Search

Abstract: Issues related to the unsustainable use of natural resources are currently high on the policy agenda both in Europe and in other world regions. A large number of studies assessed past developments of material use and resource productivities. However, little effort has so far been devoted to forecasting future patterns of natural resource use and to provide ex-ante assessments of environmental and economic effects of different resource policies. This paper presents results from the international research project “MOSUS” (Modelling opportunities and limits for restructuring Europe towards sustainability), which was designed to fill some of these research gaps. In this project, a global economy–energy model system was extended by a worldwide database on material inputs, in order to run three scenarios for European development up to the year 2020: a baseline scenario without additional policy intervention and two so-called “sustainability scenarios”, simulating the implementation of six packages of policy measures geared towards decoupling economic activity from material and energy throughput. These measures included, amongst others, taxes on CO2 emissions and transport, measures to increase metal recycling rates, and a consulting programme to raise material productivity of industrial production. This paper presents the evaluation of the three scenarios with regard to the extraction of natural resources on the European and global level. In the baseline scenario, used domestic extraction within the EU remains roughly constant until 2020, while unused domestic extraction decreases (particularly overburden from mining activities). The stabilisation of domestic extraction, however, is accompanied by growing imports of material intensive products. This indicates that the material requirements of the European economy will increasingly be met through imports from other world regions, causing shifts of environmental pressures related to material extraction and processing away from Europe towards resource-rich countries. The implementation of the six sustainability policy measures applied in the sustainability scenarios results in a slight absolute reduction of domestic extraction in all European countries and significantly increased resource productivities. The results suggest that policy instruments aimed at raising eco-efficiency on the micro level can be conducive to economic growth. To limit rebound effects on the macro level, these instruments must, however, be accompanied by other policies influencing the prices of energy and materials. With regard to global resource use trends, the baseline scenario forecasts a significant growth of resource extraction, particularly in developing countries, reflecting the growing demand for natural resources of emerging economies such as China and India. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Identifying, promoting and preserving a strategically planned green infrastructure (GI) network can provide ecological, economic and social benefits. It has also become a priority for the planning and decision-making process in sectors such as conservation, (land) resource efficiency, agriculture, forestry or urban development. In this paper we propose a methodology that can be used to identify and map GI elements at landscape level based on the notions of ecological connectivity, multi-functionality of ecosystems and maximisation of benefits both for humans and for natural conservation. Our approach implies, first, the quantification and mapping of the natural capacity to deliver ecosystem services and, secondly, the identification of core habitats and wildlife corridors for biota. All this information is integrated and finally classified in a two-level GI network. The methodology is replicable and flexible (it can be tailored to the objectives and priorities of the practitioners); and it can be used at different spatial scales for research, planning or policy implementation. The method is applied in a continental scale analysis covering the EU-27 territory, taking into account the delivery of eight regulating and maintenance ecosystem services and the requirements of large mammals’ populations. The best performing areas for ecosystem services and/or natural habitat provision cover 23% of Europe and are classified as the core GI network. Another 16% of the study area with relatively good ecological performance is classified as the subsidiary GI network. There are large differences in the coverage of the GI network among countries ranging from 73% of the territory in Estonia to 6% in Cyprus. A potential application of these results is the implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy, assuming that the core GI network might be crucial to maintain biodiversity and natural capital and, thus, should be conserved; while the subsidiary network could be restored to increase both the ecological and social resilience. This kind of GI analysis could be also included in the negotiations of the European Regional Development Funds or the Rural Development Programmes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The availability and accessibility of natural resources are fundamental for human well-being and the functioning of global economies. International policies have been developed with the aim to ensure resource efficiency and to respond to environmental and socio-economic concerns towards the sustainable management of natural resources. In fact, building effective resource policies requires solid methodologies and indicators for monitoring resource extraction and consumption by the economies as well as all its related environmental impacts. The present study focuses on the European context, assessing current methodologies for resources analysis towards identifying their strengths and weaknesses in supporting policies. The study analyses trends in material resource extraction within Europe and imports over the past 10 years. Three approaches are compared: (i) “mass”-based accounting (i.e. material flow analysis); (ii) “impact assessment”-based, founded on the life cycle assessment methodology, and (iii) “resource criticality”-based, building on assessment of critical raw materials for EU economy. The paper shows through some examples that this methodological choice has relevant repercussions in terms of resource prioritization. Hence, the choice of the accounting methodology and the setting of targets should be guided by the policy objective(s) (i.e. dematerialization, environmental impact reduction and security of resource supply), possibly complementing the different insights coming from the three approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]