Download - EIONET 2011 Indicators
-
8/2/2019 EIONET 2011 Indicators
1/103
ETC/SCP working paper 1/2011
Progress in Sustainable Consumption andProduction in Europe
Indicator-based Report
Prepared by:
David Watson, David McKinnon, Anders Bjrn, Mikkel Stenbk Hansen
Dominic Wittmer, Justus von Geibler, Mathieu Saurat, Helmut Schtz, Samus Tobias
Roberto Zoboli, Giovanni Marin, Massimiliano Mazzanti, Massimiliano Volpi,
Ilaria Beretta, Lucia Dal Negro
European Topic Centre on Sustainable Consumption and Production
11th February 2011
ETC/SCP Task Manager:David Watson
EEA Project Manager:Lars Mortensen
-
8/2/2019 EIONET 2011 Indicators
2/103
2
Author affiliationDavid Watson, David McKinnon, Anders Bjrn & Mikkel Stenbk Hansen, Copenhagen
Resource Institute (CRI)
Dominic Wittmer, Justus von Geibler, Mathieu Saurat, Helmut Schtz & Samus Tobias,
Wuppertal Institute for Climate Environment and Energy (WI)
Roberto Zoboli, Giovanni Marin, Massimiliano Mazzanti, Massimiliano Volpi, Ilaria Beretta
& Lucia Dal Negro, Institute for Economic Research on Firms and Growth under the National
Research Council (CERIS-CNR)
Disclaimer
ETC/SCP 2011
European Topic Centre on Sustainable Consumption and Production
Hjbro Plads 4
DK-1200 Copenhagen K
Phone: +45 72 54 61 60
Fax: +45 33 32 22 27
Email: [email protected]
Website: http://waste.eionet.eu.int
This ETC/SCP working paperhas not been subjected to
European Environment Agency (EEA) member country review.
Please note that the contents of the working paper do not necessarilyreflect the views of the EEA.
-
8/2/2019 EIONET 2011 Indicators
3/103
3
Acknowledgements
The ETC/SCP would like to thank all those organisations who gather and maintain the
data and indicators presented in this report. Particular acknowledgements go to
Eurostat who have provided data for no less than 25 of the 39 indicators presented
here. Sources for each indicator, or alternatively, for the data used to create theindicator, are provided towards the end of each indicator sheet.
-
8/2/2019 EIONET 2011 Indicators
4/103
4
Table of Contents
1. BACKGROUND ..........................................................................................................................5
2. THE INDICATOR FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................5
3. REPORTING FORMAT .............................................................................................................8
4. INDICATORS WITHIN THIS REPORT .................................................................................10
5. INDIVIDUAL INDICATOR REPORTS ...................................................................................15
A.HEADLINE INDICATORS ............................................................................ 15B1OVERALL TRENDS IN EUROPEAN CONSUMPTION AND PRODUCTION ......................... 32B2KEY CONSUMPTION CLUSTERS.................................................................... 54C1ECONOMIC AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE.................. 80
C2WALKING THE TALK ............................................................................... 89
-
8/2/2019 EIONET 2011 Indicators
5/103
5
1. Background
The revised European Sustainable Development Strategy of 2005 set the goal of more
sustainable consumption and production patterns firmly on the political agenda in Europe.
This was followed at the European level by the Action Plan on Sustainable Consumption and
Production and Sustainable Industrial Policy which provided a framework to gather, andfurther strengthen, SCP-related policy and policy instruments in the EU. A number of EU
member states have also adopted SCP strategies, action plans and policies. However, the
extent to which these policies have resulted in any real change to consumption and
production patterns remains unclear.
The EEA has a mandate to assist the EU and the EEAs member countries to make informed
decisions on improving the environment, integrating environmental considerations into
economic policies and moving towards sustainability. Part of this assistance lies in the
provision of timely information to inform on policy making. One of the key means by which
this information has been provided has been through indicator-based thematic reporting on
the state of the environment including the effects of environmental policy. In 2007 the EEA,via its European Topic Centre on SCP, began a process to establish indicator-based reporting
on progress towards sustainable consumption and production in Europe.
The objective of the process was to develop a framework and first set of SCP indicators for
use by the EEA for reporting on SCP progress in Europe as viewed from an EEA perspective.
The framework and indicators should:
allow measurement of real progress towards more sustainable European production
and consumption patterns
contribute to SCP policy and understanding by presenting a clear picture of the
vision and scope of SCP as interpreted by the EEA & ETC-SCP team create a communication tool whose overall value is greater than the sum of its parts
take a long term view not constrained by current availability of indicators
This document represents the first EEA indicator-based report on progress in SCP. Due to the
current sparseness of available indicators, the document is not laid out following narratives
as envisaged for mature indicator-based reporting planned to begin in 2012. Rather
indicators are reported on in individual sheets, as a stepping stone towards more mature
indicator based reporting.
The indicators have been selected according to structure and guidance given in the
Framework for Indicator-based Reporting on Progress in SCP which was developed duringthe first stages of the project. The Framework and the current status of indicator selection
are described in more detail below.
2. The Indicator Framework
Following several rounds of expert consultation, a Framework for Indicator-based Reporting
on Progress in SCP was established by the ETC/SCP and the EEA at the beginning of 2010.
(for the full Framework see ETC/SCP, 2010; Watson et al, in press).
-
8/2/2019 EIONET 2011 Indicators
6/103
6
-
8/2/2019 EIONET 2011 Indicators
7/103
7
The approach includes a number of innovations which are new to the field of SCP indicator
development:
the inclusion of an SCP Vision at the core of the framework. This is used to
guide both the initial selection of indicators but also provides impetus to the
development of better indicators in the future.
the development of a set of policy questions, based on the vision, to which the
indicator set should attempt to provide the answers.
the integration of indicator communication and evaluation directly into the
framework. The EEA indicator framework links policy questions and indicators to
form narratives to better communicate progress in SCP.
A key principle within the Vision of SCP which forms the core of the framework is that the
indicator framework should monitor whether we are moving closer to achieving the goals of
SCP in terms of absolute reductions in resource use and environmental pressures under
conditions of maintained or improving wellbeing, but also whether the necessary framework
conditions are being put in place to enable us to achieve these goals.
The Vision is interpreted via 35 policy relevant questions. These represent what policy
makers and decision makers might wish to know with respect to progress in SCP. These
questions are given on the previous page. They are organised by theme. They are broadly
divided into three areas: A. Headline questions aimed at politicians and the public;
B. Overall trends in SCPwhich are further divided into components of the economy split
according to life-cycle thinking, and into some key consumption clusters, and;
C. A Framework for Change questions concerning whether framework conditions are in
place that will allow us to achieve the goals of SCP. In addition to the vision and policy
questions, guidance was also produced for each question to guide the selection of indicators
to answer the question as fully as possible.
Many of the questions cannot yet be answered with indicators which are operational across
all EEA Member Countries. For some questions, no relevant indicators can be found
anywhere within Europe. In other cases, relevant indicators exist that are operational across
most or all EEA countries, but these provide only a partial answer to the question, or a proxy
answer. More useful, relevant and comprehensive indicators can be pictured but cannot yet
be produced from existing regularly gathered data.
A first set of indicators was developed during 2010 by the ETC/SCP team making use of
knowledge of existing international, EU and national indicator sets.
The indicator set includes four different classifications of indicators as follows:
Best
available
The indicator already exists as a regularly updated operational indicator maintained bya credible organisation - covering all or most of the EU-27 and additional EEA membercountries
Best
needed 1
The indicator doesn't yet exist as a maintained indicator by an organisation but cansimply be derived from existing data which is maintained and updated regularly by acredible organisation - covering all or most EEA member countries
Best
needed 2
The indicator doesn't yet exist, or only exists in a single country but is currently underdevelopment by another European organisation to cover all or most EEA membercountries
Best
needed 3 The indicator doesn't yet exist, nor does the relevant data for its derivation in mostEEA member countries, and no organisation is working on making the indicatoroperational
-
8/2/2019 EIONET 2011 Indicators
8/103
8
There remain many gaps in the current indicator set and questions which arent answered or
only partially answered by available indicators.
The medium-term goal of the project is to encourage the operationalisation of as many Best-
neededindicators as possible by 2012 to enable the EEA to begin meaningful and
comprehensive indicator-based reporting on progress in SCP in Europe from that year. Thiscan only occur through concerted motivation, effort and cooperation between European
institutions and governments, with the EEA and the ETC/SCP taking a catalysing role. It is
hoped that the effort will also continue long into the future after 2012.
As Best -needed category 1, 2 and 3 indicators become operational, they will replace less
relevant best available indicators which are currently included in the set.
Although full indicator-based reporting on progress in SCP isnt currently possible due to
gaps in existing indicators, the ETC/SCP can begin partial reporting on progress in SCP using
those indicators which are currently available. This document represents the first of such
reports.
3. Reporting Format
From 2012 it is envisaged that indicator-based reporting will embed indicators in linked
narratives within general theme areas. However, for the time being, due to large gaps in
indicators, reporting will take place through the presentation of indicators within individual
indicator reporting sheets.
The format of the indicator sheets takes its starting point in the format used by the EEA for
presentation of its core indicators on the EEA website, with a few key differences. Thereason for using a similar format is to enable the easy integration of these indicators into the
EEAs indicator set should the EEA wish to do this.
Each indicator sheet includes the following information:
The policy question addressed by the indicator and where this fits into the question
structure
A short description of the indicator and its relevance to the policy question,
including a description of how completely the indicator addresses the question and
what relevant areas remain unanswered.
A short key message interpreting development trends in the indicator in the context
of the policy question accompanied by a smiley (see below)
A graphic presentation of trends in the indicator usually at an aggregated level
where possible for the EEA member countries as a whole, or an aggregation of
trends in those countries with data available i.e. EEA-32 minus a few countries;
where only EU- 27 has data then an aggregated trend for these countries; where only
EU- 15 has data then an aggregated trend for that group. In a few cases, a long time
series of data is available for EU-15, whereas only a short one is available for newer
member states and other EEA countries.
A key assessment of trends in the indicator in the context of the policy question,including more detail than provided by the key message
-
8/2/2019 EIONET 2011 Indicators
9/103
9
Characterisation of the indicator in the EEA typology (see Box 1 below)
A source reference for the indicator, or the data used to produce it
Box 1 The EEA Indicator Typology
The EEA typology is closely linked to the DPSIR (Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response) system
developed by the EEA for indicator-based reporting. The EEA uses a limited number of indicator
designs in this type of reporting. The five designs of indicators included in the EEAs typology are as
follows:
Type A Descriptive Indicators: The simplest kind of indicators, usually showing development of
a single variable over time either alone or relative to another variable. Means for interpretation are
not designed into these indicators. This kind of indicator is most often used for State, Pressure or
Impact.
Type B Performance Indicators: Can cover the same kinds of variables as descriptive indicators
but link the indicators to targets to allow ready interpretation of developments. Indicators of State,
Pressure or Impact that clearly link to policy responses are typically presented in this way.
Type C Efficiency Indicators: These indicators relate two variables to each other, usually drivers
and pressures. They can provide insight into the changing efficiency of production and consumption in
terms of, for example, emissions per unit of economic output, or emissions per unit of consumption.
They can allow monitoring of the degree to which Pressures are being decoupled from Drivers (i.e.
demographic or economic drivers). To allow absolute levels of a pressure and efficiency performance
to be monitored simultaneously, Pressure and Driver indicators are shown with separate lines.
Relative decoupling describes a situation where Pressures are still increasing but less rapidly than the
Driver. Absolute decoupling describes a situation where the pressure has been stabilised or is
decreasing despite upward trends in the key Driver.
Type D - Policy-effectiveness Indicators: This type of indicator moves a step further from
performance indicators by making direct links between policy measures (i.e. responses) and
developments in a pressure, state, driver or impact. The background reasons for developments in thevariable are show directly on the graphic representation of the indicator. This kind of indicator
requires complex quantitative assessment and expert knowledge.
The choice of smiley accompanying the short key message has been guided by thecharacterisation given in the SCP Indicator framework. The characterisation or guidancedepends on the indicator type according to the typology in Box 1 above.
Performance Indicator wherea clear absolute SCP target exists based on current
scientific understanding of ecological limits, this should be included as a long-term
benchmark. A positive smiley should be awarded if the trend is on course to come under the
global threshold by 2050. Policy targets can also be used in the short term to measure
performance. A positive smiley should be given if the pressure or driver is on course to meet
the policy target by the targets deadline.
Efficiency and Absolute Pressure Indicators in tandem a positive smiley should be
awarded where pressures have been decoupled from economic growth and absolute
pressures are decreasing significantly. The decrease is considered significant if the ratio
between environmental pressure change and economic growth > -1.
Descriptive Indicator if the change in a driver or framework condition is in the wished for
direction and likely to indirectly move us closer to sustainable development goals.
-
8/2/2019 EIONET 2011 Indicators
10/103
10
Performance Indicator For threshold targets a neutral smiley should be awarded if the
trend is stable or decreasing but is not on course to come under the global threshold by
2050. For policy targets a neutral smiley should be given if the pressure or driver is reducing
or stable but is not on course to meet the policy target by the targets deadline.
Efficiency and Absolute Pressure Indicators in tandem a neutral smiley should beawarded where pressures have been absolutely decoupled from economic growth but
absolute pressures are not decreasing significantly i.e. the ratio between environmental
pressure change and economic growth is between 0 and -1.
Descriptive Indicator if the driver or framework condition has not changed to any
noticeable extent in either direction.
Performance Indicator For threshold targets, a negative smiley should be awarded if the
trend is moving in the opposite direction to global thresholds. For policy targets a negative
smiley should be given if the pressure or driver is moving in the opposite direction to thetarget.
Efficiency and Absolute Pressure Indicators in tandem a negative smiley should be
awarded where pressures have been decoupled from economic growth but absolute
pressures are still growing. In the case where no decoupling has been achieved or the
pressure is growing more rapidly than economic growth then a double negative smiley can
be awarded.
Descriptive Indicator if the change in a driver or framework condition is in the opposite
direction to that wished for and is likely to indirectly move us further from sustainable
development goals.
4. Indicators within this report
The 39 indicators included in this report are listed below along with the policy question theyare relevant to and the position of the policy question in the overall question structure of thereporting framework. Where no relevant best available indicator was found, the indicatorcolumn is left blank so that gaps in indicator coverage are made clear.
Question Best available indicator
1. Are levels of environmental
pressures and resource use caused byEuropean consumption currentlysustainable?
1.1 European ecological footprint per capita
compared to available biocapacity1.3 Greenhouse gas emissions as reported byEurope under Kyoto per capita as compared to 2tonne/capita 2050 threshold
2. Are we having success inreducing direct pressures fromEuropean production andsimultaneously reducing globalenvironmental pressures and resourceuse caused by European consumption?
2.3 Developments in air emissions and directmaterial input for total European production
A.Headlines
3. Is European production andconsumption leading to improvingwelfare in Europe and in developingcountries, and increasing universalaccess to basic needs?
3.1 Proportion of population in developingcountries living under the poverty line3.2 Development in Human Development Indexfor EEA countries and developing countries3.3 Developments in Income Equality: Gini
Index
-
8/2/2019 EIONET 2011 Indicators
11/103
11
Resources
4. Are we reducing our rates ofdepletion of key non-renewable
resources?
4.1 DMC for total and selected minerals andfossil fuels
5. Has the European use ofrenewable resources (including land)been decoupled from economic andpopulation growth?
5.1 Net change in land cover 1990-20005.3 Surface and groundwater abstraction as ashare of available resources5.4 DE, DMC and DMI for biomass
Production
6. Are key production sectorsand public services reducing theirpressures and improving eco-
efficiency?
6.1 Developments in air emissions and directmaterial input and economic output forindividual key sectors including public services
Products
7. Are key products becomingmore eco-efficient along their lifecycle?
7.1 Development in efficiency of cars andhousehold appliances
Consumption
8. Are global environmentalpressures caused by pressure intensive
household consumption categoriesdecreasing?
9. Are Europeans switchingconsumption patterns to less intensivetypes of goods and services?
9.1 Trends in share of expenditure on COICOPcategories per capita
Waste
10. Is the total generation ofmunicipal, service, industrial andhazardous waste in Europe reducing?
10.1 Development in generation of waste inEurope other than mining and agriculturalwaste, and residual waste from waste treatment
(total and by sector)B
1OverallTrendsinE
uropeanConsumption
andProduction
11. Is Europe moving towards aclosed loop society?
11.1 Total recycling amounts for differentmaterial types (glass, metals etc.)11.2 % recycling rates for municipal andpackaging waste
Question Best available indicator
-
8/2/2019 EIONET 2011 Indicators
12/103
12
Food & drink
12. Are global environmental
pressures and resource use associatedwith European consumption of foodand drink decreasing?
12.1 Development in global GHG, acidification
emissions, ground ozone precursor emissionsand global material use per capita activated byEuropean expenditure on food and drink12.2 Ecological footprint of food consumption
13. Are we shifting towards amore environmentally favourable andhealthier diet and wasting less food?
13.1 Development in total calorie intake percapita compared to daily requirements13.2 Development in consumption of differentmeat and dairy products (bovine, pork, poultry,butter, cheese, milk) per capita per year
Housing & buildings
14. Are global environmentalpressures and resource use caused byEuropean use of housing and buildings
decreasing?
14.1 Development in global GHG, acidificationemissions, ground ozone precursor emissionsand global material use per capita activated by
European use of housing and infrastructure
15. Are we using energy andresources more efficiently inconstruction and are these gains beingmore than offset by increased demandfor living, working and shopping space?
16. Are we seeing rapid transferof eco-efficiency technology intobuilding design and householdappliances, and are resulting gainsbeing complimented or offset bychanging behaviour?
16.1 Energy consumption per m2 for spaceheating, alongside growth in m2 of living spaceper capita, alongside total energy consumptionfor space heating16.2 Developments in specific energyconsumption of average household appliances,
alongside ownership rates of appliances andtotal electricity consumption in households
Mobility
17. Are global environmentalpressures associated with Europeanmobility for work, leisure and tourismdecreasing?
17.1 Development in global GHG, acidificationemissions, ground ozone precursor emissionsand global material use per capita activated byEuropean expenditure on mobility17.2 Fragmentation of ecosystems and habitatsby transport infrastructure
18. Has demand for mobility forall types of trips been decoupled fromeconomic growth and is it shifting tomore sustainable transport modes?
18.1 Passenger transport demand by mode andpurpose alongside developments in GDP
B2KeyConsumptionClusters
19. Are we seeing rapid transferof eco-efficiency technology intovehicles and are resulting gains beingcomplimented or offset by changingbehaviour?
19.1 Developments in specific fuel consumptionof an average car alongside trends in private carownership and GHG emissions19.2 Uptake of cleaner and alternative fuels
Question Best available indicator
-
8/2/2019 EIONET 2011 Indicators
13/103
13
Question Best available indicator
20. Is sustainability beingintegrated into development of policyand regulatory instruments across keypolicy sectors (i.e. economic, transport,agriculture, development aid)?
21. Are regulatory instrumentsincreasingly being used to reduce theenvironmental pressures fromconsumption and production?
22. Is spending on R&D in eco-innovations and environmentaltechnologies increasing its share inGDP?
22.1 Government budget appropriations andoutlays on R&D (gba)- Total GBAORD by NABSsocio-economic objectives
23. Are economic instruments
increasingly being used to encouragegreener products, services andinvestments and are environmentallyharmful subsidies being removed?
23.1 Total environmental tax revenues as a
share of total tax revenues and as share of GDP
24. Is the share of pension funds,investments funds and savingsaccounts with ethical/sustainabilitycriteria increasing?
24.1 Number and capitalisation of green, socialand ethical funds in Europe24.3 Sustainable companies performancecompared to other companies - KLD/JantziGlobal Environment SM Index (or other indexes)
C1Economi
candRegulatory
Frameworkfora
SustainableFuture
25. Are investments onenvironmental/energy efficiencyprojects overseas increasing?
26. Is procurement by the publicand private sector increasingly subjectto sustainability criteria?
27. Are private companies andpublic institutions increasinglyengaging in environmentalmanagement and corporate socialresponsibility?
27.1 Number of organisations with registeredenvironmental management system accordingto EMAS and ISO 1400127.4 Number and share of companies andpublic institutions signing the UN GlobalCompact
28. Do government and privatebusiness increasingly disclose
externally assured information abouttheir sustainability performance?
28.1 Number of organisations publishingenvironmental, sustainability etc. reports
according to GRI or other established standards28.2 Number and share of organisations signingup to the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP)
C2Wa
lkingthetalk
29. Are businesses increasinglyoffering product service systems andother sustainable solutions tohouseholds as an alternative tomaterial goods?
-
8/2/2019 EIONET 2011 Indicators
14/103
14
Question Best available indicator
30. Are Europeans being madeaware of the environmentalimplications of their consumption andpossible actions towards livingsustainable lifestyles?
31. Are consumers being activelydirected towards products with reducedenvironmental impacts (e.g. eco-labelled products) and are there moreof these products on offer?
31.1 Number of eco-label awards according tothe EU Flower, and national and regional labels
32. Are sustainability issuesincreasingly being prioritised intown/city planning decisions?
32.3 Cities signing the Alborg Commitments
33. Are sustainable products
becoming more affordable than theirless sustainable alternatives?
33.1 Real change in transport price by mode
34. Have more sustainablelifestyles become more sociallyacceptable and are enjoying positivemedia attention?
C3Enablingand
EngagingSustainable
Consumption
35. Are groups engaged in socialinnovation multiplying and are they,and civil society in general,increasingly receiving governmentsupport?
-
8/2/2019 EIONET 2011 Indicators
15/103
15
5. Individual indicator reports
A. Headline Indicators
-
8/2/2019 EIONET 2011 Indicators
16/103
16
Position within Indicator framework: A Headlines
Policy Question
Addressed
1. Are levels of environmental pressures and resource use
caused by European consumption currently sustainable?
Indicator 1.1 European ecological footprint per capita compared to
available biocapacity
Description and rationale
The ecological footprint translates a few of the global pressures caused directly and indirectly
by a countrys consumption into direct and virtual land use worldwide. This includes direct
land use in the country for urban areas and roads, land used indirectly globally for the
production of food, fibre, timber, energy consumed in the country, and finally virtual land in
the form of average forest that would be required to absorb CO2 emissions from the countrys
use of fossil fuels thus avoiding accumulation in the atmosphere. A nation or a regions
footprint can be benchmarked against the area of land, or biocapacity available globally per
person, giving a useful indication of the extent to which its consumption is environmentally
sustainable. The biocapacity of a given piece of land is a function of its physical area, a factor
that takes account of the type of land cover, and a yield factor varying according to local
conditions.
The ecological footprint is relevant to the question since it includes a level of sustainability
(i.e. available biocapacity) against which to measure impacts from consumption. However,
the ecological footprint indicator excludes some key impacts such as toxicity, non-renewable
resource use, eutrophication and ecosystem degradation, doesnt allow for improvements in
land productivity, and should therefore only be used as a measure of sustainability in
association with other indicators.
Key Message: The EF of the average resident of EEA member countries at 4.5 globalha/person was 2.5 times the average global biocapacity of 1.8 global ha/person in 2006. This
suggests that European consumption is not currently sustainable.
1.1 Ecological footprint of EEA-32 per capita compared to available global biocapacity
0,0
0,5
1,0
1,5
2,0
2,5
3,03,5
4,0
4,5
5,0
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
gha/cap
Ecological Footprint Consumption per person
Global Biocapacity per person
-
8/2/2019 EIONET 2011 Indicators
17/103
17
Key assessment
The EF of the average resident of EEA member countries at 4.5 global ha/person was 2.5
times the average global biocapacity of 1.8 global ha/person and more than double the
available biocapacity within the territory of the EEA member countries of 2.1 global ha/person.
This suggests that current European consumption and production patterns could not be
transferred to the rest of the world without overstretching global ecosystem services several
times over. Moreover, Europes footprint continues to rise while the available biocapacity per
person both in Europe and globally is shrinking due to population growth and the degradation
of ecosystems.
Data Sources:
Global Footprint Network, 2009a. National Footprint Accounts, 2009 Edition, Oakland,
California.
Generic Meta Data:Classification
Indicator Type: Type B Performance Indicator
Identification
Indicator Code: SCP 001.1
-
8/2/2019 EIONET 2011 Indicators
18/103
18
Position within Indicator framework: A Headlines
Policy Question
Addressed
1. Are levels of environmental pressures and resource use
caused by European consumption currently sustainable?
Indicator 1.3 Greenhouse gas emissions as reported by Europe under
Kyoto per capita as compared to 2 tonne/capita 2050 threshold
Description and rationale
This indicator compares direct per-capita GHG emissions from the EEA-32 with a 2050 goal
of a reduction of GHG emissions from developed nations to 2 tonnes CO2equiv per capita
by 2050. The per-capita emissions are based on total country emissions as reported under
UNFCCC reporting obligations including Kyoto mechanisms. The 2050 target is based on a
model where all world nations converge on the same per capita emissions levels by 2050
based on current populations at approximately 2 tonnes per capita. The resulting total
emissions level is modelled by the IPCC to represent the maximum level at which stabilisation
of global temperatures at 2o
C above pre-industrial levels would be possible. The EU
Commissions non-binding target for an 80% reduction in GHG emissions by 2050 as the
EUs contribution to stabilisation of temperatures is based on the same model. The indicator
provides only a proxy answer to policy question 1 since it is based on direct production
based emissions from Europe and not those caused globally by consumption. In addition it
represents only one environmental pressure but one of the few for which a threshold is
known.
Key Message: Direct per capita GHG emissions from EEA countries have seen a reduction
of 17% since 1990 and appear to be steadily decreasing. However, the current reduction rate
is not rapid enough to meet the 2050 target.
1.3 EEA-32 greenhouse gas emissions per capita as reported to UNFCCC as compared
to 2 tonne/capita 2050 threshold
-
8/2/2019 EIONET 2011 Indicators
19/103
19
Key assessment
Average direct per capita GHG emissions from EEA countries lie at 9.4 tonnes in 2008, nearly
5 times higher than the 2050 target for a sustainable level of GHG emissions from Europe.
The emissions have seen a reduction of 17% since 1990 and appear to be steadily
decreasing. The large drop during the early 1990s is in part due to economic recession inEastern Europe following the break-up of the Soviet Union. The decrease since 1996 has
been less rapid at around 80kg per capita per year. Should this reduction rate continue to
2050 the per capita emissions in that year would lie at around 6 tonnes per capita, still three
times the 2050 non-binding target. The reductions in emissions are for direct emissions only.
It is not known whether global GHG emissions caused by European consumption have seen
the same reductions, but indications from some countries with available data suggest that
emissions caused by consumption may even be on the increase.
Data Sources
The emissions data comes from EEA:http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=env_air_gge&lang=en
Population data from Eurostat:
http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=demo_pjan&lang=en
Generic Meta Data
Classification
Indicator Type: Type B Performance Indicator
Identification
Indicator Code: SCP 001.3
-
8/2/2019 EIONET 2011 Indicators
20/103
20
Position within Indicator framework: A Headlines
Policy QuestionAddressed
2. Are we having success in reducing direct pressures fromEuropean production and simultaneously reducing globalenvironmental pressures and resource use caused byEuropean consumption?
Indicator 2.3 Developments in air emissions and direct material input fortotal European production
Description and rationale
This multi-variable indicator follows the extent to which environmental pressures from
European production are decoupled from growth in economic output. This is shown for direct
emissions of greenhouse gases1, acidifying gases and ground-level ozone precursors, and by
direct material resource use (DEU, DMI)2.
This indicator is only relevant to the first part of the question i.e. direct pressures from
European production. It has no relevance to the second part. Moreover, this indicator only
covers some environmental pressures caused by production; other key pressures such as
emissions of toxins to air, soil and water, generation of waste, land and water use etc. are not
covered. Finally, the material resource input indicators only cover direct inputs to the
economy. More appropriate indicators would also include the indirect material use caused by
production (and consumption).
Key Message: The period 1995-2006 saw an absolute decoupling in direct air emissions
from European production despite a 40% growth in economic output. Greenhouse gases
have been rising slightly since 1999. Direct material resource use has increased since 2000
but more slowly than economic growth.
material use GHGs acidifying gases and ground ozone precursors
Key assessment
Direct emissions of acidifying gases and ground-level precursors related to European
production saw an absolute decoupling3
from economic growth during the period 1995-2006.
They decreased by 27% and 13%, respectively despite an increase in economic output of
40%. Production-related direct greenhouse gas emissions of the EU-25 remained nearly
constant over the same period but showed a slight increase since 1999. The result for GHGs
is not encouraging considering the global reductions needed in GHG emissions by 2050 to
avoid exceeding the tipping point of a 2 C tempera ture rise over pre-industrial levels.
1 The greenhouse gases are considered are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). Hydrofluorocarbons
(HFC), perfluorocarbons (PFC) and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) are excluded.
2 DEU (Domestic Extraction Used) measures the flows of materials that originate from the environment and that physically enter
the economic system for further processing or direct consumption. DMI (Direct Material Input) equals DEU plus imports and
measures the direct flows of materials that physically enter the economic system as an input, i.e. materials that are of economic
value and that are used in production and consumption activities.
3 Decoupling can be either absolute or relative. Absolute decoupling occurs when the relevant environmental pressure is stable or
decreasing while the economic driving force is growing. Decoupling is relative when the growth rate of the environmentally
relevant variable is positive, but less than the growth rate of the economic variable.
-
8/2/2019 EIONET 2011 Indicators
21/103
21
With regard to material resource use, volumes decreased by about 5% from 2000 to 2003,
but have increased more rapidly since then, giving a net increase of about 5% in DMI and 2%
in DEU. This was, however, lower than economic growth of 20% over the same period i.e.
direct material use has been relatively, but not absolutely decoupled from growth.
2.3-1 Decoupling of direct environmental pressures - emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG), acidifying
gases (ACID) and tropospheric (ground level) ozone forming precursors (TOFP) - from growth in output,
1995-2006, EU-25, indices 1995=100, all economic sectors
2.3-2 Decoupling of direct environmental pressures Domestic extraction used (DEU) and Direct Materila
Input (DMI) - from growth in output 2000-2007, EU-25, indices 2000=100, all economic sectors
Data Sources
Eurostat (2009): Air Emissions Accounts Survey 2008: gap-filled complete data set.
Luxembourg (available on request from Eurostat: [email protected])
Eurostat Database, Material flow accounts
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/environment/data/database
Eurostat Database, ComExt databasehttp://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/external_trade/data/database
-
8/2/2019 EIONET 2011 Indicators
22/103
22
EU KLEMS Growth and Productivity Accounts (November 2009 Release) adjusted to 1995
constant prices
http://www.euklems.net/data/09I/eu25_output_09I.xls
Generic Meta DataClassification
Indicator Type: Type C Efficiency Indicator
Identification
Indicator Code: SCP 002.3
-
8/2/2019 EIONET 2011 Indicators
23/103
23
Position within Indicator framework: A Headlines
Policy Question
Addressed
3. Is European production and consumption leading to
improving welfare in Europe and in developing countries,
and increasing universal access to basic needs?
Indicator 3.1 Proportion of population in developing countries living underthe poverty line
Description and rationale
This indicator shows the levels of extreme poverty by global region. Extreme poverty has
been defined by the World Bank as an income of less than1.25 dollars (PPP) per person per
day and this definition was also used in monitoring the millennium goal on poverty reduction.
Poverty as measured by income can give a proxy indicator for access to the basic goods and
services necessary for survival with dignity. Access to some basic needs, however, such as
education, health care, clean water and sanitation may not only be dependent on income buton the level of provision by a state. This indicator only provides a proxy for access to basic
needs. It illustrates no direct causal link with consumption and production trends in Europe.
Key Message: The proportion of people living in extreme poverty in developing and transition
countries fell from 46% to 27% between 1990 and 2005. Access to basic needs may have
improved as a result.
3.1 Proportion of population in developing countries living under the poverty line
Key assessment
The proportion of people living in extreme poverty in developing and transition countries fellfrom 46% to 27% between 1990 and 2005. Due to population growth the number of people living in
-
8/2/2019 EIONET 2011 Indicators
24/103
24
extreme poverty fell to a lesser extent from 1.8 billion to 1.4 billion. The fastest growth and sharpest
reductions in poverty were recorded in Eastern Asia. Poverty rates in China are expected to fall to
around 5 per cent by 2015. India, too, has contributed to the large reduction in global poverty. Poverty
increased however in the Central Asian countries of the ex-soviet union (CIS) and in Western Asia, the
former due to the sharp recession during the early to mid-1990s following the break-up of the Soviet
Union. This suggests that access to basic needs is improving though the level to which theEuropean economy has contributed is not known. Certainly much of the economic
development in Eastern Asia in particularly will have been catalysed by trade with OECD
countries including those in Europe and by investment from those countries. Similarly the global
economic and financial crisis in Europe and north America since 2008 is likely to have reduced trade
and investment, slowing growth and poverty reduction in developing countries.
Data Sources
UN Millennium Development Goals Report, 2010
http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/MDG%20Report%202010%20En%20r15%20-
low%20res%2020100615%20-.pdf
Generic Meta Data
Classification
Indicator Type: Type A Descriptive Indicator
Identification
Indicator Code: SCP 003.1
-
8/2/2019 EIONET 2011 Indicators
25/103
25
Position within Indicator framework: A Headlines
Policy Question
Addressed
3. Is European production and consumption leading to
improving welfare in Europe and in developing countries,
and increasing universal access to basic needs?
Indicator 3.2Development in Human Development Index for EEA countries and
developing countries
Description and rationale
The Human Development Index is a composite indicator used to rank countries according to
level of development. It includes three characteristics which are often considered to be
important components of development: life expectancy, education and per capita GDP (as an
indicator of material standard of living).
It is used here as an indicator of welfare as used in question 3 and to monitor whetherwelfare is increasing in EEA countries and in developing countries. For the latter, a rising HDI
in developing countries is a good sign of improving access to basic needs. However, it
doesnt illustrate any direct causal link with consumption and production trends in Europe. It
therefore cant completely answer question 3. Moreover, HDI may not be a useful indicator for
welfare in the developed countries of the EEA where welfare may be determined by many
other more subtle factors than life expectancy and education.
Key Message: HDI has steadily increased since 1990 both in EEA counties and in most
developing and transition countries with the exception of sub-Saharan Africa and CIS
countries. However, HDI tends to level off above a certain level of GDP in the EEA area.
3.2a Development in average Human Development Index in world regions 1990-2009
including EEA countries (excluding Bulgaria, Luxembourg, Lichtenstein and Slovakia)
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
0,9
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
HDI
EEA countri es (mi nus BG, LI , LU, SK) Ara b Sta tes
East Asia and the Pacific Eastern Europe and Central Asia
Latin America and the Caribbean South AsiaSub-Saharan Africa World
-
8/2/2019 EIONET 2011 Indicators
26/103
26
3.2b Relationship between HDI and GDP in EEA countries in 2007 (minus Bulgaria,
Luxembourg, Lichtenstein and Slovakia)
0,60
0,65
0,70
0,75
0,80
0,85
0,90
0,95
1,00
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
GDP in Euro per inhabitant (fixed prices)
HDI
Key assessment
HDI has steadily increased since 1990 in EEA counties. By 2009, all but 5 of the EEA
countries had progressed to the group of Very High Development countries. While the
average HDI for EEA countries has continued to rise, above a certain level of material wealth
(~20,000-25,000 Euro/capita) HDI tends to level off and sees only relatively small increases
with further increases in income. This despite GDP/capita being included in HDI calculations.
This may illustrate that welfare becomes decoupled from economic growth, or that alternative
measures of welfare are needed at high levels of development or both.
HDI has also steadily increased since 1990 and in most developing and transition countries
with the key exceptions of sub-Saharan Africa and Eastern Europe & Central Asia. The latter
group of countries first returned to similar HDI levels to those they enjoyed before the break-
up of the Soviet Union by around 2003. Sub-Saharan Arficas HDI has been increasing since
2000 following a significant decline. The increases in other regions suggests that access to
basic needs is improving though the level to which the European economy has contributed
can not be interpreted from this indicator. Certainly much of the development in Eastern Asia
in particular will have been catalysed by trade with OECD countries including those in Europe
and by investment from those countries. European aid may have also have played a role inincreasing HDI in other regions.
Data Sources
Human Development Index report
http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/data/
Human Development Index stats
http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2010_EN_Tables.xls
Population data from Eurostat:
http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=demo_pjan&lang=en
-
8/2/2019 EIONET 2011 Indicators
27/103
27
GDP data from Eurostat:
http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=nama_gdp_k&lang=en
Generic Meta Data
ClassificationIndicator Type: Type A Descriptive Indicator
Identification
Indicator Code: SCP 003.2
-
8/2/2019 EIONET 2011 Indicators
28/103
28
Position within Indicator framework: A Headlines
Policy Question
Addressed
3. Is European production and consumption leading to
improving welfare in Europe and in developing countries,
and increasing universal access to basic needs?
Indicator 3.3 Developments in Income Inequality: Gini Index
Description and rationale
The Gini Index is a measure of inequality of income. It is calculated mathematically from the
so-called Lorenz curve of distribution of incomes within a population. A low Gini coefficient
indicates more equal distribution, with 0 corresponding to complete equality, while higher Gini
coefficients indicate more unequal distribution of incomes, with 100 corresponding to
maximum inequality (a single person receives 100% of a countrys income).
The Gini index can be viewed as a complementary indicator to GDP or HDI (as shown in
indicator 3.2). GDP and HDI show the level to which averagematerial welfare has developedin a country, while the Gini index illustrates the extent to which this welfare is distributed
within the population i.e. whether or not the whole population has gained from increasing
welfare.
Key Message: Trends in income equality over the past decade differ greatly from country to
country with some countries showing a marked improvement and others a significant decline
in equality. Overall, the range in equality has tended to shift upwards towards greater
inequality.
3.3a Development in income inequality in the EU-15, 1995-2008
-
8/2/2019 EIONET 2011 Indicators
29/103
29
3.3b Development in income inequality in EU-12 and EFTA countries, 2000-2008
Key assessment
Trends in income equality since 1990 have differed greatly between EU-15 (upper graph) and
EFTA countries (lower graph). The general pattern is negative though. EU-15 countries with
higher levels of inequality have tended to remain stable, with only Spain and Ireland showing
marked improvements. The Nordic countries on the other hand, which demonstrated high
levels of income equality in the mid-1990s, have tended towards greater inequality over the
past 10 years (with the exception of Norway). The range of inequalities decreased from 20 -
35 in 1995 to 24 36 in 2008.
The new Member States also show a very mixed picture. They have a greater range of
inequalities than the EU-15 (23 - 38 in 2008). Some countries have made marked
improvements (i.e. Estonia and Malta) while in others, inequality has grown significantly
(Bulgaria, Rumania and Lithuania). Bulgaria has shown a particularly large increase in
inequality since 2005. Overall, the range in inequality has shifted upwards since 2000.
Data Sources
Gini index data from Eurostat:
http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=ilc_di12&lang=en
Generic Meta Data
Classification
Indicator Type: Type A Descriptive Indicator
Identification
Indicator Code: SCP 003.3
-
8/2/2019 EIONET 2011 Indicators
30/103
30
Position within Indicator framework: B Status and Trends in Consumptionand Production > B1 Overall trends in European Consumption and Production >ResourcesPolicy QuestionAddressed
4. Are we reducing our rates of depletion of key non-renewable resources?
Indicator 4.1 DMC for total and selected minerals and fossil fuels
Description and rationale
This multi-variable indicator shows how the domestic direct non-renewablematerial resource
use, defined as domestic material consumption (DMC), has developed in absolute quantities.
Data available for the EEA-32 not including Lichtenstein and Iceland allow DMC of the metal
ores, the non-metallic minerals and the fossil energy carriers to be distinguished.
The indicator is restricted to direct material use; it does not include indirect material use
caused by Europeans through production of imports for domestic consumption and further
production. For a more meaningful comparison, this material flow indicator should be
extended in the future towards raw material equivalents in the first step (with data becoming
available probably in 2011) and towards total material resources requirement (including
unused materials extraction) in the second step, in order to indicate possible shifts of
resource use and associated environmental pressure via increased imports from foreign
countries.
Key Message: Direct use of metal ores, non-metallic minerals and fossil energy carriers in
EEA countries increased over the period 2000 to 2007. Metallic and non-metallic minerals
increased most rapidly indicating increasing use by the metals manufacturing sectors and the
construction sector, respectively.
4.1 Development of domestic direct material resource use (DMC) of non-renewable
materials by main groups, EEA-32 minus Lichtenstein and Iceland, 2000-2007, in
absolute amounts and indexed
0
500.000
1.000.000
1.500.000
2.000.000
2.500.000
3.000.000
3.500.000
4.000.000
4.500.000
5.000.000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Non-metallic minerals
Fossil ener gy carriers
Metal ores
Thousands of tonnes
-
8/2/2019 EIONET 2011 Indicators
31/103
31
0,80
0,85
0,90
0,95
1,00
1,05
1,10
1,15
1,20
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Metal ores
Non-metallic minerals
Fossil energy carriers
Index 2000 = 1
Key assessment
The domestic direct non-renewable resource use of 30 EEA countries can be distinguished by
metal ores, non-metallic minerals and fossil energy carriers. In absolute terms, non-metallic
minerals dominate the non-renewable materials making up around two third of the total, while
fossil fuels contribute around 30% and metal ores about 5%. From 2000 to 2007 the EEA
countries directly used increasing amounts of non-renewable materials. The DMC of non-
metallic minerals increased by 15% to 4.71 billion tonnes in 2007. It is assumed that this
increase was caused by an increased demand for minerals for construction. The DMC of
fossil fuels increased from 2000 to 2006 and dropped slightly in 2007 to an absolute level of
2.13 billion tonnes in 2007 i.e. a net increase in 3% from 2000. The DMC of metals increased
by 17% to 367 million tonnes by 2007. There is thus a clear increase of domestic direct non-
renewable resource use by EEA countries over the past years pointing towards increasing
rates of extraction of non-renewable resources. With regard to the depletion of reserves,
scientific literature shows most indications for the category "fossil energy carriers". An
evaluation regarding the proven reserves (e.g. by WRI data4) would require further analysis.
Data availability for the 30 EEA countries is limited to the total of metals, non-metallic
minerals and fossil fuels. No further sub-indicators for non-renewable resource use can be
derived.
Data Sources
Eurostat Database, Material flow accounts,
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/environment/data/database, 22.10.2010.
Generic Meta Data
Classification
Indicator Type: Type A Descriptive Indicator
Identification
Indicator Code: SCP 004.1
4 World Resources Institute, EarthTrends Environmental Information (http://earthtrends.wri.org).
-
8/2/2019 EIONET 2011 Indicators
32/103
32
B1 Overall trends in European Consumption and
Production
-
8/2/2019 EIONET 2011 Indicators
33/103
33
Position within Indicator framework: B Status and Trends in Consumption
and Production > B1 Overall trends in European Consumption and Production >Resources
Policy Question
Addressed
Question 5: Is our use of key renewable resources (including
land) being reduced to sustainable limits?Indicator 5.1 Net Change in land cover 1990-2000
Description and rationale
This indicator presents the land cover change in the EU for different land types. The
classification system used (CORINE LAND COVER code level 2 from the EEA) differentiates
between 15 land cover classes belonging to 5 major categories: Artificial surfaces, agricultural
areas, forests and semi-natural areas, wetlands and water bodies. Values greater than zero
indicate an increase in the cover of this land type, values below zero indicate a decrease.
The indicator has some relevance to the question as it considers direct European use of land
which is a renewable resource (although the indicator data is now 10 years out of date).However, European use of land is not restricted to land within our borders we also
effectively use land in other countries e.g. to produce imported crops for European
consumption. The net European land use including land used for production of imports but
excluding land used for production of exports may be higher than land used directly within our
borders. Indicator 12.2 under question 12 can go some way in providing an indication of land
use associated with our consumption. Indicators based on Global Land-Use Accounting
(GLUA) may also be made available during 2011/12 (see Sleen 2009 or Steger 2005).
Nor does the indicator here provide any threshold in terms of sustainable limits. Nevertheless,
it is possible to see if land cover of artificial surfaces has increased at the cost of other
surfaces.
Key Message: European land cover of artificial surfaces increased by 5.8%, 1990 to 2000.
The increase in artificial surfaces came at the expense of agricultural land rather than natural
or semi-natural land. However, this development of agricultural land may have led to an
increase in imports of food and other agricultural products.
Key assessment
The European land cover of artificial surface areas (urban fabric; industrial, commercial and
transport units; mine, dump and construction sites; artificial, non-agricultural vegetated areas)
increased by 8290 km2 between 1990 and 2000 giving a 5.8% (net change). It would appear
that the increase in artificial surfaces came at the expense of agricultural land (which reduced
by an almost identical amount: 8250 km2) rather than wildlands (i.e. wetlands, forests, semi-
natural areas) and therefore may not have had a direct effect on biodiversity (though could
have had an indirect one through increased fragmentation of wildlands). However, this
reduction in total agricultural land in Europe may have led to an increase in the import of food
products, and hence an increase in total land used directly and indirectly by Europeans.
However, until Global Land-Use Accounting indicators are ready we cannot monitor such
changes.
-
8/2/2019 EIONET 2011 Indicators
34/103
34
5.1 Net Change in land cover from 1990 to 2000 for different land types, EU-27 without
Cyprus, Finland, Malta, Sweden, United Kingdom
Data Sources
Source: EEA
Link: http://etc-lusi.eionet.europa.eu/CLC2000/changes/DATA.xls
Extraction date: 1 October 2010
Additional literature:
Sleen, Manel van der: Trends in EU virtual land flows: EU agricultural land use through
international trade between 1995-2005. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency, 2009
Steger, Sren: Der Flchenrucksack des europischen Auenhandels mit Agrarprodukten
(The required agricultural land for the EU15 trade of agricultural goods, German). Wuppertal:
Wuppertal Inst. fr Klima, Umwelt, Energie, 2005 (Wuppertal Papers ; 152)
Generic Meta Data
Classification
Indicator Type: Type A Descriptive Indicators
Identification
Indicator Code: SCP 05.1
-
8/2/2019 EIONET 2011 Indicators
35/103
35
Position within Indicator framework: B Status and Trends in Consumptionand Production > B1 Overall trends in European Consumption and ProductionResources
Policy QuestionAddressed
Question 5: Is our use of key renewable resources (includingland) being reduced to sustainable limits?
Indicator 5.3 Surface and groundwater abstraction as a share of availableresources
Description and rationale
This indicator follows the surface and groundwater abstraction as shares of available surface
respectively groundwater. Therefore, it is directly relevant to the question since water is a
renewable resource and since available surface and groundwater set the absolute upper
threshold for water use. Sustainable thresholds will be considerably lower particularly for
surface waters as these also provide essential resources for biodiversity.
However, note that the indicator only monitors the direct abstraction of European water.
European consumption of imported products leads to water use in other countries: so called
virtual water use. An indicator measuring changes in global net water use caused by
Europeans is also necessary to answer the question.
Key Message: Water abstraction in 12 EEA countries decreased in absolute terms and as a
percentage of available surface and ground water between 1995 and 2005.
5.3 Surface water abstraction as share of available surface water and groundwater
abstraction as share of available ground water in BE, BG, CZ, DK, EE, IS, LT, LV, RO,
SE, SK, 1995-2005
Key assessment
The water abstraction in 12 EEA countries decreased from 1995 to 2005 in absolute termsand as a percentage of available surface and ground water. Groundwater abstraction
-
8/2/2019 EIONET 2011 Indicators
36/103
36
decreased from 23% to 13% of available groundwater resources and surface water
abstraction decreased from 4.7% to 3.3%.
Data Sources:
Name: EurostatLink:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/refreshTableAction.do?tab=table&plugin=1&pcode=tsdn
r310&language=en
Extraction date: 7 October 2010
Generic Meta Data:
Classification
Indicator Type: Type A Descriptive Indicators
IdentificationIndicator Code: SCP 05.3
-
8/2/2019 EIONET 2011 Indicators
37/103
37
Position within Indicator framework: B Status and Trends in Consumption
and Production > B1 Overall trends in European Consumption and Production >Resources
Policy Question
Addressed
5. Is our use of key renewable resources (including land)
being reduced to sustainable limits?Indicator 5.4 DEU and DMC for biomass
Description and rationale
These biomass indicators are derived from material flow accounts. Data availability for.the
EEA-32 excluding Lichtenstein and Iceland is limited to the total biomass that comprises
agriculture, forestry, and fishing but cannot be split into these various parts. Domestic
extraction used (DEUbio) is a measure of biomass extracted, and subsequently used, for a
countrys production for domestic consumption and for export. It does not include unused
extraction. Domestic material consumption (DMCbio) is equal to DEUbio plus the direct weight
of total imported biomass or biomass derived products (i.e. food, leather etc.) minus the direct
weight of total exported biomass or biomass derived products.
This multi-variable indicator shows whether direct renewable material resource use from the
domestic environment (DEU) and from the global environment (DMC), respectively, has been
decoupled from population growth and economic growth. It should be noted that DMC is only
a proxy indicator for global resource use caused by consumption, because the imports and
exports dont include indirect flows of biomass caused by production and consumption. The
DMC indicator should be replaced by raw material equivalent based indicators once they
become available and in the longer term total material requirement indicators. The ratio of
domestic extraction to domestic material consumption (DEU / DMC) indicates the
dependence of the physical economy on domestic raw material supply (Eurostat 2009)5. A
falling DEU / DMC ratio indicates a higher level of net imports of biomass. The indicatormakes no reference to sustainable limits as these are not yet clear for biomass.
Key Message: The direct use of biomass appears to have been decoupled from economic
and population growth but no significant absolute reduction of biomass use is observed.
Key assessmentThe direct biomass use of EEA countries from a production perspective (DEUbio) and from a
consumption perspective ( DMCbio) as indicated by these proxy indicators have remained
more or less constant over the period 2000 to 2007. Fluctuations within the period are rather
typical for biomass cultivation and depend on factors like climate. Over the same period, the
economic growth increased by 17% while the population grew by only 3%. There is thus
decoupling of direct biomass use from economic growth and from population growth, but no
sign of absolute reduction of biomass use, either from a production or consumption
perspective. Per capita use of biomass saw slight reductions over the period. The domestic
5 It should be noted that a decrease in domestic resource dependency is correlated directly with an increased foreign resource
dependency, which is more meaningful.
-
8/2/2019 EIONET 2011 Indicators
38/103
38
resource dependency is high at 98 to 95 % but is on the declining. This suggests that net
imports of biomass have increased over the period.
5.1 Growth in GDP and population alongside developments in Domestic extraction
used (DEU) and domestic material consumption (DMC) in EEA-32 without Lichtensteinand Iceland, 2000-2007
0,80
0,85
0,90
0,95
1,00
1,05
1,10
1,15
1,20
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
GDP_CLV2000
Population
DMC
DEU
DEU / DMC
Data Sources:
Eurostat Database, Material flow accounts (DEU, DMC),
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/environment/data/database, 22.10.2010.Eurostat Database, Population statistics
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/population/data/database, 22.10.2010
Eurostat Database, National accounts (GDP)
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/national_accounts/data/database,
22.10.2010
References:
Eurostat 2009: Economy Wide Material Flow Accounts: Compilation Guidelines for reporting
to the 2009 Eurostat questionnaire. Version 01 June 2009.
Generic Meta Data:
Classification
Indicator Type: Type C Efficiency Indicator
Identification
Indicator Code: SCP 005.4
-
8/2/2019 EIONET 2011 Indicators
39/103
39
Position within Indicator framework: B Status and Trends in Consumptionand Production > B1 Overall trends in European consumption and production >Production
Policy Question
Addressed
6. Are key production sectors and public services reducing
their pressures and improving eco-efficiency?
Indicator 6.1 Developments in air emissions and economic output for
individual key sectors including public services
Description and rationale
This multi-variable indicator follows the extent to which the direct emissions of greenhouse
gases6, acidifying gases and ground-level ozone precursors are decoupled from growth in
economic output related to production in five sectors of activity. The sectors considered are:
Agriculture, hunting, forestry and fishing; Manufacturing; Electricity, gas and water supply;
Transport, storage and communication;and Public services.
This indicator is directly related to the question. However, it should be noted that only someenvironmental pressures resulting from production are included here.
Key Message: Key production sectors have shown a mixed performance in decoupling direct
pressures from growth in output during the period 1995-2006. Public services, Agriculture,
hunting, forestry and fishing and Manufacturing showed best performance with absolute
decoupling in all environmental pressures considered while Transport, storage and
communication showed poorest performance with continuous growth in all emissions.
transport services manufacturing; electricity agriculture; public services
6.1 Decoupling of direct environmental pressures (emissions of greenhouse gases,
acidifying gases and ground-level ozone precursors) from growth in output 1995-2006,
EU-25, indices 1995=100
a) Public services
6The greenhouse gases considered are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). Hydrofluorocarbons
(HFC), perfluorocarbons (PFC) and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) are excluded.
-
8/2/2019 EIONET 2011 Indicators
40/103
40
b) Agriculture, hunting, forestry and fishing:
c) Manufacturing:
d) Electricity, gas and water supply
-
8/2/2019 EIONET 2011 Indicators
41/103
41
e) Transport, storage and communication
Key assessment
The graphs show developments in economic output and air emissions based pressures fromkey sectors, 1995-2006. Agriculture, manufacturing, and public services saw absolute
decoupling in all three environmental pressures considered. For agriculture emissions of
greenhouse gases, acidifying gases and ground-level ozone precursors decreased by 7%,
10% and 8% respectively, while for manufacturing they were reduced by 8%, 38% and 18%,
respectively. Public services saw their emissions decrease by 8%, 47% and 45%,
respectively. The performance of agriculture should be considered in the light that output
growth was much lower than for the economy as a whole at only 5%. For manufacturing
growth was close to the economy average at 37%, public services grew only a bit slower at
30%.
The sector Electricity, gas and water supply and non-public services (excluding transport)showed a mixed result. The electricity sector achieved an absolute decoupling in acidifying
gas emissions (cut by half) and ground-level ozone precursors (decreased by more than
20%) but saw greenhouse gas emissions increase by 8%. The energy sector represents
about one third of all European direct greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore increasing GHGs
from this sector is a bad sign for eco-efficiency in the economy as a whole.
Transport services saw the worst performance of all sectors with respect to decoupling. Lack
of absolute decoupling was due in part to the rapid growth of this sector at 70%. Emissions of
greenhouse gases and acidifying gases grew by 41% and 30%, respectively, close to
average economic growth of the economy as a whole. Since this sector has one of the higher
emissions intensities in the European economy, its increasing share of the economy (due to
above average growth rates) combined with lack of absolute decoupling is of high concern,
Data Sources
Eurostat (2009): Air Emissions Accounts Survey 2008: gap-filled complete data set.
Luxembourg (available on request from Eurostat: [email protected])
EU KLEMS Growth and Productivity Accounts (November 2009 Release) adjusted to 1995
constant prices
http://www.euklems.net/data/09I/eu25_output_09I.xls
Generic Meta Data
Classification Indicator Type: Type C Efficiency Indicator
Identification Indicator Code: SCP 006.1
-
8/2/2019 EIONET 2011 Indicators
42/103
42
Position within Indicator framework: B Status and Trends in Consumptionand Production > B1 Overall trends in European Consumption and Production >Products
Policy Question
Addressed
7. Are key products becoming more eco-efficient along their
lifecycle?
Indicator 7.1 Development in energy efficiency of cars and householdappliances
Description and rationale
This indicator shows developments in the energy efficiency of some key energy using
products during their use phase. Energy efficiency is calculated as the inverseof the specific
energy usei.e. energy used per functional unit. For cars, the specific energy use is the energy
used per km travelled; for white goods it is the energy use per cycle; and for TVs it is energy
use per hour of use. In other words it is the inverse of the energy efficiency.
It gives only a partial answer to the policy question since 1) it covers only the use phase and
not the full lifecycle and 2) it includes only energy use and not a full set of environmental
impacts resulting from the lifecycle of the product 3) data is currently only available for a few
electrical appliances: fridges and freezers, computers and air conditioning units are obvious
gaps.
Key Message: Most energy using products for which data is available across Europe have
shown improvements in energy efficiency from 10% to nearly 40%. The exception is
televisions.
7.1 Development in the energy efficiency of cars and household appliances in EU-27,
1990-2007
0
20
40
60
80100
120
140
160
180
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Index,19
90=100
TVs Diesel carsGasoline cars Washing machinesDish washers
-
8/2/2019 EIONET 2011 Indicators
43/103
43
Key assessment
Most energy using products for which data is available across Europe have shown
improvements in energy efficiency since 1990. Petrol and diesel cars have reduced their fuel
consumption per km by roughly 10% over this period, while washing machines and
dishwashers reduced electricity use per cycle by 25% and 37% respectively. While some
progress was made in energy efficiency of TVs during the early 1990s, these have been
countered over the past decade by dramatic increases in television screen size. This size
increase has countered gains made through a shift in technology from cathode ray tube to
LCD screens (though not plasma screens as these have a relatively high energy intensity).
Data Sources
Enerdata Research Service Odyssee database
http://services.enerdata.eu
Generic Meta Data
Classification
Indicator Type: Type C Efficiency Indicator
Identification
Indicator Code: SCP 007.1
-
8/2/2019 EIONET 2011 Indicators
44/103
44
Position within Indicator framework: B Status and Trends in Consumption
and Production > B1 Overall trends in European Consumption and Production >Consumption
Policy Question
Addressed
9. Are Europeans switching consumption patterns to less
intensive types of goods and services?
Indicator 9.1 Trends in share of household expenditure on COICOP
categories
Description and rationale
This indicator shows trends in household consumption expenditure of Europeans by
expenditure category. Consumption expenditure by European households is commonly
characterised by the COICOP (Classification of Individual Consumption by Purpose)
classification. While some countries report on this in more detail Eurostat reports on this at
the single digit scale with 12 categories of consumption. Different categories of consumption
show different environmental intensities environmental impact/Euro. A shift in share of
consumption expenditure from a high intensity category to one with a lower intensity will have
a role in decoupling environmental impact from growth in consumption. In addition to changes
in share of the various categories in total consumption, trends in absolute level of expenditure
on various categories is also of importance for interpreting whether consumption trends are
moving in the right or wrong direction. Expenditure trends are given in fixed prices - i.e. do not
include inflation - since it is volume changes in consumption which are of interest.
Key Message: Overall changes in spending patterns are likely to have had a decoupling
effect on environmental impacts caused by consumption. However, this decoupling effect will
be relative and not absolute.
9.1a Trends in share of household expenditure on COICOP categories, EEA countries
(excluding Lichtenstein and Turkey)
-
8/2/2019 EIONET 2011 Indicators
45/103
45
9.1b Trends in per capita household expenditure on COICOP categories EEA countries
(exlucing Lichtenstein and Turkey), 1995-2008
9.1c Comparative environmental intensities of household expenditure on COICOP
categories, 2005, 9 EU countries
Relative pressure intensities (unit pressure per Euro of spending) of household consumption
categories, 2005
0,0
0,5
1,0
1,5
2,0
2,5
3,0
3,5
4,04,5
5,0
Tran
sport
Food&non-alc
oholicb
everag
es
Housing
,water,e
lectric
ity,gas
&othe
rfuels
Toba
cco&
narco
tics
Clothin
g&footwe
ar
Resta
urants
&ho
tels
Furnish
ings,ho
useh
oldequip
ment
&routi
nemainte
nanc
e
Recreatio
n&cultu
re
Health
Comm
unica
tion
Educ
ation
Miscella
neousgo
ods&
servi
ces
A
verage
across
categ
ories
Pressureintensityrelativetoaverageacrossallconsumption
categories
GHGs
acidification emissions
tropospheric ozone precursors
material consumption
Key assessment
Trends in consumption expenditure show some positive tendencies.The most rapidly growing
consumption categories (figure 9.1b), communications and recreation & culture, which have
increased their combined share of expenditure from 9% to 14%, are also two of the
categories with lowest environmental pressure intensities (Figure 91c). Two further low-
intensity categories, health and miscellaneous goods and services, have also increased their
share from 3% to 4% and 10% to11% of expenditure respectively. Moreover, spending on
-
8/2/2019 EIONET 2011 Indicators
46/103
46
food & non alc. beverages which is one of the most pressure-intensive categories has stayed
stable despite economic growth and its share reduced from 15% to 12% of total spending.
On the other hand expenditure on two other categories with higher than average intensities
transport and housing has grown along with income, and maintained their share at 22% and
13% respectively between 1995 and 2008.
It should be noted that with the exception of tobacco and narcotics which have seen a very
slight reduction, expenditure on all categories has remained stable or have increased, 1995
and 2008. Therefore, these overall changes in spending patterns are likely to only have had a
relative not absolute decoupling effect on environmental impacts caused by consumption. In
other words, all other things being equal, pressures caused by consumption will have grown
but less rapidly than overall consumption expenditure.
Data Sources
COICOP Expenditures: Eurostat
http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=nama_co2_k&lang=en
Generic Meta Data
Classification
Indicator Type: Type A Descriptive indicator
Identification
Indicator Code: SCP 009.1
-
8/2/2019 EIONET 2011 Indicators
47/103
47
Position within Indicator framework: B Status and Trends in Consumptionand Production > B1 Overall trends in European Consumption and Production >Waste
Policy Question
Addressed
10. Is the total generation of municipal, service, industrial
and hazardous waste in Europe reducing?
Indicator 10.1 Development in generation of waste in Europe, other than
mining and agricultural waste and residual waste from waste
treatment
Description and rationale
This indicator shows the generation of waste from households and from key NACE (according
to Rev. 2 categories) sectors at 2-digit level. Category A Agriculture and B Mining, quarrying
and fishing are removed due to their dominance of totals, and because of important
differences in how agricultural waste is reported between countries. Residual waste from the
waste stream sector has also been removed from totals since this represents double
counting. Note there are inconsistencies with respect to some waste streams as reported by
countries in other categories e.g. soil is included under construction waste (NACE category F)
for some countries and not for others.
The indicator does not answer the hazardous waste element of the question.
Key Message: Total waste generation (other than mining and agriculture) in 2008 was
similar to 2004 despite a 9% growth in the EU economy. At the sectoral level only waste
generation by households and the sewage and waste management sector increased.
Household waste generation showed relative decoupling from GDP, while waste generation
from the sewage and waste management sector grew significantly more rapidly than the
economy.
10.1 Development in generation of waste (other than mining and agricultural waste and
residual waste from waste treatment) EU-27 2004-2008, absolute levels and indexed
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
2004 2006 2008
Millionsoftonnes
Households
Services (except wholesal e of
waste and scrap)
Construction
Water suppl y; sewerage, waste
management and remediation
activities*
Electricity, gas, steam and air
conditioning supply**
Manufacturing
-
8/2/2019 EIONET 2011 Indicators
48/103
48
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
2004 2006 2008
Index,2004=100
Manufacturing
Electricity, gas, steam and air
conditioning supply**
Water supply; sewerage, waste
management and remediation
activities*
Construction
Services (except wholesale of
waste and scrap)
Households
Total generation
GDP, fixed prices
* Ireland is excluded from the sewage and waste management sector waste total
** Romania is excluded from electricity sector waste total
Key assessment
While total waste generation (other than mining and agriculture) saw an increase between
2004 and 2006 it reduced again to slightly below 2004 levels by 2008. This was despite an
economic growth over the same period of 9%. In other words, generation of waste other than
mining and agricultural waste saw absolute decoupling from economic output during the mid
2000s.
At the sectoral level all but households and the sewage and waste management sector saw
reductions in waste generation between 2004 and 2008. Reductions in waste from the
construction sector are of key importance given the sectors dominance of total waste
generation (excluding agriculture and mining). The sharp reduction in waste generation by
this sector between 2006 and 2008 following increases during the preceding years will at
least in part be due to the emerging economic crisis of which the construction sector was an
early victim.
Household waste generation increased by 5% from 2004-2008, around half the growth seen
in GDP over the same period, demonstrating relative decoupling. The sewage and waste
management sector generated 29% more waste in 2004 than 2008; more than double
economic growth over the same period.
Data Sources
Waste generation: Eurostat
http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=env_wasgen&lang=en
GDP: Eurostat
http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=nama_gdp_k&lang=en
-
8/2/2019 EIONET 2011 Indicators
49/103
49
Generic Meta Data
Classification
Indicator Type: Type C Efficiency Indicator
Identification
Indicator Code: SCP 010.1
-
8/2/2019 EIONET 2011 Indicators
50/103
50
Position within Indicator framework: B Status and Trends in Consumption
and Production > B1 Overall trends in European Consumption and Production >Waste
Policy Question
Addressed
11. Is Europe moving towards a closed loop society?
Indicator 11.1 Total recycling amounts for different material types (glass,
metals etc.
Description and rationale
This indicator shows absolute quantities of material recovery from plastic, glass, paper and
cardboard and metallic wastes in Europe in millions of tonnes. Data has been reported to
Eurostat by member countries.
The indicator is of relevance to the question since it demonstrates whether recycling of some
key material streams is on the increase, from which it could be deduced that materials areincreasingly being returned back into the economy. However, the indicator doesnt tell us
about the percentages of these waste materials that are being recycled (i.e. recycling rates).
(Indicator 11.2 gives recycling rates in the EU but only for packaging materials).
Key Message: The total amounts of recycled plastic, paper, glass and metals in the EU
increased by 4 million tonnes (3%) between 2004 and 2008 despite a 35 million tonne
reduction in waste from manufacturing, services and households. All material streams apart
from plastics contributed to this increase.
11.1 Total recycling amounts of for different material types 2004-2008, EU-27
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
2004 2006 2008
Millionsoftonnes Plastic wastes
Paper and cardboard
wastes
Glass wastes
Metall ic wastes
-
8/2/2019 EIONET 2011 Ind