recognitionoftheexternalities,[…]itgivesaccountofthestatusandthetrendsrelatedtowatersupplies,
uses,management,institutionsandfinancing;highlightsregionalhotspots,andaddressesissuessuchas
genderequality,water-relateddisasters,healthandtheroleofecosystems’(UNESCO,2016a). Inother
words, thisdocumentconnectswater footprinttoenvironmental justicedebate,especiallyconsidering
distributiveissues.Themethodisrecognizedasmeansofdepictingresource(in)justice.
This document mentions WF in the same four ways, and in other new aspects too. The (5)
managerial and (6) strategic uses ofWF in the policy development are novelties. As an example, UN
proposesWFtobecomepartof‘greenlabelling’andfairtrade.Inaddition,thismeasurebecomespartof
theUNEP’s definition of ‘Green Economy’. Furthermore, and from thismoment, (7) a global network
solemnlydedicatedtoWF(WaterFootprintNetwork)11wasestablished.ThesenewapplicationsofWF
showtheconsolidatedroleofthismethodinsustainabilitydiscourse.
InthisfourthWWDRreport,thereisaclarificationandestablishmentofhowWFiscalculatedfor
companies12.Interestingly,thedocumentrecognizesbothproduction-basedaccountingandconsumption-
basedaccountingtooriginateaWF,butfavorsthevoicesthatclaimfootprintcanonlybecalculatedina
consumptionbase.
‘Thewaterfootprinttakesintoaccountalltheobviouswatercontentinaproductaswellas[…](virtualwater).[…]Thusthereistheoperationalwaterfootprintandthesupplychainwaterfootprint.[…]Therefore,awaterfootprintreflectsthetrueamountofwaterused,whichmaynotbeimmediatelyapparentfromlookingattheendproduct’(UNESCO,2012:493).
In 2014, UN released the fifthWWDR- ‘WorldWater Development Report 2014 -Water and
Energy’,which focusesmainly on the interdependency of energy sources andwater use.Unlikely the
previousdocument,WFislessprominentanditismainlyusedinthe(3)thenexusenergy-water(UNESCO,
2014b)andina(5)businesscontext(UNESCO,2014a).
ThesixthWWDR- ‘Water inaSustainableWorld’ (UNESCO,2015b)and ‘FacingtheChallenges’
(UNESCO,2015a)-doesnotmentionWFoften.Themost interestingpoint istheappearanceofthe(8)
11Forfurtherinformation,pleaseconsultWaterFootprintNetworkathttp://waterfootprint.org/en/.12‘Thecustomaryapproachofmasswaterbalanceisonlypartofthepicture;waterfootprintsorprofilesareincreasinglybeingintroducedtoestimateanindustry’srealwateruse.Estimationoffootprintsorprofilesmayinvolveusingawaterdiagnostictoolandwaterscenarioplanningsupports’(WWAP,2009,ch.2,referencingWBCSD,2006).
13ISEE13thAnnualMeeting
concept of water footprint assessmentii and the clearmessage to industries about the necessity of a
‘corporate’waterstewardship.
The2016WWDR-‘WaterandJobs’(UNESCO,2016c)-isquitepoorinWFreferences.WFisonly
mentionedinrelationtoindustrywaterdependency.
In general, footprint is presented in UN environmental documents concerning water chiefly in
connectiontomeansofcalculation,levelandcontextofresourceuse.Additionally,WFisconsideredasa
markerforresource(in)equality.ItisessentialtomentionthatUNdefinitionsonwaterfootprintarestill
differentfromothersusedinpolicydocuments,especially inEuropeanones13.Thispolysemyincreases
chancesforfurtherconfusioninthetranslationofglobaldirectivesintonationalorinstitutionalpolicies.
III.2-TherelevanceofLandandEcologicalFootprintinUNdocuments
Land and land use matters in international policy documents (UN, UNEP, FAO) have been
accountedforbydifferenttypesofmethods.Thefootprintisnotwidelymentionedorapplied(FAO&JRC,
2012;UN-DESA,2012;UNEP,2004,2014).However,ecologicalfootprintisquitemorecommonintheir
documents.Accordingto(UNEP,2010)p.18,EcologicalFootprint(EF)hastheadvantageofsupposingly
showing impacts, in landarea, and comparing them to the limitedproductive landarea available in a
specificarea.
Asmentionedintheprevioussection,whentheobjectiveistounderstandthedifferencebetween
humanneedsandearth’scapacitytosatisfythoseresourcedemands,EFistheonlymetrictoofferthis
possibility. However, when the state of resources is the information needed, Land (LF) or Land Use
Footprint(LUF)shouldbeusedinstead14.
As mentioned above, international policy documents tend to look at environmental issues
regardingland,intermsofhumanresourceneeds,meaningamorewidespreadapplicationofecological
13AccordingtoSERI‘Thewaterfootprintisthetotalamountoffreshwaterthatisuseddirectlyandindirectlytoproducethegoods and services which satisfy domestic final consumption. For effective water management the water footprint ideallydistinguishesbetweendifferenttypesofwaterflows:(1)waterwithdrawalandwaterconsumption;thefirsttermbeingthewholeamountofwaterabstractedfromtheenvironment,thesecondbeingonlytheamountwhichisnotreturnedatall(incorporatedintheproduct)oratmuchlaterpointintimeortoanothercatchment.(2)Blueandgreenwater;thefirstbeingwaterstemmingfromsurfaceandgroundwater,thesecondstemmingfromrainwater.Comprehensivewateraccounts–andtheresultingfootprintanalyses–encompassalltheseaspectsappropriationofwaterbyhumansociety’(Giljumetal.,2013:9).14‘Thelandfootprintassessesthedomesticandforeignlandareas,whicharedirectlyandindirectlyrequiredtosatisfydomesticfinalconsumption.Itisimportanttonotethatlandfootprintapproachesdifferfromcalculationsoftheecologicalfootprint,asnoweightingof landareasbydifferentbio-productivities isapplied. […] Incontrast to thecategoryofmaterials,noharmonizeddefinitionofthelandfootprintexistssofar’(Giljumetal.,2013:9).
14ISEE13thAnnualMeeting
footprint.There,isstilltheacknowledgmentofinternationalorganizationsoftheresearchdoneunderLF
and LUF (Steen-Olsenet al., 2012;Weinzettel,Hertwich, Peters, Steen-Olsen,&Galli, 2013) but not a
prevalentutilization(UNEP,2010:104).
In2004,EFwasusedasa(1)measureofenvironmentalsustainabilityofactions(UNEP,2004),
whileintheUN-DESA(2012)document‘Sustainablelanduseforthe21stcentury’,EFisappliedtoaccess
the(2)discrepancybetweenthebiologicalcapacityoflandandseaareatoproduceproducts(food,fiber,
timber, energy), to absorb wastes and provide to space for infrastructure, and the need for these
ecosystemservices15byaspecificpopulation.Furthermore,itismentionedtherecentattempttobuild
models that better access earth’s capacity to generate products and to determine more accurately
populationconsumption.EFisstatedas(3)partoftheecologicalmodelsusedtobuildlandandland-use
scenarios.
Inconclusion,UNpolicydocumentsuseWFaspreferentialmeansforaccountingfortheuseof
waterresources,maytheybeproducts,nationsorcompanies.Thesituationisfairlydifferentinthecase
of land and land use, since LF is barely mentioned in UNEP’s documents. Instead, there is a wider
applicationofEFwhenlandresourceistobequantified.Suchchoicehasrelevantconsequencesforthe
EFisarathercontroversialmethodseverelyquestionedbyscientists.RegardlessofthepresenceofWF
and EF in the mentioned policy documents, there is no real contextualization of the footprint, in
connectiontoresourcejusticechallenges.Thedocumentsshownofactualinterconnectionbetweenthe
methodandpossiblesolutionsforconcreteresourcedilemmas(e.g.limitedresourceaccesstoqualityof
childrenindevelopingcountries).ThelimitednatureoftheuseoffootprintinEJdebateoccurringinUN
policydocumentsdecreasesthepotentialsignificanceoffootprintsinpressingresourceissues.
IV-NORMATIVEIMPLICATIONSOFUSINGFOOTPRINTS
Theapplicationofafootprinttoastudyofaresource, impactoremission,createsaninherent
environmentalaccountabilitythatwillbediscussedindetail.Theresponsibilityassignmentdoesnotdiffer
15FollowingUNEPsdefinition,EcosystemServices‘arethebenefitspeopleobtainfromecosystems.Theseincludeprovisioningservices such as food and water; regulating services such as flood and disease control; cultural services such as spiritual,recreational,andculturalbenefits;andsupportingservices,suchasnutrientcycling,thatmaintaintheconditionsforlifeonEarth’(UNEP,s.d.-a).
15ISEE13thAnnualMeeting
whenconsideringdifferentresources,emissionsorimpacts.Consequently,itwillbediscussedingeneric
terms.
Furthermore,thechoiceofaccountingmethodwillcreatenormativeimplicationsfortheseveral
agentsinvolved.Moraltensionsandquestionswillarisewhentheseagentsareactorsindifferentcontexts.
SuchdilemmasareparticularlyrelevantforscientistsandpolicymakersinthecontextofEJ.
IV.1-The‘responsibility’dilemma
Footprint is neither a morally neutral method of accounting resource use (emissions and/or
impacts),norisitusedimpartiallyinpolicy.Thissectionwillbededicatedtoexposehowfootprintsassign
tacitresponsibilitytocertainagentsandthejusticeimplicationsofsuch.
IV.1.1-Producersasthe‘scapegoats’
Chronologically, footprint by production-based accounting footprintwas the first to appear in
literature. The sole consideration of the use (emissions and/or impacts) coming directly from the
productionofgoodsandservicesisanexpeditemannertoaddressenvironmentalaccountability.
Researchdevelopmentonamoreglobalscalemadesomescholarsthinkthatconsumption-based
accounting was enough to describe the ‘real’ situation. As mentioned before, this type of footprint
accounts for uses (impacts and/or emissions) that occur directly during the operations but not in the
supplychain. Inconsequence,authorsand internationalorganizationshavebeenquittingthismethod.
Still,production-basedaccountingfootprintisstillusedandevenpreferredbybusinessactors(Jardine,
2009).
Inscientificliterature,theterm‘responsibility’firstbecameassociatedwithfootprintthroughthe
calculationofCO2emissions(Proops,Faber,Wagenhals,&CO,1993).Untilnow,thepreponderanceof
researcharoundit,stillstayswithinthecarbonaccounting.Lenzen,Murray,Sack,andWiedmann(2007)
offer a good overview of the evolution of themethods that attribute responsibility in environmental
research,astheauthorsgobeyondGHGemissions(inthiscase,theyconsiderEF).
In general terms, production-based accounting allocates the responsibility of use (emissions
and/orimpacts)totheagentthatoriginatesenergy,goodsorservices,inotherwords,exclusivelytothe
producer.TheapproachedwassanctionedbyKyotoProtocol(forCO2)sincethenitwasbelievedthatthe
mostsignificantoriginoftheproblemwascomingfromtheenergyproductionsector.Eachyear,every
16ISEE13thAnnualMeeting
nation reports their GHG emissions to United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC)undertheproduction-basedaccountingapproach(IPCC,2006;UNFCCC,2004).
Severalstudies,especiallyduringthelate90’searly2000’s,followedthislineofreasoning.(Heil&
Wodon, 1997; La Rovere, de Macedo, & Baumert, 2002) The research was mainly related to the
responsibility of producers for their waste and to nations’ responsibility for GHG emissions (Mayers,
France,&Cowell,2005).
However, perceived limitations to this approach became more salient as research forwarded
towardstheanalysisofamorecompleteglobaltradescenario.
Inanattempttomakethesystemofanalysisclosertoreality,globalizationandglobaltradewere
incorporatedinthemethodandconsumptionofgoodsandresourcesbecamepartofthissystem.This
intermediatestepwasconsiderednotenoughtocorrectlydescribethedriversofenvironmentalimpacts
(Serrano & Dietzenbacher, 2010). The perception of the intricacy of value chains and markets, in
combinationwiththedifficulties inestablishingeachcontributionofeachprocessorstepinthevalue-
chain,originatedacommonquestforamoreinclusiveprocessbutalsoafairerone16.
‘Thescientificcommunityshouldthusdrawmoreattentiontotheneedforafairaccountingmethod[…]which(also)assignsresponsibility’(Bastianonietal.,2004:254-5).
Partofthequestforfairnesswasthoughttobethedevelopmentofamethodthatwouldaddress
resourceuseand/oremissionsinalltheprocessesandchainsrelated.Soon,itwasconsideredthatonly
productiondoesnotaccountforthegoods/services/impactsgeneratedin(global)trade.
Sincetheproductionprincipledoesnotdistinguishbetweenexportanddomesticconsumption,it
madeverydifficultforsomecountriestoachievetheirGHGtargets(Munksgaard&Pedersen,2001).
Furthermore,thephenomenonknownas‘carbonleakage’17putsinquestiontheactualpossibility
ofreachingtheglobalinternationaltargets(Eichner&Pethig,2011;Reinaud,2008).Atthesametime,the
waydevelopedcountries chose tomeet theagreed levelswas challenged (Paltsev,2001), aspolluting
and/orresourceintensiveindustries(apparently)tendtomovefromthesestricterenvironmentalpolicy
16Asmentionedbefore,researchonthisbehalfhasbeenintenseandessentiallycentredongreenhousegases(GHG).CarbonfootprintisthemostpopularmethodforaccountingGHG,andinconsequence,theresearchon‘fair’accountingissofarcentredoncarbon.ItisimportanttomentionthepressingroleofinternationalpolicytreatiesoncarbonsuchasKyotoProtocol.17‘Carbonleakageisthetermoftenusedtodescribethesituationthatmayoccurif,forreasonsofcostsrelatedtoclimatepolicies,businessesweretotransferproductiontoothercountrieswhichhavelaxerconstraintsongreenhousegasemissions.Thiscouldlead to an increase in their total emissions. The risk of carbon leakagemay be higher in certain energy-intensive industries’(EuropeanComission,2016).
17ISEE13thAnnualMeeting
countriestowardsdevelopingnations.Similarconcernsalsoexistregardinghowdevelopingcountriescan
and/orshouldcontributetothecommonefforttomeetglobaltargets(Weber,Peters,Guan,&Hubacek,
2008).
In response to these fairness concerns,andespeciallydue to thenecessityofnationsmeeting
international agreed CO2 mitigation targets, other perspectives gained terrain at the expense of
production-basedaccounting.
There are other fairness ‘challenges’ to production-based accounting footprint that are not
mentionedinthescientificliteratureandyetarequitesignificant.Forexample,byusingsuchapproach,
thereistheunderlyingassumptionthatmanufactureshavethe(scientificand/ortechnologic)possibility
toimprovetheirprocessesandapplysuch‘greener’productionmethodsatarelevantscale.Meanwhile,
thismusttheaccomplisheswhilesatisfyingagrowingneedforproductsandservices.Suchassumption
disregardsthechallengesintechnologytransferbetweennationsandindustries.Thisparticularlyacutein
developingcountries.
Embedded inproduction-basedaccounting approach there is the assumption that there is the
possibility of increasing (resource and/or energy) efficiency. However, in many cases (e.g. steel), the
technological limit ispractically reached (Milford,Pauliuk,Allwood,&Müller,2013)whichproves that
suchtechnologicoptimismisexcessive.
Anotherexampleofresponsibility‘shifting’consists,atnationlevel,istheloweringofproduction-
basedaccountingfootprintbyofthedelocalizationofresourceintensiveandstrongenvironmentalimpact
industries fromdeveloped todevelopingnations (Smarzynska&Wei, 2001) (also knownas ‘pollution’
leakage)andthenegativelocalandregionalsocial(Pickles&Smith,2010),andeconomiceffects(Dunford,
Dunford,Barbu,&Liu,2013)onbothsides.
Inconclusion,thereareseveralassumptionsthathinderproduction-basedaccountingintermsof
beinga justaccountingapproach.Themainadvantageofthisfootprintcalculation istheattributionof
responsibilitytoacountry,andbyextensiontoaspecificgovernment.Sincenationsaregoverned(some
democratically)byapoliticalelite,thereisaco-responsibilizationbetweentheeliteandthecitizenstoact
inaccordancetotheoutcomesofenvironmentalresearch.
18ISEE13thAnnualMeeting
IV.1.2-Thenewculprit:Consumers’responsibilityforstateoftheenvironment
Consumption-basedaccountingiswhatthemajorityofauthorsconsidertobethecorrectwayto
calculatea footprint.However, inthispaper,wewilldifferentiatebothwaysofcalculatinga footprint,
sincetherearestillorganizationsthatuseaproduction-basedaccountingmethod.
Consumption-based accounting footprint is sustained under the principle that consumers are
ultimatelyresponsiblefortheuseofresources(emissionsand/orimpacts)comingfromgoods,services
and energy production. This includes the goods, services and energy imported from outside national
bordersandconsumedineachcountry(Munksgaard&Pedersen,2001).
The perspective is in fine tune with life cycle perspective, as it assumes a full consumer’s
responsibilityoveralltheemissions,usesandimpactsofthe(whole)valuechain.Organizationssuchas
NationalFootprintAccounts (NFA)orGlobalFootprintNetwork(GlobalFootprintNetwork,2016b)use
suchaccountingmethod18.
Specialized literature,both insustainability indicators (Høyer&Holden,2003;Monfredaetal.,
2004) and in sustainability in general (Eden, 1993;Montgomery& Stone, 2009), assume, to a greater
extent,thattheconsumeristhekeyfactor.Consequently,therearerelevantfairnessimplicationsinusing
consumption-basedaccounting.
‘[If]TheGHGinventory,(wouldbe)carriedoutonthebasisoftheEcologicalFootprintapproach,wouldasaresultassignalowerlevelofGHGemissionstodevelopingcountriesandahigherleveltodevelopedones.ThistypeofaccountingwouldbefairerbecauseitwouldmakefinaluserspaytheGHG‘‘bill’’,butitwouldlowertheincentivefordevelopingcountriestocreatecleanerandmoreefficientproductionprocesses.Inanycase,thissolutionwouldavoidtheproblemofhavingtotransferproductionfromcountrieswithlimitedemissionstowardsdevelopingcountries(withalmostnolimitonemissions(Bastianonietal.,2004:255).
AspointedoutbyBastianonietal. (2004),accountingwithconsumption-basedapproachhasa
doubleeffect:producersandnationsarenotincentivizedtoreducetheirfootprint,whileitpresupposes
thatconsumerswillprefertheproductswith lower impacts, resourceuseand/emissions.Still it isnot
giventhatconsumerswouldchoosetobe‘greener’.
‘However,withoutadequateincentivesorpolicies,consumersarenotlikelytobesensitivewithrespecttotheirenvironmentalresponsibilities,havinginfactnoconsumptionlimits’(Bastianonietal.,2004:255).
18 In thecaseof landaccountingbeing translated inecological footprint there isonly thepossibilityofaConsumption-basedaccounting,sinceEFisbasedontheactualconsumptionofgoodsbyacountry’sinhabitants.WhenaproductorserviceisproducedincountryAandusedincountryB,thelandrequirementisregisteredentirelyincountryB.Thus,theconsumerofafinalproductisthesole‘responsible’fortheecologicalimpactoftheprocesswhichhasgeneratedthatproduct.
19ISEE13thAnnualMeeting
Weargue that this perspective assumes that consumers (1) have access to the environmental
informationto‘better’choose,(2)thattheyunderstandsuchinformation,andtherefore(3)canactually
choosesince theremustbemarketavailability in termsofgreener’productsand/or (4) theyhave the
buyingpowertodoso.Inaddition,thereisadisregardforindividualfactorslike(5)personalindecision
abouttrade-offsbetweenresources,impactsand/oremissions.
All of the above mentioned pre-requisites for a shift towards ‘greener’ consumption are
particularly difficult to come by in developing countries (e.g. price and availability constraints).
Furthermore, even in developednations, there are some caseswere environmental education and/or
environmentalconsciousnessisnotyetsufficientlydeveloped(Franzen&Meyer,2010;Palmer,Suggate,
Bajd,&Tsaliki,1998),soitmightbeunfairtocentertheresponsibilitysolelyontheindividual.
Moreover,consumption-basedaccounting(andfootprint)reliesonanunderlyingpresupposition
thatproductionis(mainlyorsolely)drivenbyconsumers,andtherefore,consumersultimatelyhavethe
capacitytobethe‘invisible’handthathasthepowertoshapemarketsandleadthemtofairerpaths.
Concludingfromliteratureanalysis,itispossibletostatethatthemajorityofauthorsagreeswith
theassumptionsabovementionedandbelieveconsumption-basedaccountingforthefootprinttobethe
best(andfairer)(Chico,Aldaya,&Garrido,2013;Hoekstra,2013;Jones,2005;Steen-Olsenetal.,2012).
Thegreatadvantageoftheapplicationofthisapproachistheresponsibilizationoftheindividual.
Theconsumercannotseehimselfapartoftheenvironmentalproblemsarisingfromitspersonalchoices.
In general,we argue that themost critical point in thismanichaeistic accounting approach to
environmentalresponsibilityforresourceuse(impactsandemissions),isthattherehasnotbeena‘true
discussion’amongthescientificcommunity(neitherwithstakeholders)abouttheprinciplesthatshould
presidetotheattributionofresponsibility.Thedominanteconomicperspectivethatconsidersconsumers
asdriversforeconomicdevelopment(Murphy,Shleifer,&Vishny,1989;Rosenstein-Rodan,1943),helps
explainingwhyconsumption-basedaccountinghasthemajorityofscientificsupporters.Lastly,itisworth
mentioningthatthereislittletonoreflectionaboutthejusticeimplicationsfornations,individualsand
institutions of these seemingly value ‘neutral’ approaches to environmental accounting. The situation
worsensincaseofvitalresourcessuchaswaterorland,whichhaveamyriadofstakeholdersinvolved,
andyettheresponsibility,inthismethod,canonlyhaveoneoftwofaces.
20ISEE13thAnnualMeeting
IV.2-Agencyandaccountabilityinfootprintmethod
In the previous section, we have discussed agents that can be accountable for environmental
responsibility,inaccordancetothetypeofapproachchosentoperformanenvironmentalassessmentvia
footprint.
Fig.1representsthetwoagentsthatcanbeaccountableforenvironmentalimpacts,resourceuse
oremissions,ifafootprintisusedasenvironmentalindicator.
Fig.1–Representationofenvironmentalresponsibilityattributioninthefootprintmethod.
Due to the fact that footprint information provides guidance for policy and decision making
processes,itcreatesotherdimensionsofresponsibilitybesidesenvironmentalaccountability.Oneofthem
is the responsibility for choosing the accounting method when using footprint as an environmental
indicator.
Inasimplisticperspective,thescientististhe(only)agentresponsibleforthechoiceofthefootprint
accounting method as any scientist does when using tools in his/her research. However, in specific
situations, such as performing footprint for the reports to United Nations Framework Convention on
ClimateChange(UNFCCC),thescientistcannotactuallychoosethefootprintaccountingmethodhe/she
believestobethebest(andfairer).UNFCCCregulationdictatesitmustbeproduction-basedaccounting
footprint.Nevertheless,ingeneral,thescientistseemstohavetheopportunitytochoosetheapproach
he/sheseemsfittoperformfootprint.
As previously mentioned, it is considered by the majority of the scientific community that
consumption-based accounting for footprint is the only right method because it includes all the
contributionsofalltheagentsinvolvedinprocess(life-cycleperspective).Inconsonancewiththisidea,
formalguidelineshavebeensettoperform(carbon)footprint(ISO/TS14067:2013).Thisstandarddictates
the application of the life-cycle perspective to the accounting, in other words, it directs footprint to
consumption-basedaccounting. It isworth referring that there isnoobligation to follow this standard
thoughtheintentionofanystandardisageneralapplicationofitsrecommendations.
21ISEE13thAnnualMeeting
Despitethe(attempted)standardizationoffootprintprocess,itisstilluptothescientistand/orthe
institutionwherehe/she is integrated todecidewhich approach to take. This level of responsibility is
usuallynotreflecteduponbythescientificcommunityasitistakenforgrantedthescientificsupremacy
of one approach (consumption-based) over the other one (production-based). The dismissal of the
possibilityofapproachchoice,(apparently)reducestheresponsibilityofthescientist.However,webelieve
thisnottobethecase.Wearguethatitisactuallytheopposite.Thefactthatinternationalinstitutions
recognizeproduction-basedaccountingforfootprints(speciallyinregardtowater,andalsotocarbon),
canbetranslatedinacquiesceoftheexistenceofarealitythatcannotbecapturedjustbyoneapproach.
Wefurtherclaimthatthescientistisnotaloneinthechoiceoftheaccountabilityapproach,andin
theend,oftheagentto‘blame’forresourceuse(impactsand/oremissions).Webelievethatpoliticians
andpoliticalinstitutionsaresecondarilyresponsiblefortheassignmentofenvironmentalresponsibility.
Thoughtheyareinfluencedbythescientists,thatworkforthemorincollaborationwith,throughreports
andadvice,theycannotbeexemptedfromthisresponsibility,especiallybecausetheyaretheagentswith
governingresponsibility.Inaddition,theyaretheconnectionnodetotherestofsociety.
Fig.2showstheagentsinvolvedinchoiceofaccountingapproachtoapplytoafootprintprocess
whenassessingresourceuse(emissionsand/orimpacts).
Fig.2–Representationoftheagentsinvolvedinchoiceofthefootprintaccountabilityapproach(production-basedorconsumption-basedaccounting).
Thereisathirddimensionofresponsibilityrelatedtothecollectiveorindividualnatureofeachof
theaboveagents.Thepluralnatureofcertainsettings(nations,institutions,companies)dictatesshared
(scientificandnormative)believesthatcanbeatoddswithindividualperspectives.Ifthathappens,each
22ISEE13thAnnualMeeting
agentmayharborquestionsandconcernsaboutthewayfootprintsshouldbecalculated,whattheyare
usedforandhowtoactuponitsinformation.
Forexample, contemplatingapersonaldimension,WF canbe calculatedvia awater footprint
calculator19,providingMrs.Xwiththeinformationaboutherwateruse.Withsuchinformation,shemight
decide,forinstances,toshortenhershowers.Mrs.XcanalsobeinterestedinknowingtheWFofUniversity
Z,wheresheworksastherectorandeven,ofthecountrywhereshelives.Bothcollectiveentities(country,
university)compromisedthemselvestowardscertainsustainabilitygoals,sopreciseactionsneedtobe
takensotoaccomplish them.Nevertheless, severalquestionstill remainpoorlyanswered: fromwhich
level(footprintvalue)istheactionneededandwhatarethebeststrategies?
This multidimensional characteristic of footprint brings tensions and moral dilemmas to the
decision making process of an agent when acting in each context. The decision can be particularly
impaired,ifthetypeofaccountingbased(production-basedaccountingfootprintorconsumption-based
accountingF)isnotmadeclear.Mrs.X,whilerectorofUniversityZcanfaceproblemsinjustifyingactions
toreduceWFbecausetheinstitutioncanbeviewedasbothend-user(consumer)aswellasintermediate
agent,withthestudents(andothersenjoyingtheservicesoftheuniversity)beingaccountableforitsWF,
asendusers.Andmoreover,ifWFofUniversityZweretobedividedbyeachenduser,thentherelevance
ofthisinstitutionfortheeffortinreducingwaterconsumptionmightbenegligible.SothedilemmaofMrs.
X,asrectorofUniversityZ,ishowtoactuponthisinformation?Shouldshesetwaterusetargetsforher
institution?Shouldtheybe inconsonancewiththeuniversity footprintand/orwiththenationalwater
footprint?Howtotransmitand justifyanyornoactiontotheuniversitycouncilwithsuch information
disparity?
Thepersonalmoralperspectiveoftheindividualmightdictatethat,despitetherelativeweightofa
contributiontotheenvironmentalproblem,thereistheobligationof,inanycase(personal,institutional
ornational)tolowerWF.However,inaninstitutionalperspective,theinvestmentinloweringWFmustbe
worthofaninvestment,i.e.beeconomicallyjustifiable.Forexample,theuniversityrector,Mrs.X,needs
tojustifytotheboardofadministration,theinvestmentintechnologiestolowertheinstitution’sWF,after
an environmental audit that established that theirWFwas low (the accounting approach divided the
19Forexample,NationalGeographichasavailableatitswebsiteaWaterfootprintcalculator,whereeachcitizencandetermineitswaterfootprint.Availableathttp://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/freshwater/change-the-course/water-footprint-calculator/.
23ISEE13thAnnualMeeting
responsibilitybyallend-consumers).Regardlessofthevaluebeing low,whencomparedtoothers,she
believesthatdecreasingWFisalwaystherightoptiontotake.
Thepointofthisexampleistoshowthatthechoiceofaccountingmethodforthefootprintbrings
responsibility dilemmas for the agents involved as individuals (general citizens, scientists, politicians).
Normativechoicestakeninisolationmaynotholdwhentheagentsarepartofcollectiveentities,which
havedifferentrationales.Notmakingcleartheapproachusedinthecalculationofthefootprint,hinders
thefreedomofactionchoicebycreatingoversimplifiedperspectivesofanenvironmentalproblem.
VII-DISCUSSIONANDCONCLUSIONS
OneofthemostdebatedissuesinEJliterature,inregardtoresources,istheinequalityofaccess
andusebetweensocialgroups(Holifield,Porter,&Walker,2009).Suchtopicsareingreatconsonance
withtheUNpolicyreports.Theconcernabouttheresponsibilityin(resource)consumption(Micheletti&
Stolle,2007)isinmanycasesdirectlyrelatedtothementionedinequality.Tomakeclearsuchdisparities
itisvitaltoaccountandassessthedifferentiatedaccessanduse.Inordertodoso,footprintmethodseems
areasonablechoice.
Landuse,waterandecologicalfootprintsarepresentedasnecessaryinstrumentstodepictseveral
variablesthatinfluenceresourceavailabilityanddistribution,suchasgeographicalpatternsofresource
use, ‘greener’productsorservices(e.g. throughgreen labeling),andhowthemarket (maybethrough
producers or consumers) influences resource availability. In the case of water assessment, there is a
generalconsensusbetweenscientistsandpolicymakers.Thepreferredscientificapproachestofootprint
andthepoliticalrecommendedpathstocalculateWFaresimilar.However,differentpoliticalinstitutions
(e.g.UNandEU)havedifferentguidelinestocalculatespecificWFs.Incontrast,onlandaccounting,the
recommendfootprinttype isnotunanimous.ScientificandpoliticaldocumentssuggestLF,LUFandEF
accordingtothespecificaimoftheresearchoroftheanalyzedimpact.Thepolysemyaroundfootprint
accountingforwaterandlandresourcesmakesimperativeapropercontextualizationoftheresults.Still,
thisprocedureisnotthenorm,neitherinscientificnorpoliticaldiscourses.
Interestingly, and so far, theuseof footprintmethod isuncommonwhenaddressingEJ issues
outside of international policy documents.Usually, the authors prefer to create indicators (Pearsall&
Pierce, 2010; Todd&Zografos, 2005)or useothermeansof accounting (Cutter,Holm,&Clark, 1996;
24ISEE13thAnnualMeeting
Walker, 2009) to demonstrate inequalities or disparities in accessibility and/or use of resources. This
situationisatoddswiththeUNenvironmentalpoliticaldiscoursewhichrepeatedlyadvocatesforglobal
andcomparablemeansofresourcemeasure.Theadoptionof(case-)specificindicatorsandaccounting
methods prevents study comparison. It hampers a global resource assessment in relation to specific
populationsorsocialgroups.
There areother relevant normative implications in using footprint asmeansof environmental
assessmentthathavebeenfairlydisregarded.Thissituationoccurs,forexamplewhentheenvironmental
indicatorispartofthepoliticaldecisionmakingprocess,asverifiedbytheanalysisofUNpolicydocuments.
Footprintaccounting isnotdone ‘impartially’, inasensethat themethodattributesaresponsibility to
producersorconsumersinaveiledway,asinmanycases,thetypeofaccountingbaseapproachisnot
plainlyclear.Itispossibletoregisterthislackofprecisionincommonapplicationsforresourcefootprints,
suchasinthewebpageof‘EcologicalFootprintQuiz’fromEarthDayNetwork(EarthDayNetwork,2016).
Thewebsite does not state clearly which accountingmeasure is used to calculate the environmental
indicator.
Theattributionofresponsibilityforresourceuse(emissionsand/orimpacts)inaproduction-based
footprinthasapparently fueledadverseenvironmentalconsequencessuchas ‘carbon leakage’andthe
delocalizationtowardsdevelopingcountriesofindustriesthatareenergyandresourceintensive.Besides
thesenegativeeffects,thisapproachingfavorsadichotomicviewofsustainability.
It furthers the negotiating gap between north-south countries, while contributing to the
developed-developingcountries’pingpongaboutwhoistoblameforenvironmentalproblems,andhow
muchshouldbedonetoachieveemissionsandresourcequotas.Theuseofproduction-basedfootprintas
(scientificand)argumentativeweaponinthequestofafair(er)globalenvironmentalpolicybringsother
problematicissues.The‘polluterpays’principle(e.g.carbontax),whichisbasedinproductionperspective,
seemsreasonablycorrectsinceitisa(monetary)responsibilizationoftheproducerforanenvironmental
problem.However,thismeasurecanbacklashinseveralways.Thoughitcallsfortechnologicalinvestment
bynationsandcompanies,itmightalsoputtheinvestmentburdeninthefinalconsumer,viaincreasein
thefinalpriceofgoods.Itmightcreateadditionalimpedimentsforexportationscomingfromimpoverisher
countries as their products would be pricier when compared with others coming from nations and
industrieswithgreenerproductionprocesses.
25ISEE13thAnnualMeeting
Using consumption-based footprint is not without its limitations and normative implications
either, particularly when applied to the political discourse. The attribution of responsibility to the
consumertipsthepowerbalancetowardstheagentswithlesscapacitytoexerciseinfluence(individual
citizens).Thereareamongtheconsumers,companiesandinstitutionsthatneedproductsandservicesto
generate their own goods (midpoint consumers). Nevertheless, in the particular case of these
organizations,theycanfurtherdissipatetheirresponsibilitybycalculatingthefootprintoftheirgoods,in
relationtofinalconsumer(individualcitizens).
Consumption-basedaccountingisinitselfaproductofacertaineconomicperspectivethatlooks
attheconsumerasthekeydriverforproduction.Iftheconsumerisregardedasthebiggestbeneficiaryof
(economic)development,thenitisalsotheoriginoftheenvironmentalproblemsandthenaturaltarget
foraccountability.Producers,andconsequentiallynations, loose the (main) responsibility for fostering
changetowardssustainability.Theweakeningofgovernmentalpowertorulenationaleconomies,which
comesassociatedwiththeglobalizationmovement,hasbeenapowerfulallyinshiftingtheenvironmental
responsibilitytowardsthe(end)consumers.
Besidesconsumer-producerresponsibilitytension,footprintestablishesotherequallyimportant
dimensionsofresponsibility.Thepositioningoftheagentinindividualorcollectivecontextsdetermines
specificreasoningmodesthatcanharborethicaldilemmas.AsexemplifiedbyMrs.Xplight,bothpersonal
andpoliticaldecisionmakingprocessescanbehinderedbythelackofclarityconcerningtheaccounting
methodusedtocalculatethefootprint,whichis,inmanycases,the(scientific)basisforthedecision.The
situation worsens because footprints (with the exception of EF) do not give guidance to what is the
threshold from which remedial actions are required. Furthermore, the moral standards (e.g.
consequentialist,deontological)appliedtothecharacteroftheobligation,originatedfromtheattribution
of responsibility, might conflict when applied in singular or collective contexts. The case becomes
particularlychallengingwhenexternaljustificationforactionisrequired.
Weconclude,that(resource)footprintsarepowerfulmethodstoassessenvironmentalresources,
andconsequentlybehelpfulelementsinenvironmentaljusticedebate.However,thisquantifiedvisionof
sustainabilityharborsnormativeimplicationsanddilemmasthatshouldbemadeclearinthescientificand
politicaldiscourses.Failingindoingsowillfurthermaintainandintensifydisputesaroundthebestway
towardsafair(er)pathtoachievewaterandlandsustainability.
26ISEE13thAnnualMeeting
REFERENCES
Agarwal,B.(1994).Afieldofone'sown:GenderandlandrightsinSouthAsia(Vol.58):CambridgeUniversityPress.Arto,I.,Genty,A.,Rueda-Cantuche,J.M.,Villanueva,A.,&Andreoni,V.(2012).Globalresourcesuseandpollution,
volume 1: production, consumption and trade (1995-2008). Publication Office of the European Union,Luxembourg.
Bastianoni,S.,Pulselli,F.M.,&Tiezzi,E.(2004).Theproblemofassigningresponsibilityforgreenhousegasemissions.EcologicalEconomics,49(3),253-257.
Beatley,T.(1991).Asetofethicalprinciplestoguidelandusepolicy.LandUsePolicy,8(1),3-8.Bilsborrow,R.E.,&Ogendo,H.(1992).Population-drivenchangesinlanduseindevelopingcountries.Ambio,21(1),
37-45.Cazcarro,I.,Pac,R.D.,&Sánchez-Chóliz,J.(2010).WaterconsumptionbasedonadisaggregatedSocialAccounting
MatrixofHuesca(Spain).JournalofIndustrialEcology,14(3),496-511.Chico,D.,Aldaya,M.M.,&Garrido,A. (2013).Awater footprint assessmentof apair of jeans: the influenceof
agriculturalpoliciesonthesustainabilityofconsumerproducts.JournalofCleanerProduction,57,238-248.Cutter, S. L.,Holm,D.,&Clark, L. (1996). The role of geographic scale inmonitoring environmental justice.Risk
Analysis,16(4),517-526.Dunford,M.,Dunford,R.,Barbu,M.,&Liu,W.(2013).Globalisation,costcompetitivenessandinternationaltrade:
TheevolutionoftheItaliantextileandclothing industriesandthegrowthoftradewithChina.EuropeanUrbanandRegionalStudies,0969776413498763.
EarthDayNetwork.(2016).EcologicalFootprintQuizRetrievedfromhttp://www.earthday.org/take-action/footprint-calculator/?gclid=CJTyu6ywkc0CFSLicgodAeoLlQ
Eden,S.E.(1993).Individualenvironmentalresponsibilityanditsroleinpublicenvironmentalism.EnvironmentandPlanningA,25(12),1743-1758.
Eichner, T., & Pethig, R. (2011). Carbon leakage, the green paradox, and perfect futuremarkets*. InternationalEconomicReview,52(3),767-805.
European Comission. (2016). Carbon leakage. Retrieved fromhttp://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/cap/leakage/index_en.htm
FAO,J.(2012).Globalforestland-usechange1990–2005,byLindquistEJ,D’AnnunzioR,GerrandA,MacDickenK,AchardF,BeuchleR,BrinkA,EvaHD,MayauxP,San-Miguel-AyanzJ,StibigHJ.FAOForestryPaper,(169).
Foley,J.A.,DeFries,R.,Asner,G.P.,Barford,C.,Bonan,G.,Carpenter,S.R.,Gibbs,H.K.(2005).Globalconsequencesoflanduse.science,309(5734),570-574.
Franzen,A.,&Meyer,R.(2010).Environmentalattitudesincross-nationalperspective:AmultilevelanalysisoftheISSP1993and2000.EuropeanSociologicalReview,26(2),219-234.
Fredericks, S. E. (2012). Justice in sustainability indicators and indexes. International Journal of SustainableDevelopment&WorldEcology,19(6),490-499.
Giljum,S.,Lutter,S.,Bruckner,M.,&Aparcana,S.(2013).State-Of-PlayOfNationalConsumption-BasedIndicators:A reviewandevaluationof availablemethodsanddata to calculate footprint-type (consumption-based)indicators for materials, water, land and carbon. Retrieved fromhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/resource_efficiency/pdf/FootRev_Report.pdf
Global FootprintNetwork. (2016a). Footprint Basics Retrieved fromhttp://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/footprint_basics_overview/
Global FootprintNetwork. (2016b). Methodology and resources. Retrieved fromhttp://www.footprintnetwork.org/pt/index.php/GFN/page/methodology/
Grace Communications Foudation. (2016). Water Footprint- Concepts and definitions Retrieved fromhttp://www.gracelinks.org/1336/water-footprint-concepts-and-definitions
Heil,M.T.,&Wodon,Q.T. (1997). Inequality inCO2emissionsbetweenpoorand richcountries.The JournalofEnvironment&Development,6(4),426-452.
Hoekstra,A.Y.(2013).Thewaterfootprintofmodernconsumersociety:Routledge.Holifield,R.,Porter,M.,&Walker,G.(2009).Introductionspacesofenvironmentaljustice:frameworksforcritical
engagement.Antipode,41(4),591-612.
27ISEE13thAnnualMeeting
Høyer,K.G.,&Holden,E. (2003).Householdconsumptionandecological footprints inNorway–doesurban formmatter?JournalofConsumerPolicy,26(3),327-349.
IntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange.(2006).2006IPCCguidelinesfornationalgreenhousegasinventories.IntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange.
Jardine,C.N.(2009).Calculatingthecarbondioxideemissionsofflights.FinalreportbytheEnvironmentalChangeInstitute.
Jones,C.M.(2005).ALifecycleAssessmentofUSHouseholdConsumption:TheMethodologyandInspirationBehindthe“ConsumerFootprintCalculator”.UniversityofCaliforniaInternationalandAreaStudies.
Kanemoto,K.,Lenzen,M.,Peters,G.P.,Moran,D.D.,&Geschke,A.(2011).Frameworksforcomparingemissionsassociatedwith production, consumption, and international trade.Environmental science& technology,46(1),172-179.
LaRovere,E.L.,deMacedo,L.V.,&Baumert,K.A.(2002).TheBrazilianproposalonrelativeresponsibilityforglobalwarming.BuildingontheKyotoProtocol:OptionsforProtectingtheClimate.Washington,DC:WRI.
Lambin,E.F.,&Meyfroidt,P.(2011).Globallandusechange,economicglobalization,andtheloominglandscarcity.ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofSciences,108(9),3465-3472.
Larsen,H.N.,&Hertwich,E.G.(2009).Thecaseforconsumption-basedaccountingofgreenhousegasemissionstopromote local climate action. Environmental Science & Policy, 12(7), 791-798.doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2009.07.010
Lenzen,M.,Murray,J.,Sack,F.,&Wiedmann,T.(2007).Sharedproducerandconsumerresponsibility—Theoryandpractice.EcologicalEconomics,61(1),27-42.
Lugschitz,B.,Bruckner,M.,&Giljum,S.(2011).Europe'sgloballanddemand.AstudyontheactuallandembodiedinEuropeanimportsandexportsofagriculturalandforestryproducts.Vienna:SustainableEuropeResearchInstitute.
Lutter,S.,Giljum,S.,Pfister,S.,Raptis,C.,Mutel,C.,&Mekonnen,M.(2014).CREEAD8.1:WaterCaseStudyReport.Retrievedfromwww.creea.eu,Vienna/Zurich/Twente
Macedo,M.N.,DeFries,R.S.,Morton,D.C.,Stickler,C.M.,Galford,G.L.,&Shimabukuro,Y.E.(2012).Decouplingof deforestation and soy production in the southernAmazon during the late 2000s.Proceedings of theNationalAcademyofSciences,109(4),1341-1346.
Mayers, C. K., France, C.M., & Cowell, S. J. (2005). Extended Producer Responsibility forWaste Electronics: AnExample of Printer Recycling in the United Kingdom. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 9(3), 169-189.doi:10.1162/1088198054821672
Meier,T.,Christen,O.,Semler,E.,Jahreis,G.,Voget-Kleschin,L.,Schrode,A.,&Artmann,M.(2014).Balancingvirtualland imports by a shift in the diet. Using a land balance approach to assess the sustainability of foodconsumption.Germanyasanexample.Appetite,74,20-34.
Meyer,I.T.,&Jacob,F.(2008).Networkdesign:OptimizingtheglobalproductionfootprintGlobalProduction(pp.140-190):Springer.
Micheletti,M.,&Stolle,D.(2007).Mobilizingconsumerstotakeresponsibilityforglobalsocialjustice.TheannalsoftheAmericanacademyofpoliticalandsocialscience,611(1),157-175.
Milford,R.L.,Pauliuk,S.,Allwood,J.M.,&Müller,D.B.(2013).TherolesofenergyandmaterialefficiencyinmeetingsteelindustryCO2targets.Environmentalscience&technology,47(7),3455-3462.
Monfreda, C.,Wackernagel,M., & Deumling, D. (2004). Establishing national natural capital accounts based ondetailedecologicalfootprintandbiologicalcapacityassessments.LandUsePolicy,21(3),231-246.
Montgomery,C.,&Stone,G.(2009).Revisitingconsumerenvironmentalresponsibility:Afivenationcross-culturalanalysis and comparison of consumer ecological opinions and behaviors. International Journal ofManagementandMarketingResearch,2(1),35-58.
Munksgaard,J.,&Pedersen,K.A.(2001).CO2accountsforopeneconomies:producerorconsumerresponsibility?EnergyPolicy,29(4),327-334.
Murphy,K.M.,Shleifer,A.,&Vishny,R.W.(1989).IndustrializationandtheBigPush.JournalofPoliticalEconomy,97(5),1003-1026.doi:doi:10.1086/261641
OECD.(2001).GlossaryofStatisticalTerms.Retrievedfromhttps://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=830Palmer, J. A., Suggate, J., Bajd, B., & Tsaliki, E. (1998). Significant influences on the development of adults’
environmentalawarenessintheUK,SloveniaandGreece.EnvironmentalEducationResearch,4(4),429-444.
28ISEE13thAnnualMeeting
Paltsev, S. V. (2001). The Kyoto Protocol: regional and sectoral contributions to the carbon leakage.The EnergyJournal,53-79.
Pearsall,H.,&Pierce, J. (2010).Urban sustainability andenvironmental justice: evaluating the linkages in publicplanning/policydiscourse.LocalEnvironment,15(6),569-580.
Peters,P.E.(2004).InequalityandsocialconflictoverlandinAfrica.JournalofAgrarianChange,4(3),269-314.Pickles, J., & Smith, A. (2010). Clothing workers after worker states: the consequences for work and labour of
outsourcing,nearshoringanddelocalizationinpostsocialistEurope.Handbookofemploymentandsociety:workingspace.Cheltenham:EdwardElgar,106-123.
Proops,J.,Faber,M.,Wagenhals,G.,&CO,R.(1993).Emissions:acomparativeinput–outputstudyforGermanyandtheUK:Springer
Rathmann,R.,Szklo,A.,&Schaeffer,R.(2010).Landusecompetitionforproductionoffoodandliquidbiofuels:Ananalysisoftheargumentsinthecurrentdebate.RenewableEnergy,35(1),14-22.
Reinaud, J. (2008). Issues behind competitiveness and carbon leakage. Focus on Heavy Industry. Paris: IEA. IEAInformationPaper,2.
Rosenstein-Rodan,P.N.(1943).ProblemsofIndustrialisationofEasternandSouth-EasternEurope.TheEconomicJournal,53(210/211),202-211.doi:10.2307/2226317
Salman,S.,&McInerney-Lankford,S.(2004).Thehumanrighttowater:Legalandpolicydimensions:Washington,DC:WorldBank.
Serrano,M.,&Dietzenbacher,E.(2010).Responsibilityandtradeemissionbalances:Anevaluationofapproaches.EcologicalEconomics,69(11),2224-2232.
Smarzynska,B.K.,&Wei,S.J.(2001).Pollutionhavensandforeigndirectinvestment:dirtysecretorpopularmyth?(No.w8465).Nationalbureauofeconomicresearch.
Steen-Olsen,K.,Weinzettel,J.,Cranston,G.,Ercin,A.E.,&Hertwich,E.G.(2012).Carbon,Land,andWaterFootprintAccounts for the European Union: Consumption, Production, and Displacements through InternationalTrade.Environmentalscience&technology,46(20),10883-10891.doi:10.1021/es301949t
Steinfeld,H.,Gerber,P.,Wassenaar,T.,Castel,V.,Rosales,M.,&DeHaan,C.(2006).Livestock'slongshadow:FAORome.
Todd,H.,&Zografos,C.(2005).Justicefortheenvironment:developingasetofindicatorsofenvironmentaljusticeforScotland.EnvironmentalValues,483-501.
UN-DESA. (2012). Sustainable land use for the 21st century. Retrieved fromhttps://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/1124landuse.pdf
UNEP. (2004). LandUseManagementAndSoilConservationPolicyOfUNEP:StrengthenedFunctionalApproach.RetrievedfromNairobi:http://www.unep.org/pdf/UNEP-strategy-land-soil-03-2004.pdf
UNEP.(2010).AssessingtheEnvironmentalImpactsofConsumptionandProduction:PriorityProductsandMaterials,AReportoftheWorkingGroupontheEnvironmentalImpactsofProductsandMaterialstotheInternationalPanel for Sustainable Resource Management. Retrieved fromhttp://www.greeningtheblue.org/sites/default/files/Assessing%20the%20environmental%20impacts%20of%20consumption%20and%20production.pdf
UNEP.(2014).AssessingGlobalLandUse:BalancingConsumptionwithSustainableSupply.AReportoftheWorkingGrouponLandandSoilsoftheInternationalResourcePanel.InS.H.BringezuS.,PengueW.,O´BrienM.,Garcia F., Sims R., Howarth R., Kauppi L., Swilling M., Herrick J. (Ed.). Retrieved fromhttp://www.unep.org/resourcepanel/Portals/24102/PDFs/Full_Report-Assessing_Global_Land_UseEnglish_%28PDF%29.pdf.
UNEP. (s.d.-a). Ecosystems and Their Services: Executive Summary. In Ecosystems and Human Well-being: AFramework for Assessment. Retrieved fromhttp://www.unep.org/maweb/documents/document.300.aspx.pdf
UNEP. (s.d.-b). Life Cycle Approaches and Indicators. Retrieved fromhttp://www.unep.org/resourceefficiency/Assessment/LifeCycleApproachesandIndicators/tabid/55531/Default.aspx#
UNEP. (s.d.-c). UNEP's Resource Efficiency Programme. Retrieved fromhttp://www.unep.org/resourceefficiency/Home/UNEPsResourceEfficiencyProgramme/tabid/55552/Default.aspx
29ISEE13thAnnualMeeting
UNESCO. (2003). WWDR1: Water for People, Water for Life. Retrieved fromhttp://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001297/129726e.pdf#page=576
UNESCO. (2006). WWDR2: Water, a Shared Responsibility. Retrieved fromhttp://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001454/145405E.pdf
UNESCO. (2009). WWDR3: Water in a Changing World. Retrieved fromhttp://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001819/181993e.pdf
UNESCO. (2012). WWDR 4: Managing Water under Uncertainty and Risk. Retrieved fromhttp://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002156/215644e.pdf
UNESCO. (2014a). WWDR 2014: Facing the Challenges. Retrieved fromhttp://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002257/225741E.pdf#page=153S
UNESCO. (2014b). WWDR 2014: Water and Energy. Retrieved fromhttp://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002257/225741E.pdf
UNESCO. (2015a). WWDR 2015: Facing the Challenges: Case Studies and Indicators. Retrieved fromhttp://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002321/232179E.pdf
UNESCO. (2015b). WWDR 2015: Water in a Sustainable World. Retrieved fromhttp://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002318/231823E.pdf
UNESCO. (2016a). Managing Water under Uncertainty and Risk- WWDR4. Retrieved fromhttp://www.unwater.org/publications/publications-detail/en/c/202715/
UNESCO. (2016b). WWDR1: Water for People, Water for Life. Retrieved fromhttp://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/water/wwap/wwdr/wwdr1-2003/
UNESCO. (2016c). WWDR 2016: Water and Jobs. Retrieved fromhttp://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002439/243938e.pdf
UNFCCC. (2004).Guidelines for thepreparationofnational communicationbyParties included inAnnex I to theConvention, Part I: UNFCCC reporting guidelines on annual inventories (following incorporation of theprovisionofdecision13/CP.9).Retrievedfromhttp://unfccc.int/resource/docs/cop9/06a01.pdf#page=31
UNWater.(2013).Anincreasingdemand.Retrievedfromhttp://www.unwater.org/water-cooperation-2013/water-cooperation/facts-and-figures/en/
UN Water. (2016). The World Water Development Report (WWDR). Retrieved fromhttp://www.unwater.org/publications/world-water-development-report/en/
Veisi, H., Liaghati, H., & Alipour, A. (2016). Developing an ethics-based approach to indicators of sustainableagricultureusinganalytichierarchyprocess(AHP).EcologicalIndicators,60,644-654.
VonWitzke,H.,&Noleppa,S.(2010).EUagriculturalproductionandtrade:Canmoreefficiencypreventincreasing‘land-grabbing’outsideofEurope?HumboldtUniversitätzuBerlin.
Wackernagel,M.,Onisto,L.,Bello,P.,CallejasLinares,A.,SusanaLópezFalfán,I.,MéndezGarcıa,J.,GuadalupeSuárezGuerrero,M.(1999).Nationalnaturalcapitalaccountingwiththeecologicalfootprintconcept.EcologicalEconomics,29(3),375-390.doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(98)90063-5
Walker,G. (2009).Beyonddistributionandproximity:exploringthemultiplespatialitiesofenvironmental justice.Antipode,41(4),614-636.
Water Footprint Network. (s.d.).What is awater footprint? Retrieved from http://waterfootprint.org/en/water-footprint/what-is-water-footprint/
Weber,C.L.,Peters,G.P.,Guan,D.,&Hubacek,K.(2008).ThecontributionofChineseexportstoclimatechange.EnergyPolicy,36(9),3572-3577.
Weinzettel, J., Hertwich, E. G., Peters, G. P., Steen-Olsen, K., & Galli, A. (2013). Affluence drives the globaldisplacement of land use. Global Environmental Change, 23(2), 433-438.doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.12.010
Wiedmann, T., & Barrett, J. (2010). A review of the ecological footprint indicator—perceptions and methods.Sustainability,2(6),1645-1693.
Worrell, R., & Appleby,M. C. (2000). Stewardship of natural resources: definition, ethical and practical aspects.JournalofAgriculturalandEnvironmentalEthics,12(3),263-277.
WRI,&WBCSD. (2004).TheGreenhouseGas Protocol: A CorporateAccounting andReporting Standard (RevisedEdition).Retrievedfromhttp://www.ghgprotocol.org/standards/corporate-standard
30ISEE13thAnnualMeeting
Würtenberger, L., Koellner, T., & Binder, C. R. (2006). Virtual land use and agricultural trade: Estimatingenvironmental and socio-economic impacts. Ecological Economics, 57(4), 679-697.doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.06.004
i Fig. 1 provides an overview of the different ways accounting for resource use: (1) production-oriented (the territorialperspective),(2)partialconsumptionbasedand(3)fullconsumptionbased(insomeliteratureconsideredasthecorrectwayofusingtheterm‘footprint’).Inthisillustration,overallresourceusecanbeobservedeithertoimports(directandindirect),thedomesticproductionsystemorfinaldemand(domesticconsumptionorexports).
Figure1:Theframeworkforconsumption-orientedversusproduction-orientedaccountingofresources.AdaptedfromGiljum,Lutter,Bruckner,andAparcana(2013).
ii‘Waterfootprintassessment(WFA)accountsforthedirectandindirectuseoffreshwaterinindustryWFAsapplytothesupplychainaswellastotheproductionprocess’(UNESCO,2015b:62).