Key Strategies to Achieve the SDGs and Consequences for Monitoring Resource Use

Chapter

Abstract

The chapter introduces a systems perspective on the physical economy and its interactions with the environment. Indicators on the use of materials, land, water, and GHG emissions (the “Four Footprints”) play a central role in linking human activities with environmental impacts. A basic goal of sustainable development is to foster social progress within environmental limits, and to enhance the safety of humans while reducing their dependence from constraints. Both intentions are reflected in existing resource policies of countries, where both supply security and the decoupling of welfare and social progress from natural resource use are central goals. The chapter summarises the state-of-the-art of the application of accounting methods and data provision for national material flow derived indicators, including the material footprints, as well as land and water footprints. In a systematic manner, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are discussed with regard to their relation to resource use, and it is argued that the information on resource use, in particular the four footprints (including carbon footprint), across levels will be necessary for a consistent implementation of the SDGs. Improving the knowledge base on global resource use will require further institutional development also on the international level. Towards this end, options are outlined comprising the build-up of regular monitoring, a global resource data base, the development of an international competence centre, and an international programme for global sustainable resource management.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the editors and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments, and UNU-FLORES for supporting the writing.

References

  1. Alcamo J, Henrichs T (2002) Critical regions: a model-based estimation of world water resources sensitive to global changes. Aquat Sci 64(4):352–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alcamo J, Doll P, Henrichs T, Kaspar F, Lehner B, Rosch T, Siebert S (2003) Development and testing of the WaterGAP 2 global model of water use and availability. Hydrol Sci J 48(3):317–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bahn-Walkowiak B, Steger S (2015) Resource targets in Europe and Worldwide: An overview. Resources 2015(4):597–620.  https://doi.org/10.3390/resources4030597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bringezu S (2015a) Possible target corridor for sustainable use of global material resources. Resources 4:25–54.  https://doi.org/10.3390/resources4010025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bringezu S (2015b) On the mechanism and effects of innovation: Search for safety and independence of resource constraints expands the safe operating range. Ecological Economics 116:387–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bringezu S, Schütz H, Moll S (2003) Rationale for and interpretation of economy-wide materials flow analysis and derived indicators. Journal of Industrial Ecology 7:43–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bringezu S, Potočnik J, Schandl H, Lu Y, Ramaswami A, Swilling M et al (2016) Multi-scale governance of sustainable natural resource use—challenges and opportunities for monitoring and institutional development at the national and global level. Sustainability 8:778.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su8080778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cucurachi S, Suh S (2015) A moonshot for sustainability assessment. Environmental Science & Technology 49:9497–9498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davis KE, Fisher A, Kingsbury B, Engle Merry S (eds) (2012) Governance by indicators. Global power through quantification and rankings. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. DESTATIS, German Statistical Office, on Behalf of Environment Agency: Umweltbundesamt. (2014) Nachhaltiger Konsum: Entwicklung eines deutschen Indikatorensatzes als Beitrag zu einer thematischen Erweiterung der deutschen Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie. UBA, Dessau-RoßlauGoogle Scholar
  11. Dittrich M, Giljum S, Lutter S, Polzin C (2012) Green economies around the world? Implications of resource use for development and the environment. Vienna, Austria, SERIGoogle Scholar
  12. EC—European Commission (2008) The raw materials initiative—meeting our critical needs for growth and jobs in Europe. COM, p. 699 Google Scholar
  13. EC—European Commission (2011a) A resource-efficient Europe—flagship initiative under the Europe 2020 Strategy. COM, p. 21Google Scholar
  14. EC—European Commission (2011b) Roadmap to a resource efficient Europe. COM, p. 571 finalGoogle Scholar
  15. EEA (1999) Environmental indicators: typology and overview. Technical Report No. 25. Copenhagen: European Environment AgencyGoogle Scholar
  16. EEA (2013) Environmental pressures from European consumption and production. A study in integrated environmental and economic analysis. EEA Technical Report No 2/2013Google Scholar
  17. EEA (2016) More from less—material resource efficiency in Europe. 2015. Overview of policies, instruments and targets in 31 countries. Rotterdam update January 2016. CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  18. Electris C, Raskin P, Rosen R, Stutz J (2009) The century ahead: Four global scenarios. Technical Documentation, Tellus InstituteGoogle Scholar
  19. Galli A, Wiedmann T, Ercin E, Knoblauch D, Ewing B, Giljum S (2012) Integrating ecological, carbon and water footprint into a “Footprint Family” of indicators: Definition and role in tracking human pressure on the planet. Ecological indicators 16:100–112.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.06.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Giljum S, Hinterberger F, Biermann B, Wallbaum H, Bleischwitz R, Bringezu S, Liedtke C, Ritthoff M, Schütz H (2009). Towards an international data base on resource intensity. Aachen Foundation Kathy Beys, Aachen, Germany. http://www.aachener-stiftung.de/uploads/media/idares_final.pdf
  21. Hall RP, Ranganathan S, Kumar RGC (2017) A General Micro-Level Modeling Approach to Analyzing Interconnected SDGs: Achieving SDG 6 and More through Multiple-Use Water Services (MUS). Sustainability 9(2):314.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su9020314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hoekstra AY, Mekonnen MM (2012) The water footprint of humanity. PNAS 109(9):3232–3237Google Scholar
  23. Hoekstra AY, Chapagain AK, Aldaya MM, Mekonnen MM (2011) The Water Footprint Assessment Manual. Setting the Global Standard, The Water Footprint Network, EarthscanGoogle Scholar
  24. Hoff H (2018) Integrated SDG Implementation –How a Cross-Scale (Vertical) and Cross-Regional Nexus Approach Can Complement Cross-Sectoral (Horizontal) Integration. In: Hülsmann S, Ardakanian R (eds) Managing Water. Soil and Waste Resources to Achieve Sustainable Development Goals, Monitoring and Implementation of Integrated Resources ManagementGoogle Scholar
  25. IRP (2017) Assessing global resource use: a systems approach to resource efficiency and pollution reduction. Bringezu S, Ramaswami A, Schandl H et al. A Report of the International Resource Panel. United Nations Environment Programme. Nairobi, KenyaGoogle Scholar
  26. Kurian Mathew (2017) The Water-Energy-Food Nexus: Trade-Offs, Thresholds and Transdisciplinary Approaches to Sustainable Development. Environ Sci Policy 68(February):97–106.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.11.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kurian M, Portney KE, Rappold G, Hannibal B, Gebrechorkos S (2018) Governance of water energy-food nexus: a social network analysis approach to understanding agency behaviour. In: Hülsmann S, Ardakanian R (eds) Managing water, soil and waste resources to achieve sustainable development goals: monitoring and implementation of integrated resources managementGoogle Scholar
  28. O’Brien M, Schütz H, Bringezu S (2015) The land footprint of the EU bioeconomy: monitoring tools, gaps and needs. Land Use Policy 47:235–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. O’Brien M, Wechsler D, Bringezu S, Schaldach R (2017) Toward a systemic monitoring of the European bioeconomy: gaps, needs and the integration of sustainability indicators and targets for global land use. Land Use Policy 66:162–171.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.04.047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. OECD (2008) Measuring material flows and resource productivity, vol I. The OECD Guide. Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  31. OECD (2015) Material resources, productivity and the environment. OECD Green Growth Studies, OECD Publishing, ParisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pfister S, Köhler A, Hellweg S (2009) Assessing the environmental impacts of freshwater consumption in LCA. Environ Sci Technol 43:4098–4104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pikaar I, Matassa S, Rabaey K, Laycock B, Boon N, Verstraete W (2018) The Urgent Need to Re-Engineer Nitrogen-Efficient Food Production for the Planet. In: Hülsmann S, Ardakanian R (eds) Managing Water, Soil and Waste Resources to Achieve Sustainable Development Goals: Monitoring and Implementation of Integrated Resources ManagementGoogle Scholar
  34. Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson A, Chapin FS III, Lambin E et al (2009) A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461:472–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schandl HS, Hatfield-Dodds TO, Wiedmann A, Geschke Y, Cai J, West J et al (2016) Decoupling global environmental pressure and economic growth: scenarios for energy use, materials use and carbon emissions. J Clean Prod.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Steinmann ZJN, Schipper AM, Hauck M, Huijbregts MAJ (2016) How many environmental impact indicators are needed in the evaluation of product life cycles. Environ Sci Technol, published online 10 Mar 2016.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b05179
  37. Tukker A, Dietzenbacher E (2013) Global multi-regional input-output frameworks: an introduction and outlook. Economic Systems Research 25:1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tukker A, de Koning A, Wood R, Hawkins T, Lutter S, Acosta J, Rueda Cantuche JM, Bouwmeester M, Oosterhaven J, Drosdowski T, Kuenen J (2013) EXIOPOL—Development and illustrative analysis of detailed global mr ee SUT/IOT. Economic Systems Research 25:50–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. UNEP (2011) Decoupling natural resource use and environmental impacts from economic growth, a report of the working group on decoupling to the international resource panel. In: Fischer-Kowalski M, Swilling M, von Weizsäcker EU, Ren Y, Moriguchi Y, Crane W, Krausmann F, Eisenmenger N, Giljum S, Hennicke P, Romero Lankao P, Siriban Manalang A Google Scholar
  40. UNEP (2012) Measuring water use in a green economy, a report of the working group on water efficiency to the international resource panel. McGlade J, Werner B, Young M, Matlock M, Jefferies D, Sonnemann G, Aldaya M, Pfister S, Berger M, Farell C, Hyde K, Wackernagel M, Hoekstra A, Mathews R, Liu J, Ercin E, Weber JL, Alfieri A, Martinez-Lagunes R, Edens B, Schulte P, von Wirén-Lehr S, Gee DGoogle Scholar
  41. UNEP (2012b) GEO5—Global environmental outlook 5Google Scholar
  42. UNEP (2014a) Decoupling 2: technologies, opportunities and policy options. A report of the working group on decoupling to the international resource panel. Von Weizsäcker EU, de Larderel J, Hargroves K, Hudson C, Smith M, Rodrignues MGoogle Scholar
  43. UNEP (2014b) Assessing global land use: Balancing consumption with sustainable supply. A report of the working group on land and soils of the International Resource Panel. Bringezu S, Schütz H, Pengue W, O’Brien M., Garcia F, Sims R, Howarth R, Kauppi L, Swilling M, Herrick JGoogle Scholar
  44. UNEP (2015a) Indicators for a resource efficient and Green Asia and the Pacific—measuring progress of sustainable consumption and production, green economy and resource efficiency policies in the Asia-Pacific region. Schandl H, West J, Baynes T, Hosking K, Reinhardt W, Geschke A, Lenzen M. United Nations Environment Programme, BangkokGoogle Scholar
  45. UNEP (2015b) Policy coherence of the sustainable development goals. A natural resource perspective. An International Resource Panel ReportGoogle Scholar
  46. UNEP (2016a) Rapid assessment on the prospects and economic implications of resource efficiency. A report of the International Resource Panel. Ekins P, Hughes N, Bringezu S, Fischer-Kowalski M, Graedel T, Hajer M, Hashimoto S, Hatfield-Dodds S, Hertwich E, Ingram J, Kruit K, Milligan B, Moriguchi Y, Nasr N, Pedro A, Ramaswami A, Schandl H, Suh S, Swilling M, van der Voet E, West J, Westhoek HGoogle Scholar
  47. UNEP (2016b) Global material flows and resource productivity. A report of the working group on decoupling of the International Resource Panel. Schandl H, Fischer-Kowalski M, West J, Giljum S, Dittrich M, Eisenmenger N, Geschke A, Lieber M, Peter Wieland H, Krausmann F, Gierlinger S, Hosking K, Lenzen M, Tanikawa H, Miatto A, Fishman TGoogle Scholar
  48. UNEP (2016c) A snapshot of the world’s water quality: towards a global assessment. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, KenyaGoogle Scholar
  49. UNEP (2017) Resource efficiency: potential and economic implications. A report of the International Resource Panel. Ekins P, Hughes N, et al, UN Environment, Nairobi. KenyaGoogle Scholar
  50. United Nations (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 Sept 2015. A/RES/70/1Google Scholar
  51. Wiedmann TO, Schandl H, Lenzen M, Moran D, Suh S, West J, Kanemoto K (2015) The material footprint of nations. PNAS 112: 6271–6276.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1220362110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. WWAP (United Nations World Water Assessment Programme) (2015) The United Nations World Water Development Report 2015: Water for a Sustainable World. Paris, UNESCO.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© United Nations University Institute for Integrated Management of Material Fluxes and of Resources (UNU-FLORES) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Environmental Systems Research, University of KasselKasselGermany

Personalised recommendations