From resource extraction to final consumption: A sequential global carbon, ecological footprint and - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 47
About This Presentation
Title:

From resource extraction to final consumption: A sequential global carbon, ecological footprint and

Description:

'the UK's most prestigious awards. for business performance' www.queensawards.org.uk ... feasibility of producing resource maps' of industry sectors by Country ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:128
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 48
Provided by: craigs70
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: From resource extraction to final consumption: A sequential global carbon, ecological footprint and


1
From resource extraction to final consumption A
sequential global carbon, ecological footprint
and material flow analysis
  • Craig Simmons, Co-founder and Technical Director
  • Stanislav Shmelev, Ignacio Gonzalez, Kevin Lewis,
  • Researchers
  • Best Foot Forward
  • www.bestfootforward.com

2
Outline
  • OPB Programme what is it?
  • Methodology Overview
  • Summary Sector Country Results
  • Mapping to Consumption categories
  • Using the results Modelling Mobility

3
Best Foot Forward
  • Oxford-based research consultants. Applied
    environmental accounting.
  • Established in 1997
  • Core staff with a network of international
    partners associates
  • Queens Award, ACCA and Biffaward winners
  • Have undertaken more than 100 resource flow
    footprint projects
  • More than 50 clients incl. public, private and
    NGOs
  • Co-founders of Global Footprint Network

4
Queens Award
the UK's most prestigious awards for business
performance www.queensawards.org.uk
Award for continuous achievement in
sustainable development delivering
performance improvement for over 80 clients
5
Queens Award
6
One Planet Business Project
  • Early 2005 WWF approached BFF to assess
    feasibility of producing resource maps of
    industry sectors by Country
  • Brief To help businesses better understand one
    planet limits and the challenges of operating in
    a future resource-constrained world.
  • Spring 2005 team formed of BFF, SEI and GFN
    (later SERI)
  • October 2005 Feasibility report produced
    outlining possible methodology data sources

7
Feasibility Peer Review
  • All outputs subject to 2-stage review
  • Internal Reviewers
  • Oliver Greenfield (WWF)
  • Steve Goldfinger (GFN)
  • Mathis Wackernagel (GFN)
  • Craig Simmons (BFF)
  • Ignacio Gonzalez (BFF)
  • Tommy Wiedmann (SEI)
  • Stefan Giljum (SERI)
  • Plus Industry Partners, Steering Group, ERM
    ADLittle
  • External Reviewers
  • Manfred Lenzen (Univ of Sidney),
  • Franz Berkhout (Univ of Amsterdam)
  • Joe Ravetz (Univ of Manchester)

8
Conclusions of Feasibility Study
  • It IS possible to estimate global material flow,
    ecological footprints CO2 emissions from
    different industry sectors
  • but some outstanding data methodology issues
  • This evidence base would be useful to industry
    partners and policy-makers
  • but later stages of analysis need to be
    undertaken in close collaboration with industry
    partners/data providers to provide
    sector-specific outputs

9
Where we are now
  • Nov 2005 July 2006
  • Feasibility recommendations implemented
  • Capacity building
  • On-going consultations with Advisory Group
    stakeholders
  • Meetings with OECD, IEA other data providers
  • Ongoing internal reviews
  • Methodology updates/refinements
  • Outputs of current work programme
  • Evidence base for 31 Countries and 48 sectors
    using 2006 release OECD IO tables (data year
    2000)
  • OPB Methodology training
  • Mobility Model linking sector outputs to
    consumption categories
  • Use of data to develop global transport scenarios

10
Methodology Outline
http//www.bestfootforward.com/opb.html
  • Methodology Report
  • Data Summaries
  • Selection of scenarios
  • This presentation

11
OPB MethodologyOverview
Material DE (MOSUS)
Input Output Analysis
Analysis links final demand to upstream material
use, footprint and carbon emissions for each
sector by country
CO2 Emissions (IEA)
  • Source OECD (2006)
  • Coverage 48 Industrial Sectors 31 Countries

Footprint (GFN)
Imports (COMTRADE)
12
OPB MethodologyGeneral Scheme
  • For each of the three analyses
  • Data sources resolution, data years, format
  • Method for dealing with domestic production and
    imports
  • Allocation to IO sectors

Material DE (MOSUS)
CO2 Emissions (IEA)
Footprint (GFN)
Imports (COMTRADE)
13
OPB MethodologyMaterial Flow Analysis
  • Measured material use of industry DE (used)
    Imports (intermediate products only)
  • Material Domestic Extraction (DE) data
  • Developed by SERI during the course of MOSUS
    project (www.mosus.net)
  • Format follows EUROSTAT (2001) guidelines
  • Project aggregated in 10 resource groups (kt)
  • Biomass (152) sum.to agric/forestry/fishing
  • Fossil Fuels (6) summarised to coal/oil/gas
  • Metal Ores (37) summarised to ferrous/non-f
  • IC. Minerals (65) sum. to indust/construction
  • Coverage 188 countries from 1980 to 2002

Material DE (MOSUS)
CO2 Emissions (IEA)
Footprint (GFN)
Imports (COMTRADE)
14
OPB Methodology Material Flow Analysis
Material DE (MOSUS)
Example France, 2002
CO2 Emissions (IEA)
Footprint (GFN)
Imports (COMTRADE)
15
OPB Methodology Material Flow Analysis
  • Imports extracted from COMTRADE.
  • Products categories follow SITC, Rev.1.
  • Level of detail
  • Groups 625 (4-digit level)
  • Assumption Imported materials are mapped to
    those sectors which outputs contain same or
    similar products.
  • Only imports going to intermediate demand
    included

Material DE (MOSUS)
CO2 Emissions (IEA)
Footprint (GFN)
Imports (COMTRADE)
16
OPB Methodology Material Flow Analysis
  • Allocation to IO sectors
  • Fossil Fuels ? IO Sector 3
  • Mining Quarrying (Energy)
  • Metal Ores Iron ? IO Sector 12 Iron Steel
  • Non-Ferr. Metals? IO Sector 13 Non-ferr.
    metals
  • IC Minerals I. Min. ? IO Sector 11
    Other non-metallic mineral products
  • C.Min ? IO Sector 26 Construction
  • Biomass Agri. Fishing ? IO Sector 1
  • Agriculture, hunting, fishing and forestry.
  • Forestry ?IO Sector 6
    Wood products
  • of wood and cork

Material DE (MOSUS)
CO2 Emissions (IEA)
Footprint (GFN)
Imports (COMTRADE)
17
Italy materials by sector
18
OPB MethodologyCO2 Emissions
  • Domestic Production
  • Source International Energy Agency www.iea.org
  • CO2 Emissions for Fuel Combustion database (2005
    Edition)
  • Coverage 30 OECD Countries (1960-2002) and over
    100 Non-OECD Countries (1971-2002)
  • Level of detail
  • 6 main groups
  • 33 sub-groups

Material DE (MOSUS)
CO2 Emissions (IEA)
Footprint (GFN)
Imports (COMTRADE)
19
OPB MethodologyCO2 Emissions
Material DE (MOSUS)
  • Example France, 2002

CO2 Emissions (IEA)
Footprint (GFN)
Imports (COMTRADE)
20
OPB MethodologyCO2 Emissions
  • Embodied in Imports
  • Calc. from Imports data (COMTRADE/NFA)
  • Calculation Process
  • NFA contains data for Embodied Energy (Gj/t) for
    materials. Data collated from Alcorn, 1998 IVEM,
    1999 and LCA. Exception of Fuels,
    lubricants, Data from DUKES.
  • Energy embodied in every imported category
  • Converted to CO2/t using world average carbon

Material DE (MOSUS)
CO2 Emissions (IEA)
Footprint (GFN)
Imports (COMTRADE)
21
OPB MethodologyCO2 Emissions
Material DE (MOSUS)
  • Example France, 2002

CO2 Emissions (IEA)
Footprint (GFN)
Imports (COMTRADE)
22
OPB MethodologyCO2 Emissions
  • Allocation to IO sectors
  • Domestic production
  • IEA Sectoral disaggregation follows ISIC Rev.3 so
    allocation was quite straightforward.
  • For those IEA categories which corresponded to
    more than one IO Sector, percentages out of total
    sectoral output were used.
  • Embodied in Imports
  • Followed the same allocation as the imported
    categories which they were calculated from.

Material DE (MOSUS)
CO2 Emissions (IEA)
Footprint (GFN)
Imports (COMTRADE)
23
OPB MethodologyCO2 Emissions
Material DE (MOSUS)
  • Allocation to IO Sectors

CO2 Emissions (IEA)
Footprint (GFN)
Imports (COMTRADE)
24
Italy CO2 by sector
25
OPB MethodologyEcological Footprint
  • Source NFA, 2005 GFN www.footprintnetwork.org
  • Coverage 149 countries, times series1961-2002
  • Based on UN/FAO/IEA statistics on production,
    imports, exports and yields for resource and
    product categories.
  • For a detailed description of the method, see
    Monfreda et al. (2004) and Wackernagel et al
    (2004b).

Material DE (MOSUS)
CO2 Emissions (IEA)
Footprint (GFN)
Imports (COMTRADE)
26
OPB MethodologyEcological Footprint
Material DE (MOSUS)
  • Example France, 2002

CO2 Emissions (IEA)
Footprint (GFN)
Imports (COMTRADE)
27
OPB MethodologyEcological Footprint
  • Allocation to IO sectors
  • All land types except energy and built land
    allocated to IO Sector 1 Agriculture
  • Fossil Fuels Domestic Production
    allocated using sectoral percentages from CO2
    Emissions (IEA data)
  • Fossil Fuels Imports allocated using sectoral
    percentages from embodied CO2 Emissions in
    imports
  • Nuclear hydro land -gt IO Sector 26 Prod.
    Collec. Distri. Of Electricity.
  • Built land -gt IO Sector 30 Construction

Material DE (MOSUS)
CO2 Emissions (IEA)
Footprint (GFN)
Imports (COMTRADE)
28
Italy footprint by sector
29
OPB MethodologyIO Analysis
  • Extended OECD IO Tables
  • The extension consists of adding vectors of
    Material Inputs/Outputs in physical units.
  • These vectors contain
  • -Domestic Extraction
  • -Ecological Footprints
  • -Imports
  • -CO2 Emissions
  • -Domestic Production
  • -Embodied in Imports

Input Output Analysis
  • Source OECD (2006)
  • Coverage 48 Industrial Sectors 31 Countries

30
OPB MethodologyIO Analysis
  • Extended OECD IO monetary
  • tableswith physical data

Input Output Analysis
  • Source OECD (2006)
  • Coverage 48 Industrial Sectors 31 Countries

31
OPB MethodologyIO Analysis
  • Classic IO Analysis
  • Total intensity vectors derived from Leontief
    inverse matrices.
  • Derived for each resource for each sector
    interaction for each country

Input Output Analysis
  • Source OECD (2006)
  • Coverage 48 Industrial Sectors 31 Countries

32
OPB MethodologyIO Analysis
  • General Equations
  • ci
  • LIM (I A)-1
  • A Technical Coefficient Matrix aij

rj
Xj
Zij
Xj
33
IO Health Warning
  • Using extended monetary IO tables has both
    advantages and disadvantages
  • Advantages
  • Provides clear analytical framework
  • Uses existing readily available economic data
  • Provides one method of allocating resource use

34
IO Health Warning
  • Disadvantages
  • Economic NOT ecological allocation method
  • Sectors are artificial creations do not follow
    resource flows
  • Problems mapping resources to sectors
  • Low resolution tables make things worse
  • Assumption of homogeneity within sectors
  • Confounds economic and ecological datasets
    (decoupling)
  • DANGER May detract from developing PIOTs

35
Some headline findings
  • Material Flows
  • Ecological Footprints
  • Carbon dioxide emissions
  • By sector
  • By Country

36
Global materials by sector
Global allocation of materials (tonnes) to
sectors (ISIC Rev 1 classification) Note 48
sectors aggregated for clarity into ISIC classes
37
Global Materials by Sector by Country
(units 000s tonnes)
38
Global Footprint by sector
Global allocation of footprint (gha) to sectors
(ISIC Rev 1) Note 48 sectors aggregated for
clarity into ISIC classes
39
Global Footprint by sector by country
(units millions global hectares)
40
Global CO2 emissions by sector
Global allocation of CO2 (Mtonnes) to sectors
(ISIC Rev 1) Note 48 sectors aggregated for
clarity into ISIC classes
41
CO2 Emissions by sector by country
(units millions tonnes)
42
Mapping sectors to consumption categories
  • Outputs from one or more sectors combine to meet
    consumer demands, wants or needs.
  • For example, the desire for mobility is met by
    the vehicle manufacturers, fuel suppliers, repair
    industry, education, rubber and metal sectors
    etc.
  • Using spending by purpose data (COICOP) it is
    possible to estimate the aggregate impact
    (footprint, CO2, materials) of particular
    consumption category.

43
Mapping sectors to consumption categories
global footprint data
Summary CIOCOP classification
44
Mapping sectors to consumption categories
global materials data
Summary CIOCOP classification
45
Mapping sectors to consumption categories
global CO2 data
Summary CIOCOP classification
46
So What?
  • The evidence base for sectors combined with
    spending data by purpose allows us to explore
  • Effect of changing sector efficiencies (impact/
    final demand) on environmental impact of meeting
    needs
  • Impact of changing consumer demand on sector
    consumption
  • Since we know volume of materials used we can
    also cost future consumption
  • With these two environmental levers it is
    possible to model most types of scenarios
  • Only additional data needed is LCA data (to help
    look at sub-sector impacts), stakeholder data,
    and economic data for forecasting (demand and
    commodity prices).

47
Work in Progress Consumption Model
48
Work in Progress Resource intensities
49
Work in Progress Resource intensities
50
Work in Progress Resource intensities
51
Work in Progress Resource drill-down
52
Ongoing
  • Responding to stakeholder requests for
    sector-level analyses and scenarios
  • Integrating commodity prices
  • Further refinement/extension of methodology
  • Seeking funding for annual update
  • Linking into BFF analyses at company, regional
    and product level

53
Thank You
http//www.bestfootforward.com/opb.html
  • Methodology Report
  • Data Summaries
  • Selection of scenarios
  • This presentation

54
Thank you
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com