who is to blame for the footprint: the producer, the...

1

13thAnnualMeetingoftheInternationalSocietyofEnvironmentalEthics

Who is to Blame for the Footprint: The Producer, the Consumer or theScientist?TheroleofWaterandLandFootprintswithinEnvironmentalJusticeContext

RitaVasconcellosOliveira1*,MayThorseth1,HelgeBrattebø21ProgrammeforAppliedEthicsandDepartmentofPhilosophyandReligiousStudies,NTNUNorwegianUniversityofScienceandTechnology,Dragvoll,7491Trondheim,Norway.2IndustrialEcologyProgrammeandDepartmentofEnergyandProcessEngineering,NTNUNorwegianUniversityofScienceandTechnology,7491Trondheim,Norway.

ABSTRACT

Presently, humanity faces several global environmental challenges that will impact very

differently individuals and nations. The fast growth of human population and of industrialization

createsapressureonresources,beingfreshwaterandbiologicallyproductivelandamongthemost

relevantones.

One way to understand the impact of human action on resources is to quantify the total

environmental pressures via footprints. Footprint iswidely used by environmental scientists,with

greatsuccessamongthepublicandpolicy-makers.Itassessesconsumer’sresponsibilitybyaccounting

for thetotaldirectand indirecteffectsofaproductoraconsumptionactivity.Suchmeasurement

creates a principle of (sole) consumer responsibility, which is highly debatable. Although the

limitations of the method in assigning responsibility are recognized by scientists, the moral

implications,forbothindividualandcollectivejustice(nations),havenotbeenfullyaddressedinan

ethicalperspective.

ByanalyzingUNandUNEPdocuments,weaimatunderstandingthemoralroleoffootprintas

anassessmenttoolinthecontextofenvironmentaljustice.

Wepresentanddiscusstheroleoftheagents involved inthefootprintmethod,aswellas

someofthetensionsofwaterandlandfootprintsasmeanstoquantify(in)justiceinresourceuse.For

thatpurpose,wewilladdress(1)thedualapproachofconsumptionandproductionfootprintsinterms

offairness; (2)thenormative implicationsfortheagents involved inthefootprintmethod,and(3)

eventualconsequencesoftheapplicationoflandandwaterfootprintsintheresourcejusticedebate.

Lastly,we(4)discusstheadvantagesandlimitationsofweightingsustainabilitywithfootprints.

KEY-WORDS:Footprint-EnvironmentalJustice-LandUse-Water–Responsibility-Fairness

2ISEE13thAnnualMeeting

I-INTRODUCTION

Environmental indicatorswerecreatedtounderstandandquantifyhumanimpactonearthsoto

formulate strategies that can lead to present and future sustainability. According to OECD (2001) ‘an

environmental indicator is a parameter, or a value derived from parameters, that points to, provides

informationaboutand/ordescribesthestateoftheenvironment,andhasasignificanceextendingbeyond

thatdirectlyassociatedwithanygivenparametricvalue’.Inconsequence,indicatorshavebeenpreferential

interfacesbetweenscientistsandpoliticians,andalso,morerecently,asmeansofcommunicationtoa

wideraudience.

The advantage of using an indicator is the possibility of translating the state of very complex

systemsinto‘humanlydigestible’information.Onthataccount,tobetterportraytheimpactofhumans

ontheecosystems,environmentalindicatorsareappliedinscientificandpoliticaldiscourses.Besidesthe

overallcombinedimpact(e.g.environmentalfootprints), it isalsovitaltounderstandmorespecifically,

theeffectontheelementslikeair,waterorland.

These environmental elements are key issues in the environmental justice (EJ) debate.Many

times,theyareassociatedwithdifferentialaccessandqualityaccordingtogeographical,genderorsocial

boundaries,orevenassociatedtogenerationalresourcejustice.

Tobetteraddress thesetopics,knowingthestateofaffairsonresourceuseanddistribution is

invaluable since it canprovideamoreaccurateandnuancedpictureof thepresent (andeven future)

situation.Environmentalassessmentcreatedtoolsforsuchtask:environmentalindicators.

Theaimofthearticleistoprovideanaccountofthesomeoftheethicalimplicationsanddilemmas

thatarise,inthecontextofresourcejusticedebate,byusingawell-establishedenvironmentalindicator:

footprint.

Itisrelevanttopointoutthatthescientificdevelopmentanduseofenvironmentalindicatorsis

doneinaverypoliticizedway,astherestofthesustainabilitydiscussionaboutresources.Thepolarized

debate on resource justice sets the standard for the application of footprints,which in consequence,

createsparticularlyrelevantethicalconcernsaboutthemethodandtheagentsinvolved.


One of implications of using footprint assessment is the begetting of responsibility. It can be

attributedtodifferentagents,withdifferentnormativeimplications.Besidesthisnormativefacet,there

is a methodological layer that holds procedural and distributive issues. Despite the relevance and

connection between these two aspects, this paper, will focus primarily on the normative aspects of

footprints,leavingtheotherfacetforfurtherresearch.

Thearticleisorganizedinthefollowingway:firstly,itisestablishedthe(1)necessityofaccessing

(landandwater)resourcesand(2)whatisafootprint.After,(3)differentfootprintaccountingmethods

will be summarized. Next, there is a (4) brief overview of footprints application in international

environmental policy on land and water resources, followed by (5) a reflection on the attribution of

responsibilityforresourceuse.Furthermore,(6)wewilldiscusssomecontroversialimplicationsofusing

thedifferenttypesoffootprintaccounting.Lastly,wewilldraw(7)conclusionsaboutthestrongpointsand

limitationsofthinkingaboutsustainabilitythroughthelensesoffootprint.

II-THENEEDTOASSESSHUMANLANDANDWATERUSEFORENVIRONMENTALJUSTICEREASONS

The levelofhuman impact innaturehasbeenproblematic toquantify,however theeffectsof

humanactionsintheenvironmentare,onthecontrary,easytomeasure.Internationalorganizations,like

theUN,warnusabout theperil thatmanypopulations face, in regard todeterioratingenvironmental

conditions.

‘783millionpeopledonothaveaccesstocleanwaterand[…]6to8millionpeopledieannuallyfromtheconsequences of disasters and water-related diseases. […] With expected increases in population […]increasingagriculturaloutput,forexample,willsubstantiallyincreasebothwaterandenergyconsumption,leadingtoincreasedcompetitionforwaterbetweenwater-usingsectors’(UNWater,2013).

Oneofthemostproblematicpresentandfuturesituationsconcernswaterresources.Theaccess

tocleanwateranestablishedhumanright(Salman&McInerney-Lankford,2004).Itdeterminesahigher

levelofobligation(moralobligation)towardstheunderstandingofhow,why,andtowhatextenddo(can

and should) we use water. Questions about the utilization of this resource are not only scientific or

economic,buttheyarealsopolitic,andaboveall,moral.

Besides water resources, humankind is also utterly dependent on land for food, shelter,

community development, or religious reasons. In consequence, the growth of world population, in

combinationwithhighlydemanding resource lifestyles, creates increased stresson land (Bilsborrow&


Ogendo,1992).Theincreasingscarcityofproductivesoil,grassingareasorbuildingzonesisadriverof

environmentalproblems(Foleyetal.,2005)and(socialandgender)ofinequality(Agarwal,1994)(Peters,

2004).

Aswellaswateruse, landuse isamatterofmoralconsiderationtoo.Land issubjectofmoral

consideration, for example regrading stewardship (Worrell & Appleby, 2000) or in cases of disruptive

effectsofspecificpolicies(Beatley,1991).

Theenvironmental resourcecrisis, fueledbythe increasingdemand inenergy,waterand land,

creates a global conscience of the urge to establish sustainable policies and praxis, based on solid

knowledgeofthestateofaffairs.

Indirectresponse,UN,viatheirenvironmentalprogramme(UNEP),launched‘UNEP'sResource

EfficiencyProgramme’withtheobjectof‘promot(ing)resourceefficiencyandsustainableconsumption

and production […] in both developed and developing countries. […] This includes the promotion of

sustainableresourcemanagementinalifecycleperspectiveforgoodsandservices’(UNEP,s.d.-c).

In order to be able to generate coherent sustainable strategies, UN launched ‘Life Cycle

ApproachesandIndicators’programmetofightagainstthe‘lackofactionablesynthesizedinformationon

alternativesandefficienciesandaneedformoretimelyalertsofimpendingresourcescarcitiestoinform

policies,research,andmanagement’(UNEP,s.d.-b).

InUNEP’scorrespondingreport,footprint,amongstotherindicators,isdiscussedandclarifiedwith

theaimofestablishingsomenormalization.Nevertheless,andinspecializedliteratureitstillispossibleto

seequitealargevariabilityintermsofthenumberofindicatorsavailabletoassessgeneralandspecific

environmental conditions. Additionally, and in the case of numerous indicators, there are several

pathwaysforcalculation,beingfootprintastrikingexampleofthis.

In this paper, we argue, in line with UN directives mentioned so far, that environmental

assessment iskey toaproperaddressingofenvironmental justice (Fredericks,2012;Todd&Zografos,

2005;Veisi,Liaghati,&Alipour,2016).Inconsequence,footprintscan(orshould)helpustounderstand

andclarify(atleastsomeof)themostpressingissuesinEnvironmentalJustice(EJ)context.

Ifweassume theargument tobecorrect, inorder for footprints tohelpelucidating (some)EJ

issues, it is relevant to analyze the consequencesof theprocess in policy and in thepolitical decision


making process. Furthermore, a conscious, and in context, application of this tool, requires reflection

about the implications for the agents involved (producers, consumers, nations, institutions and

individuals).

Onthefollowingsection,wewillfocusinclarifyingwhatisafootprintandthetwomaintypologies

offootprintsotounderstandthejusticeimplicationsofeachoneofthem.

II.1-WhatisaFootprint?

Footprint is loosely used word different types of methods used to understand the use of a

resource,thelevelofemissionsand/orimpactofaparticularecosystemiccomponent.

In this particular paper,wewill address only the footprints as quantifications of direct and/or

indirectaggregatedenvironmentalindicatorssuchascarbondioxideequivalentemissions,wateruse,and

landimpacts.

Inthecaseofresources,footprintmeasurestheamountoftheresourceusedtoproducegoods,

servicesornations.Theresourceusecanbemeasuredforasingleprocess,suchasmeatproduction,a

product,suchasacar,oraninstitution,likeamulti-nationalcompany.Thewaterfootprintcanalsobe

calculatedforaparticularriverbasin,aquifer,regionorcountry.

Literaturepresentsabundantexamplesoffootprintcalculationsusingdifferentmethodsanddata.

Inthispaper,weshallfocusonthefollowing:(1)production-basedand(2)consumption-baseaccounting

usedinfootprintcalculation.

I.1.1-Production-basedaccounting

At the beginning of the implementation of accounting impacts methodologies, the system

boundariesweresetwithinageographicallyororganizationaldefinedarea.Suchapproachwaschosen

duetoguidelinescomingfrominternationalinstitutionssuchastheIntergovernmentalPanelonClimate

Change(IPCC)orWorldResourcesInstitute(IPCC,2006;WRI&WBCSD,2004).

Forexample,ifwewantedtocalculatethewaterfootprint(WF)production-basedof1kgofbeef

comingfromproducerX,thewaterconsideredwouldbethecows’drinkingwater,watertowashthemor

tocleanthefacilitiesofXfarm.Forexample,thewaterusedtogrowtheanimalfodder,thatproducerX

buysonthemarket,wouldnotbe included inthe inventory.Thereasonforthisexclusion isthat,only


direct (i.e. within the limits of the study scope) uses are accounted for. In otherwords, all the uses,

emissionsorimpactsassociatedwithproductsandservicespurchasedbytheconsumers(e.g.producerX)

areleftoutsideofthescope(e.g.waterusedforelectricityproduction).

Somerecent literaturegoes furtherandconsiders thatproductionbaseaccounting isdifferent

from ‘footprint’. Many times, especially in research context, it is presented, as a separate typology

(Kanemoto, Lenzen, Peters, Moran, & Geschke, 2011). However, such method is still in use, even if

occasionallywithadifferentlabel(Meyer&Jacob,2008).

I.1.2-Consumption-basedaccounting

On the contrary to the previous approach, in the case of consumption-based accounting, the

system boundaries are open. The inventories include a life-cycle perspective. This means that they

integrate resource use, emissions and/or impacts caused by the production of goods and services

consumedbytheorganizationornationinstudy.Thisinclusionisindependentofwhethertheresource

useemissionsand/orimpactsoccurinsideoroutsidetheorganizationallimitsofthepopulationoractivity

ofinterest(Cazcarro,Pac,&Sánchez-Chóliz,2010;Larsen&Hertwich,2009).

Consumption-basedaccountingisusedforfootprintcalculationwhentheaimistoquantifyallthe

usesand/oremissionsinthesupplychain.Forexample,thismethodischosenwhentheobjectiveisto

knowtheWF,forexample,ofa1kgofbeeforofacarfrombrandZ.Inthiscase,thewaterisaccounted

inalltheprocesses,productsandservicesthatdirectlyandindirectlycontributetotheuserphase(e.g.

drinkingwaterforcowsorwaterusedforpaintingthecar),plustheupstreamprocesses,productsand

servicescreatedtheinfrastructuretooriginatetheproduct(e.g.waternecessaryforthesteelmanufacture

thatgoesinthefarmorindustryfacilities)plusthewaterusedforend-of-lifepurposes(e.g.recyclingof

carorofthemanure).

Consumption-basedaccounting isappropriatetoquantifyfootprintsofnations/regions,sectors

andproductgroupsi.e.largeaggregatedunits.Forexample,itiswellsuitedtoestimatethewaterfootprint

ofNorway’smeatproductionsector.

It is usually the nature of the study that defines the boundary settings, which dictate the

accountingmethodusedfororiginatingthefootprinti.

Production-basedandconsumption-basedaccountingrepresentdistinctpartsofthesamereality.

Whenthescopeofthestudyisbroader,consumption-basedaccountingisusedforthecalculationofthe

footprint,meaningthattheresourceusealongthefullsupplychainresourceuse(emissionsorimpact)is


included.Footprintoriginatedwithproduction-basedaccountinghasanarrowerscope.Itonlyaccounts

fortheuse(impactsandemissions)withinaspecificarea,likeanation.Itisimportanttomakeclearthat

anation’swaterorlandfootprintcanbecalculatedbybothaccountingmethods.Theinformationobtained

fromthetwofootprintswillbedifferent:production-basedfootprintwillaccountforthewaterusesin

domesticproduction (fordomestic consumptionand forexports)plus thewater inexports and in the

domesticfinalconsumption;consumption-basedfootprintwillintegratethewaterin(directandindirect)

importsfordomesticconsumptionplusthewaterusedindomesticproductionfordomesticconsumption

andforthewaterusedindomesticfinalconsumption.

Summarizing, the great majority of footprint studies prefer just one of the approaches.

Nevertheless, thetacitchoiceofasingleaccountingmethod(usually,consumer-basedaccounting)has

insufficiently considered implications for the global effort on tackling environmental challenges. The

choice for one of these accounting methods will partake justice implications on how nations and

institutionsaddressenvironmentalaccountability,especiallyclimatechange.suchconsiderationswillbe

furtherdevelopedinthisarticle.

II.2-Assessingwaterandlandresources

Oneofthemostdisseminatedprocedurestoassessnaturalresources,suchaswaterandland,is

byapplyingthefootprintmethod.Asmentionedbefore,footprintcalculationscandifferagreatdealand

tocounterthispolysemousness,therehasbeenaneffortfromscientists,withthesupportofpolicymakers,

toestablishcommonandcoherentguidelinestoperformfootprints.SomeEuropeanresearchinstitutions,

suchastheonesthatoriginatedtheprojectCREEA1,haveputeffortinthistask.

CREEA considers WF the best method to understand the global situation of water resources

because‘itallowslocalizingthepressuresputontheenvironmentbroughtaboutbyconsumptioninoften

completelydifferentpartsoftheworld’(Lutteretal.,2014:9).

1Formoreinformation,pleasegotohttp://creea.eu/.


Ingeneralterms,WFaccountsforwaterextraction(orwateruse),waterconsumption2andthe

nexus water-energy (water used in the production of electricity). ‘Green’3 and ‘grey’4 water are also

discussed5inCREAA’sdocuments,buttheirfocusis‘blue’water6.

‘[Theapproach]allowscalculatingwaterquantitiesincorporatedindomesticproductionandconsumptionactivities via complete supply and use chains; it also enables to set water use into relationwith otherenvironmentalpressuressuchasmaterialuse’(Lutteretal.,2014:8).

Inthecaseof landasaresource,theassessmentmethodologiesvarymorethaninthecaseof

water.Thisdiversityisrelatedtothespecificaimsofeachstudyonthissubjecthasbeenconducted-for

example to assess products such asmeat (Steinfeld et al., 2006), soy (Macedo et al., 2012), biofuels

(Rathmann,Szklo,&Schaeffer,2010).Forexample,landfootprint(LF)wasappliedtonations(Steen-Olsen,

Weinzettel,Cranston,Ercin,&Hertwich,2012)andtodifferentiatetypesof‘land’(e.g.forest,pastureand

cropland)(Lambin&Meyfroidt,2011).

However,inthispaper,wewillfocusonlyonfollowingfootprintstoaccountforlandresources:

landfootprint(LF),land–usefootprint(LUF)andecologicalfootprint(EF),sincetheyarethemostfrequent

inliterature.

According to CREEA, LF ‘assesses the domestic and foreign land areas,which are directly and

indirectly required to satisfy domestic final consumption’ (Giljum et al., 2013) p.9. In otherwords, LF

measures‘thelandusedtoproducethegoodsandservicesdevotedtosatisfythedomesticfinaldemand

ofacountryregardlessofthecountrywherethislandwasactuallyused’(Arto,Genty,Rueda-Cantuche,

Villanueva,&Andreoni,2012).

2CREEAreportonwaterintroducesimportantdistinctionsaboutthedifferenttypesof‘water’.‘Waterusevs.waterconsumption:Waterappropriationbyeconomicactivitiesexerts twodifferent typesofpressureson theenvironment. First, it is thewaterabstractionwherewaterispumpedoutofe.g.agroundwaterbodyordivertedfromariver.Thepressureexertedconsistsintheloweringofthewatertableandthereducedavailabilityofwaterinthewaterbodyfortheecosystemtomaintainitsfunctioning.Inaccountingtermswaterabstractioniscalled“wateruse”.Thesecondtypeofexertingpressureinaccountingtermsis“waterconsumption”.Inmanycases,waterisabstractedfromawaterbody,usedindifferentproductionprocessesandthenreturnedtothesamewaterbody,oratleasttothesameecosystem.Thestatusofthewatermighthavechanged(itmightbepollutedorwarmer), but normally only a small share of the water originally abstracted is incorporated into the product or lost to theecosystem it was taken from (e.g. water evapotranspirated throughout a production process). In literature, this “waterconsumption”(abstractionminusreturnflows)isalsocalled“consumptiveuse”’(Lutteretal.,2014:9-10).3Greenwateris‘waterfromprecipitationthatisstoredintherootzoneofthesoilandevaporated,transpiredorincorporatedbyplants.Itisparticularlyrelevantforagricultural,horticulturalandforestryproducts’(WaterFootprintNetwork,s.d.).4Greywateris‘theamountoffreshwaterrequiredtomixanddilutepollutantsenoughtomaintainwaterqualityaccordingtocertain standards (like the ones established in the US Clean Water Act) as a result of making a product’(GraceCommunicationsFoudation,2016).5Inthefinalreport,CREEAstipulatesaseparatefootprintfor‘grey’water(GreyWaterFootprint).6 Blue water is the ‘surface water and groundwater required (evaporated or used directly) to make a product’(GraceCommunicationsFoudation,2016).


LFprovidesinformation,inrespecttocountriesorworldregions,ontheamountofforeignland,

whichisembodiedinimports(Lugschitz,Bruckner,&Giljum,2011).Inadditionitalsoaccountsfor‘virtual’

land7flows(Meieretal.,2014;Würtenberger,Koellner,&Binder,2006).

Itisimportanttoclarifythatwhentheobjectiveistounderstandtheenvironmentalimpactofland

use,LFisnolongertheadequateenvironmentalindicator.Forexample,whenitisintendedtoanalyzea

trend towardsmore intensive typesof landuse, generic environmental pressure indicators arebetter

suited. They can quantify the final impacts on biodiversity or ecosystems, and they can parameterize

drivingforcesintheproductionandconsumptionsystemsofsinglecountries(Monfreda,Wackernagel,&

Deumling,2004)whileLFcannot.

Landusecanbetranslatedtoanotherfootprint,theEcologicalFootprint(EF).Onthecontraryto

landorvirtual landfootprints,EFmeasuresa theoretical landarea (continentaland/orsea)neededto

supplytheresourcesandtoabsorbemissionsforaspecificeconomicactivity.

EF‘representstheproductivearearequiredtoprovidetherenewableresourceshumanityisusing

andtoabsorbitswaste’(GlobalFootprintNetwork,2016a),includingproductiveareasbeingoccupiedby

humaninfrastructures8.

InthecaseofEF,theaccountabilityfortheresourceuseandfortheemissionsrestuponsolelyon

theconsumer.

‘(I)fsomethingisproducedincountryXandusedincountryY,thelandrequirementisregisteredtotallywithincountryY.[…]TheGHGinventory,carriedoutonthebasisoftheEcologicalFootprintapproach,wouldasaresultassignalowerlevelofGHGemissionstodevelopingcountriesandahigherleveltodevelopedones’(Bastianoni,Pulselli,&Tiezzi,2004:225).

AnotherimportantcharacteristicofEFisthefactthatitmeasuresthesupplyofanddemandon

the environment done by humankind. For doing so, a new concept is integrated in the calculation:

biocapacity.

7AccordingtoVonWitzkeandNoleppa(2010)virtuallandis‘theamountoflandthatisrequiredtoproduceoneunitofagivenagriculturalgood’.8‘Theecologicalfootprintrepresentsthecriticalnaturalcapitalrequirementsofadefinedeconomyorpopulationintermsofthecorrespondingbiologicallyproductiveareas.Evidently,theareaofthefootprintdependsonthepopulationsize,materiallivingstandards,usedtechnologyandecologicalproductivity’(Wackernageletal.,1999:377).


‘On the supply side, biocapacity represents theplanet’s biologically productive land areas includingourforests,pastures,croplandandfisheries.Theseareas,especiallyifleftunharvested,canalsoabsorbmuchofthewastewegenerate,especiallyourcarbonemissions’(GlobalFootprintNetwork,2016a).

Despite enjoying great success among institutions, general population and even some

environmentalscientists,EFisfarfrombeingunchallenged9.

Othermoregeneralchallengestoaccountingresourcesincludesomekindambiguity,concerning

whatresourcesarebeingmeasured,sincefootprintcanintegrateseveralspecificmethodologicalpaths

thatmeasureandassessdifferentrealities.Thisdissimilaritymakesabsolutelynecessary,acarefulreading

andinterpretationoftheresults,asasimplecomparisonofnumbersandofstudiesisnotenoughtoobtain

thedesiredanswer.Despite thesedemurs,aswewill showonthenextsection, footprint isamethod

frequentlypresentininternationaldocumentsonsustainability,especiallyregardingresourcedistribution

anduse.

III-THEROLEOFWATERANDLANDUSEFOOTPRINTSININTERNATIONALPOLICY

There isat leastoneveryclearapplicationof footprints in thecontextofEJ, connected to the

highly polarized arena of natural resources’ sustainability debate. The footprintmethod is present in

severalpolicydocumentsregardingtheclimateandnaturalresources.Sinceoneofthepaper’sobjectives

istoreflectonthenormativesideoffootprints(WFandLF),wechoosetofocusondocumentsthatare

both,influentialinenvironmentalpolicycontext,andatthesametime,werepartofthepoliticaldiscourse

onresourcejustice.Forthat,weanalyzeUNdocumentationaboutwaterandlandresources.

III.1-TherelevanceofWaterFootprintinUNdocuments

InternationalenvironmentalpolicyisregulatedthroughUnitedNations(UN)anditsagencies.In

thecaseofwaterresources,theUNhasbeenconsistentlyproducingreportsonthesubjectsince2003.

Worldwaterdevelopmentreports(WWDR)arethematicdocumentsthat‘focus(es)ondifferentstrategic

waterissueseachyearandaimstoprovidedecision-makerswiththetoolstoimplementsustainableuse

ofourwaterresources’(UNWater,2016).

9WiedmannandBarrett(2010)offeragoodaccountontheadvantagesandlimitationsofEF.


InordertounderstandtowhatextentWFispresentinandinfluencesinternationalwaterpolicy,

we analyze all sevenWWDR, in search for different uses of the concept and its overall impact in the

politicaldiscourse.

ThefirstWWDR-‘WaterforPeople,WaterforLife’(2003)focuses‘essentiallyonevaluatingwhat

progresshasbeenmade,andnotmade,sincetheRioSummitandondevelopingeffectiveassessment

methodologies’(UNESCO,2016b).Thereportdiscussesessentiallyhumanstewardshipoffreshwatervia

policies, social programmes, economic approaches and management strategies with the objective of

reachingwatersustainability.Inthedocument,methodologiesandindicatorsareproposedformeasuring

sustainability (UNESCO,2016b).Despite the focuson indicators,WFdoesnotappear in thedocument

(UNESCO,2003).

WF is first integrated in the second WWDR- ‘Water, a Shared Responsibility’ (2006). WF is

presentedhereasawayof (1)accountingnationwide the impactof ‘water trade’ (virtualwater). The

documentstressesthequalityofthisindicatortobetterunderstandthefluxesofthenaturalresourceat

aglobalscale(UNESCO,2006)p.391-2.

ThewidespreadpresenceoftheconceptWFonlystartsonthethirdWWDR-‘WaterinaChanging

World’(2009).Forthefirsttime,thereportdedicatessomespacetodefinetheconceptofWFanduses

theexampleofanation´sWF(USA)tooperationalizeitsdescription10.Despitetheeffortforclarification,

atthetime,therewerestillsomecontroversialissuesregardingwhatactivitiesshouldbeincludedinWF

(rainfedagriculture).

The thirdWWDR, usesWF in new contexts. Besides (1) ‘water trading’ and its dangers,WF is

presentedaspreferential (2)globalwateraccountingtool thatallowscomparisonsbetweencountries,

givingagoodinsightofwatertrendsinemergenteconomiesandonchangingconsumingpatterns.Forthe

firsttime,UNalertsforthe(3)nexusenergy-water,usingWFasameasureoftheproblemofspreading

useofhighcarbonfossil fuels (e.g. tarsands). In thesamereport,UNstarts toexpandWFconcept to

business, calling for the necessity to calculate (4) companies WF as means to gain ‘good will from

consumers’(UNESCO,2009)p.36.

10AccordingtoUNEP,‘acountry’swaterfootprintisthevolumeofwaterusedintheproductionofallthegoodsandservicesconsumed by inhabitants of the country. […] The fourmajor factors determining a country’s water footprint are volume ofconsumption,consumptionpattern(forexample,highorlowmeatconsumption),climate(growingconditions)andagriculturalpractices(wateruseefficiency)’(UNESCO,2009:101).


The 2012 WWDR report (fourth)- ‘Managing Water under Uncertainty and Risk’- is the most

comprehensivereportonfreshwaterresourcesoftheseries.Itbuildsfromtheformerdocument‘inthe

recognitionoftheexternalities,[…]itgivesaccountofthestatusandthetrendsrelatedtowatersupplies,

uses,management,institutionsandfinancing;highlightsregionalhotspots,andaddressesissuessuchas

genderequality,water-relateddisasters,healthandtheroleofecosystems’(UNESCO,2016a). Inother

words, thisdocumentconnectswater footprinttoenvironmental justicedebate,especiallyconsidering

distributiveissues.Themethodisrecognizedasmeansofdepictingresource(in)justice.

This document mentions WF in the same four ways, and in other new aspects too. The (5)

managerial and (6) strategic uses ofWF in the policy development are novelties. As an example, UN

proposesWFtobecomepartof‘greenlabelling’andfairtrade.Inaddition,thismeasurebecomespartof

theUNEP’s definition of ‘Green Economy’. Furthermore, and from thismoment, (7) a global network

solemnlydedicatedtoWF(WaterFootprintNetwork)11wasestablished.ThesenewapplicationsofWF

showtheconsolidatedroleofthismethodinsustainabilitydiscourse.

InthisfourthWWDRreport,thereisaclarificationandestablishmentofhowWFiscalculatedfor

companies12.Interestingly,thedocumentrecognizesbothproduction-basedaccountingandconsumption-

basedaccountingtooriginateaWF,butfavorsthevoicesthatclaimfootprintcanonlybecalculatedina

consumptionbase.

‘Thewaterfootprinttakesintoaccountalltheobviouswatercontentinaproductaswellas[…](virtualwater).[…]Thusthereistheoperationalwaterfootprintandthesupplychainwaterfootprint.[…]Therefore,awaterfootprintreflectsthetrueamountofwaterused,whichmaynotbeimmediatelyapparentfromlookingattheendproduct’(UNESCO,2012:493).

In 2014, UN released the fifthWWDR- ‘WorldWater Development Report 2014 -Water and

Energy’,which focusesmainly on the interdependency of energy sources andwater use.Unlikely the

previousdocument,WFislessprominentanditismainlyusedinthe(3)thenexusenergy-water(UNESCO,

2014b)andina(5)businesscontext(UNESCO,2014a).

ThesixthWWDR- ‘Water inaSustainableWorld’ (UNESCO,2015b)and ‘FacingtheChallenges’

(UNESCO,2015a)-doesnotmentionWFoften.Themost interestingpoint istheappearanceofthe(8)

11Forfurtherinformation,pleaseconsultWaterFootprintNetworkathttp://waterfootprint.org/en/.12‘Thecustomaryapproachofmasswaterbalanceisonlypartofthepicture;waterfootprintsorprofilesareincreasinglybeingintroducedtoestimateanindustry’srealwateruse.Estimationoffootprintsorprofilesmayinvolveusingawaterdiagnostictoolandwaterscenarioplanningsupports’(WWAP,2009,ch.2,referencingWBCSD,2006).


concept of water footprint assessmentii and the clearmessage to industries about the necessity of a

‘corporate’waterstewardship.

The2016WWDR-‘WaterandJobs’(UNESCO,2016c)-isquitepoorinWFreferences.WFisonly

mentionedinrelationtoindustrywaterdependency.

In general, footprint is presented in UN environmental documents concerning water chiefly in

connectiontomeansofcalculation,levelandcontextofresourceuse.Additionally,WFisconsideredasa

markerforresource(in)equality.ItisessentialtomentionthatUNdefinitionsonwaterfootprintarestill

differentfromothersusedinpolicydocuments,especially inEuropeanones13.Thispolysemyincreases

chancesforfurtherconfusioninthetranslationofglobaldirectivesintonationalorinstitutionalpolicies.

III.2-TherelevanceofLandandEcologicalFootprintinUNdocuments

Land and land use matters in international policy documents (UN, UNEP, FAO) have been

accountedforbydifferenttypesofmethods.Thefootprintisnotwidelymentionedorapplied(FAO&JRC,

2012;UN-DESA,2012;UNEP,2004,2014).However,ecologicalfootprintisquitemorecommonintheir

documents.Accordingto(UNEP,2010)p.18,EcologicalFootprint(EF)hastheadvantageofsupposingly

showing impacts, in landarea, and comparing them to the limitedproductive landarea available in a

specificarea.

Asmentionedintheprevioussection,whentheobjectiveistounderstandthedifferencebetween

humanneedsandearth’scapacitytosatisfythoseresourcedemands,EFistheonlymetrictoofferthis

possibility. However, when the state of resources is the information needed, Land (LF) or Land Use

Footprint(LUF)shouldbeusedinstead14.

As mentioned above, international policy documents tend to look at environmental issues

regardingland,intermsofhumanresourceneeds,meaningamorewidespreadapplicationofecological

13AccordingtoSERI‘Thewaterfootprintisthetotalamountoffreshwaterthatisuseddirectlyandindirectlytoproducethegoods and services which satisfy domestic final consumption. For effective water management the water footprint ideallydistinguishesbetweendifferenttypesofwaterflows:(1)waterwithdrawalandwaterconsumption;thefirsttermbeingthewholeamountofwaterabstractedfromtheenvironment,thesecondbeingonlytheamountwhichisnotreturnedatall(incorporatedintheproduct)oratmuchlaterpointintimeortoanothercatchment.(2)Blueandgreenwater;thefirstbeingwaterstemmingfromsurfaceandgroundwater,thesecondstemmingfromrainwater.Comprehensivewateraccounts–andtheresultingfootprintanalyses–encompassalltheseaspectsappropriationofwaterbyhumansociety’(Giljumetal.,2013:9).14‘Thelandfootprintassessesthedomesticandforeignlandareas,whicharedirectlyandindirectlyrequiredtosatisfydomesticfinalconsumption.Itisimportanttonotethatlandfootprintapproachesdifferfromcalculationsoftheecologicalfootprint,asnoweightingof landareasbydifferentbio-productivities isapplied. […] Incontrast to thecategoryofmaterials,noharmonizeddefinitionofthelandfootprintexistssofar’(Giljumetal.,2013:9).


footprint.There,isstilltheacknowledgmentofinternationalorganizationsoftheresearchdoneunderLF

and LUF (Steen-Olsenet al., 2012;Weinzettel,Hertwich, Peters, Steen-Olsen,&Galli, 2013) but not a

prevalentutilization(UNEP,2010:104).

In2004,EFwasusedasa(1)measureofenvironmentalsustainabilityofactions(UNEP,2004),

whileintheUN-DESA(2012)document‘Sustainablelanduseforthe21stcentury’,EFisappliedtoaccess

the(2)discrepancybetweenthebiologicalcapacityoflandandseaareatoproduceproducts(food,fiber,

timber, energy), to absorb wastes and provide to space for infrastructure, and the need for these

ecosystemservices15byaspecificpopulation.Furthermore,itismentionedtherecentattempttobuild

models that better access earth’s capacity to generate products and to determine more accurately

populationconsumption.EFisstatedas(3)partoftheecologicalmodelsusedtobuildlandandland-use

scenarios.

Inconclusion,UNpolicydocumentsuseWFaspreferentialmeansforaccountingfortheuseof

waterresources,maytheybeproducts,nationsorcompanies.Thesituationisfairlydifferentinthecase

of land and land use, since LF is barely mentioned in UNEP’s documents. Instead, there is a wider

applicationofEFwhenlandresourceistobequantified.Suchchoicehasrelevantconsequencesforthe

EFisarathercontroversialmethodseverelyquestionedbyscientists.RegardlessofthepresenceofWF

and EF in the mentioned policy documents, there is no real contextualization of the footprint, in

connectiontoresourcejusticechallenges.Thedocumentsshownofactualinterconnectionbetweenthe

methodandpossiblesolutionsforconcreteresourcedilemmas(e.g.limitedresourceaccesstoqualityof

childrenindevelopingcountries).ThelimitednatureoftheuseoffootprintinEJdebateoccurringinUN

policydocumentsdecreasesthepotentialsignificanceoffootprintsinpressingresourceissues.

IV-NORMATIVEIMPLICATIONSOFUSINGFOOTPRINTS

Theapplicationofafootprinttoastudyofaresource, impactoremission,createsaninherent

environmentalaccountabilitythatwillbediscussedindetail.Theresponsibilityassignmentdoesnotdiffer

15FollowingUNEPsdefinition,EcosystemServices‘arethebenefitspeopleobtainfromecosystems.Theseincludeprovisioningservices such as food and water; regulating services such as flood and disease control; cultural services such as spiritual,recreational,andculturalbenefits;andsupportingservices,suchasnutrientcycling,thatmaintaintheconditionsforlifeonEarth’(UNEP,s.d.-a).


whenconsideringdifferentresources,emissionsorimpacts.Consequently,itwillbediscussedingeneric

terms.

Furthermore,thechoiceofaccountingmethodwillcreatenormativeimplicationsfortheseveral

agentsinvolved.Moraltensionsandquestionswillarisewhentheseagentsareactorsindifferentcontexts.

SuchdilemmasareparticularlyrelevantforscientistsandpolicymakersinthecontextofEJ.

IV.1-The‘responsibility’dilemma

Footprint is neither a morally neutral method of accounting resource use (emissions and/or

impacts),norisitusedimpartiallyinpolicy.Thissectionwillbededicatedtoexposehowfootprintsassign

tacitresponsibilitytocertainagentsandthejusticeimplicationsofsuch.

IV.1.1-Producersasthe‘scapegoats’

Chronologically, footprint by production-based accounting footprintwas the first to appear in

literature. The sole consideration of the use (emissions and/or impacts) coming directly from the

productionofgoodsandservicesisanexpeditemannertoaddressenvironmentalaccountability.

Researchdevelopmentonamoreglobalscalemadesomescholarsthinkthatconsumption-based

accounting was enough to describe the ‘real’ situation. As mentioned before, this type of footprint

accounts for uses (impacts and/or emissions) that occur directly during the operations but not in the

supplychain. Inconsequence,authorsand internationalorganizationshavebeenquittingthismethod.

Still,production-basedaccountingfootprintisstillusedandevenpreferredbybusinessactors(Jardine,

2009).

Inscientificliterature,theterm‘responsibility’firstbecameassociatedwithfootprintthroughthe

calculationofCO2emissions(Proops,Faber,Wagenhals,&CO,1993).Untilnow,thepreponderanceof

researcharoundit,stillstayswithinthecarbonaccounting.Lenzen,Murray,Sack,andWiedmann(2007)

offer a good overview of the evolution of themethods that attribute responsibility in environmental

research,astheauthorsgobeyondGHGemissions(inthiscase,theyconsiderEF).

In general terms, production-based accounting allocates the responsibility of use (emissions

and/orimpacts)totheagentthatoriginatesenergy,goodsorservices,inotherwords,exclusivelytothe

producer.TheapproachedwassanctionedbyKyotoProtocol(forCO2)sincethenitwasbelievedthatthe

mostsignificantoriginoftheproblemwascomingfromtheenergyproductionsector.Eachyear,every


nation reports their GHG emissions to United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

(UNFCCC)undertheproduction-basedaccountingapproach(IPCC,2006;UNFCCC,2004).

Severalstudies,especiallyduringthelate90’searly2000’s,followedthislineofreasoning.(Heil&

Wodon, 1997; La Rovere, de Macedo, & Baumert, 2002) The research was mainly related to the

responsibility of producers for their waste and to nations’ responsibility for GHG emissions (Mayers,

France,&Cowell,2005).

However, perceived limitations to this approach became more salient as research forwarded

towardstheanalysisofamorecompleteglobaltradescenario.

Inanattempttomakethesystemofanalysisclosertoreality,globalizationandglobaltradewere

incorporatedinthemethodandconsumptionofgoodsandresourcesbecamepartofthissystem.This

intermediatestepwasconsiderednotenoughtocorrectlydescribethedriversofenvironmentalimpacts

(Serrano & Dietzenbacher, 2010). The perception of the intricacy of value chains and markets, in

combinationwiththedifficulties inestablishingeachcontributionofeachprocessorstepinthevalue-

chain,originatedacommonquestforamoreinclusiveprocessbutalsoafairerone16.

‘Thescientificcommunityshouldthusdrawmoreattentiontotheneedforafairaccountingmethod[…]which(also)assignsresponsibility’(Bastianonietal.,2004:254-5).

Partofthequestforfairnesswasthoughttobethedevelopmentofamethodthatwouldaddress

resourceuseand/oremissionsinalltheprocessesandchainsrelated.Soon,itwasconsideredthatonly

productiondoesnotaccountforthegoods/services/impactsgeneratedin(global)trade.

Sincetheproductionprincipledoesnotdistinguishbetweenexportanddomesticconsumption,it

madeverydifficultforsomecountriestoachievetheirGHGtargets(Munksgaard&Pedersen,2001).

Furthermore,thephenomenonknownas‘carbonleakage’17putsinquestiontheactualpossibility

ofreachingtheglobalinternationaltargets(Eichner&Pethig,2011;Reinaud,2008).Atthesametime,the

waydevelopedcountries chose tomeet theagreed levelswas challenged (Paltsev,2001), aspolluting

and/orresourceintensiveindustries(apparently)tendtomovefromthesestricterenvironmentalpolicy

16Asmentionedbefore,researchonthisbehalfhasbeenintenseandessentiallycentredongreenhousegases(GHG).CarbonfootprintisthemostpopularmethodforaccountingGHG,andinconsequence,theresearchon‘fair’accountingissofarcentredoncarbon.ItisimportanttomentionthepressingroleofinternationalpolicytreatiesoncarbonsuchasKyotoProtocol.17‘Carbonleakageisthetermoftenusedtodescribethesituationthatmayoccurif,forreasonsofcostsrelatedtoclimatepolicies,businessesweretotransferproductiontoothercountrieswhichhavelaxerconstraintsongreenhousegasemissions.Thiscouldlead to an increase in their total emissions. The risk of carbon leakagemay be higher in certain energy-intensive industries’(EuropeanComission,2016).


countriestowardsdevelopingnations.Similarconcernsalsoexistregardinghowdevelopingcountriescan

and/orshouldcontributetothecommonefforttomeetglobaltargets(Weber,Peters,Guan,&Hubacek,

2008).

In response to these fairness concerns,andespeciallydue to thenecessityofnationsmeeting

international agreed CO2 mitigation targets, other perspectives gained terrain at the expense of

production-basedaccounting.

There are other fairness ‘challenges’ to production-based accounting footprint that are not

mentionedinthescientificliteratureandyetarequitesignificant.Forexample,byusingsuchapproach,

thereistheunderlyingassumptionthatmanufactureshavethe(scientificand/ortechnologic)possibility

toimprovetheirprocessesandapplysuch‘greener’productionmethodsatarelevantscale.Meanwhile,

thismusttheaccomplisheswhilesatisfyingagrowingneedforproductsandservices.Suchassumption

disregardsthechallengesintechnologytransferbetweennationsandindustries.Thisparticularlyacutein

developingcountries.

Embedded inproduction-basedaccounting approach there is the assumption that there is the

possibility of increasing (resource and/or energy) efficiency. However, in many cases (e.g. steel), the

technological limit ispractically reached (Milford,Pauliuk,Allwood,&Müller,2013)whichproves that

suchtechnologicoptimismisexcessive.

Anotherexampleofresponsibility‘shifting’consists,atnationlevel,istheloweringofproduction-

basedaccountingfootprintbyofthedelocalizationofresourceintensiveandstrongenvironmentalimpact

industries fromdeveloped todevelopingnations (Smarzynska&Wei, 2001) (also knownas ‘pollution’

leakage)andthenegativelocalandregionalsocial(Pickles&Smith,2010),andeconomiceffects(Dunford,

Dunford,Barbu,&Liu,2013)onbothsides.

Inconclusion,thereareseveralassumptionsthathinderproduction-basedaccountingintermsof

beinga justaccountingapproach.Themainadvantageofthisfootprintcalculation istheattributionof

responsibilitytoacountry,andbyextensiontoaspecificgovernment.Sincenationsaregoverned(some

democratically)byapoliticalelite,thereisaco-responsibilizationbetweentheeliteandthecitizenstoact

inaccordancetotheoutcomesofenvironmentalresearch.


IV.1.2-Thenewculprit:Consumers’responsibilityforstateoftheenvironment

Consumption-basedaccountingiswhatthemajorityofauthorsconsidertobethecorrectwayto

calculatea footprint.However, inthispaper,wewilldifferentiatebothwaysofcalculatinga footprint,

sincetherearestillorganizationsthatuseaproduction-basedaccountingmethod.

Consumption-based accounting footprint is sustained under the principle that consumers are

ultimatelyresponsiblefortheuseofresources(emissionsand/orimpacts)comingfromgoods,services

and energy production. This includes the goods, services and energy imported from outside national

bordersandconsumedineachcountry(Munksgaard&Pedersen,2001).

The perspective is in fine tune with life cycle perspective, as it assumes a full consumer’s

responsibilityoveralltheemissions,usesandimpactsofthe(whole)valuechain.Organizationssuchas

NationalFootprintAccounts (NFA)orGlobalFootprintNetwork(GlobalFootprintNetwork,2016b)use

suchaccountingmethod18.

Specialized literature,both insustainability indicators (Høyer&Holden,2003;Monfredaetal.,

2004) and in sustainability in general (Eden, 1993;Montgomery& Stone, 2009), assume, to a greater

extent,thattheconsumeristhekeyfactor.Consequently,therearerelevantfairnessimplicationsinusing

consumption-basedaccounting.

‘[If]TheGHGinventory,(wouldbe)carriedoutonthebasisoftheEcologicalFootprintapproach,wouldasaresultassignalowerlevelofGHGemissionstodevelopingcountriesandahigherleveltodevelopedones.ThistypeofaccountingwouldbefairerbecauseitwouldmakefinaluserspaytheGHG‘‘bill’’,butitwouldlowertheincentivefordevelopingcountriestocreatecleanerandmoreefficientproductionprocesses.Inanycase,thissolutionwouldavoidtheproblemofhavingtotransferproductionfromcountrieswithlimitedemissionstowardsdevelopingcountries(withalmostnolimitonemissions(Bastianonietal.,2004:255).

AspointedoutbyBastianonietal. (2004),accountingwithconsumption-basedapproachhasa

doubleeffect:producersandnationsarenotincentivizedtoreducetheirfootprint,whileitpresupposes

thatconsumerswillprefertheproductswith lower impacts, resourceuseand/emissions.Still it isnot

giventhatconsumerswouldchoosetobe‘greener’.

‘However,withoutadequateincentivesorpolicies,consumersarenotlikelytobesensitivewithrespecttotheirenvironmentalresponsibilities,havinginfactnoconsumptionlimits’(Bastianonietal.,2004:255).

18 In thecaseof landaccountingbeing translated inecological footprint there isonly thepossibilityofaConsumption-basedaccounting,sinceEFisbasedontheactualconsumptionofgoodsbyacountry’sinhabitants.WhenaproductorserviceisproducedincountryAandusedincountryB,thelandrequirementisregisteredentirelyincountryB.Thus,theconsumerofafinalproductisthesole‘responsible’fortheecologicalimpactoftheprocesswhichhasgeneratedthatproduct.


Weargue that this perspective assumes that consumers (1) have access to the environmental

informationto‘better’choose,(2)thattheyunderstandsuchinformation,andtherefore(3)canactually

choosesince theremustbemarketavailability in termsofgreener’productsand/or (4) theyhave the

buyingpowertodoso.Inaddition,thereisadisregardforindividualfactorslike(5)personalindecision

abouttrade-offsbetweenresources,impactsand/oremissions.

All of the above mentioned pre-requisites for a shift towards ‘greener’ consumption are

particularly difficult to come by in developing countries (e.g. price and availability constraints).

Furthermore, even in developednations, there are some caseswere environmental education and/or

environmentalconsciousnessisnotyetsufficientlydeveloped(Franzen&Meyer,2010;Palmer,Suggate,

Bajd,&Tsaliki,1998),soitmightbeunfairtocentertheresponsibilitysolelyontheindividual.

Moreover,consumption-basedaccounting(andfootprint)reliesonanunderlyingpresupposition

thatproductionis(mainlyorsolely)drivenbyconsumers,andtherefore,consumersultimatelyhavethe

capacitytobethe‘invisible’handthathasthepowertoshapemarketsandleadthemtofairerpaths.

Concludingfromliteratureanalysis,itispossibletostatethatthemajorityofauthorsagreeswith

theassumptionsabovementionedandbelieveconsumption-basedaccountingforthefootprinttobethe

best(andfairer)(Chico,Aldaya,&Garrido,2013;Hoekstra,2013;Jones,2005;Steen-Olsenetal.,2012).

Thegreatadvantageoftheapplicationofthisapproachistheresponsibilizationoftheindividual.

Theconsumercannotseehimselfapartoftheenvironmentalproblemsarisingfromitspersonalchoices.

In general,we argue that themost critical point in thismanichaeistic accounting approach to

environmentalresponsibilityforresourceuse(impactsandemissions),isthattherehasnotbeena‘true

discussion’amongthescientificcommunity(neitherwithstakeholders)abouttheprinciplesthatshould

presidetotheattributionofresponsibility.Thedominanteconomicperspectivethatconsidersconsumers

asdriversforeconomicdevelopment(Murphy,Shleifer,&Vishny,1989;Rosenstein-Rodan,1943),helps

explainingwhyconsumption-basedaccountinghasthemajorityofscientificsupporters.Lastly,itisworth

mentioningthatthereislittletonoreflectionaboutthejusticeimplicationsfornations,individualsand

institutions of these seemingly value ‘neutral’ approaches to environmental accounting. The situation

worsensincaseofvitalresourcessuchaswaterorland,whichhaveamyriadofstakeholdersinvolved,

andyettheresponsibility,inthismethod,canonlyhaveoneoftwofaces.


IV.2-Agencyandaccountabilityinfootprintmethod

In the previous section, we have discussed agents that can be accountable for environmental

responsibility,inaccordancetothetypeofapproachchosentoperformanenvironmentalassessmentvia

footprint.

Fig.1representsthetwoagentsthatcanbeaccountableforenvironmentalimpacts,resourceuse

oremissions,ifafootprintisusedasenvironmentalindicator.

Fig.1–Representationofenvironmentalresponsibilityattributioninthefootprintmethod.

Due to the fact that footprint information provides guidance for policy and decision making

processes,itcreatesotherdimensionsofresponsibilitybesidesenvironmentalaccountability.Oneofthem

is the responsibility for choosing the accounting method when using footprint as an environmental

indicator.

Inasimplisticperspective,thescientististhe(only)agentresponsibleforthechoiceofthefootprint

accounting method as any scientist does when using tools in his/her research. However, in specific

situations, such as performing footprint for the reports to United Nations Framework Convention on

ClimateChange(UNFCCC),thescientistcannotactuallychoosethefootprintaccountingmethodhe/she

believestobethebest(andfairer).UNFCCCregulationdictatesitmustbeproduction-basedaccounting

footprint.Nevertheless,ingeneral,thescientistseemstohavetheopportunitytochoosetheapproach

he/sheseemsfittoperformfootprint.

As previously mentioned, it is considered by the majority of the scientific community that

consumption-based accounting for footprint is the only right method because it includes all the

contributionsofalltheagentsinvolvedinprocess(life-cycleperspective).Inconsonancewiththisidea,

formalguidelineshavebeensettoperform(carbon)footprint(ISO/TS14067:2013).Thisstandarddictates

the application of the life-cycle perspective to the accounting, in other words, it directs footprint to

consumption-basedaccounting. It isworth referring that there isnoobligation to follow this standard

thoughtheintentionofanystandardisageneralapplicationofitsrecommendations.


Despitethe(attempted)standardizationoffootprintprocess,itisstilluptothescientistand/orthe

institutionwherehe/she is integrated todecidewhich approach to take. This level of responsibility is

usuallynotreflecteduponbythescientificcommunityasitistakenforgrantedthescientificsupremacy

of one approach (consumption-based) over the other one (production-based). The dismissal of the

possibilityofapproachchoice,(apparently)reducestheresponsibilityofthescientist.However,webelieve

thisnottobethecase.Wearguethatitisactuallytheopposite.Thefactthatinternationalinstitutions

recognizeproduction-basedaccountingforfootprints(speciallyinregardtowater,andalsotocarbon),

canbetranslatedinacquiesceoftheexistenceofarealitythatcannotbecapturedjustbyoneapproach.

Wefurtherclaimthatthescientistisnotaloneinthechoiceoftheaccountabilityapproach,andin

theend,oftheagentto‘blame’forresourceuse(impactsand/oremissions).Webelievethatpoliticians

andpoliticalinstitutionsaresecondarilyresponsiblefortheassignmentofenvironmentalresponsibility.

Thoughtheyareinfluencedbythescientists,thatworkforthemorincollaborationwith,throughreports

andadvice,theycannotbeexemptedfromthisresponsibility,especiallybecausetheyaretheagentswith

governingresponsibility.Inaddition,theyaretheconnectionnodetotherestofsociety.

Fig.2showstheagentsinvolvedinchoiceofaccountingapproachtoapplytoafootprintprocess

whenassessingresourceuse(emissionsand/orimpacts).

Fig.2–Representationoftheagentsinvolvedinchoiceofthefootprintaccountabilityapproach(production-basedorconsumption-basedaccounting).

Thereisathirddimensionofresponsibilityrelatedtothecollectiveorindividualnatureofeachof

theaboveagents.Thepluralnatureofcertainsettings(nations,institutions,companies)dictatesshared

(scientificandnormative)believesthatcanbeatoddswithindividualperspectives.Ifthathappens,each


agentmayharborquestionsandconcernsaboutthewayfootprintsshouldbecalculated,whattheyare

usedforandhowtoactuponitsinformation.

Forexample, contemplatingapersonaldimension,WF canbe calculatedvia awater footprint

calculator19,providingMrs.Xwiththeinformationaboutherwateruse.Withsuchinformation,shemight

decide,forinstances,toshortenhershowers.Mrs.XcanalsobeinterestedinknowingtheWFofUniversity

Z,wheresheworksastherectorandeven,ofthecountrywhereshelives.Bothcollectiveentities(country,

university)compromisedthemselvestowardscertainsustainabilitygoals,sopreciseactionsneedtobe

takensotoaccomplish them.Nevertheless, severalquestionstill remainpoorlyanswered: fromwhich

level(footprintvalue)istheactionneededandwhatarethebeststrategies?

This multidimensional characteristic of footprint brings tensions and moral dilemmas to the

decision making process of an agent when acting in each context. The decision can be particularly

impaired,ifthetypeofaccountingbased(production-basedaccountingfootprintorconsumption-based

accountingF)isnotmadeclear.Mrs.X,whilerectorofUniversityZcanfaceproblemsinjustifyingactions

toreduceWFbecausetheinstitutioncanbeviewedasbothend-user(consumer)aswellasintermediate

agent,withthestudents(andothersenjoyingtheservicesoftheuniversity)beingaccountableforitsWF,

asendusers.Andmoreover,ifWFofUniversityZweretobedividedbyeachenduser,thentherelevance

ofthisinstitutionfortheeffortinreducingwaterconsumptionmightbenegligible.SothedilemmaofMrs.

X,asrectorofUniversityZ,ishowtoactuponthisinformation?Shouldshesetwaterusetargetsforher

institution?Shouldtheybe inconsonancewiththeuniversity footprintand/orwiththenationalwater

footprint?Howtotransmitand justifyanyornoactiontotheuniversitycouncilwithsuch information

disparity?

Thepersonalmoralperspectiveoftheindividualmightdictatethat,despitetherelativeweightofa

contributiontotheenvironmentalproblem,thereistheobligationof,inanycase(personal,institutional

ornational)tolowerWF.However,inaninstitutionalperspective,theinvestmentinloweringWFmustbe

worthofaninvestment,i.e.beeconomicallyjustifiable.Forexample,theuniversityrector,Mrs.X,needs

tojustifytotheboardofadministration,theinvestmentintechnologiestolowertheinstitution’sWF,after

an environmental audit that established that theirWFwas low (the accounting approach divided the

19Forexample,NationalGeographichasavailableatitswebsiteaWaterfootprintcalculator,whereeachcitizencandetermineitswaterfootprint.Availableathttp://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/freshwater/change-the-course/water-footprint-calculator/.


responsibilitybyallend-consumers).Regardlessofthevaluebeing low,whencomparedtoothers,she

believesthatdecreasingWFisalwaystherightoptiontotake.

Thepointofthisexampleistoshowthatthechoiceofaccountingmethodforthefootprintbrings

responsibility dilemmas for the agents involved as individuals (general citizens, scientists, politicians).

Normativechoicestakeninisolationmaynotholdwhentheagentsarepartofcollectiveentities,which

havedifferentrationales.Notmakingcleartheapproachusedinthecalculationofthefootprint,hinders

thefreedomofactionchoicebycreatingoversimplifiedperspectivesofanenvironmentalproblem.

VII-DISCUSSIONANDCONCLUSIONS

OneofthemostdebatedissuesinEJliterature,inregardtoresources,istheinequalityofaccess

andusebetweensocialgroups(Holifield,Porter,&Walker,2009).Suchtopicsareingreatconsonance

withtheUNpolicyreports.Theconcernabouttheresponsibilityin(resource)consumption(Micheletti&

Stolle,2007)isinmanycasesdirectlyrelatedtothementionedinequality.Tomakeclearsuchdisparities

itisvitaltoaccountandassessthedifferentiatedaccessanduse.Inordertodoso,footprintmethodseems

areasonablechoice.

Landuse,waterandecologicalfootprintsarepresentedasnecessaryinstrumentstodepictseveral

variablesthatinfluenceresourceavailabilityanddistribution,suchasgeographicalpatternsofresource

use, ‘greener’productsorservices(e.g. throughgreen labeling),andhowthemarket (maybethrough

producers or consumers) influences resource availability. In the case of water assessment, there is a

generalconsensusbetweenscientistsandpolicymakers.Thepreferredscientificapproachestofootprint

andthepoliticalrecommendedpathstocalculateWFaresimilar.However,differentpoliticalinstitutions

(e.g.UNandEU)havedifferentguidelinestocalculatespecificWFs.Incontrast,onlandaccounting,the

recommendfootprinttype isnotunanimous.ScientificandpoliticaldocumentssuggestLF,LUFandEF

accordingtothespecificaimoftheresearchoroftheanalyzedimpact.Thepolysemyaroundfootprint

accountingforwaterandlandresourcesmakesimperativeapropercontextualizationoftheresults.Still,

thisprocedureisnotthenorm,neitherinscientificnorpoliticaldiscourses.

Interestingly, and so far, theuseof footprintmethod isuncommonwhenaddressingEJ issues

outside of international policy documents.Usually, the authors prefer to create indicators (Pearsall&

Pierce, 2010; Todd&Zografos, 2005)or useothermeansof accounting (Cutter,Holm,&Clark, 1996;


Walker, 2009) to demonstrate inequalities or disparities in accessibility and/or use of resources. This

situationisatoddswiththeUNenvironmentalpoliticaldiscoursewhichrepeatedlyadvocatesforglobal

andcomparablemeansofresourcemeasure.Theadoptionof(case-)specificindicatorsandaccounting

methods prevents study comparison. It hampers a global resource assessment in relation to specific

populationsorsocialgroups.

There areother relevant normative implications in using footprint asmeansof environmental

assessmentthathavebeenfairlydisregarded.Thissituationoccurs,forexamplewhentheenvironmental

indicatorispartofthepoliticaldecisionmakingprocess,asverifiedbytheanalysisofUNpolicydocuments.

Footprintaccounting isnotdone ‘impartially’, inasensethat themethodattributesaresponsibility to

producersorconsumersinaveiledway,asinmanycases,thetypeofaccountingbaseapproachisnot

plainlyclear.Itispossibletoregisterthislackofprecisionincommonapplicationsforresourcefootprints,

suchasinthewebpageof‘EcologicalFootprintQuiz’fromEarthDayNetwork(EarthDayNetwork,2016).

Thewebsite does not state clearly which accountingmeasure is used to calculate the environmental

indicator.

Theattributionofresponsibilityforresourceuse(emissionsand/orimpacts)inaproduction-based

footprinthasapparently fueledadverseenvironmentalconsequencessuchas ‘carbon leakage’andthe

delocalizationtowardsdevelopingcountriesofindustriesthatareenergyandresourceintensive.Besides

thesenegativeeffects,thisapproachingfavorsadichotomicviewofsustainability.

It furthers the negotiating gap between north-south countries, while contributing to the

developed-developingcountries’pingpongaboutwhoistoblameforenvironmentalproblems,andhow

muchshouldbedonetoachieveemissionsandresourcequotas.Theuseofproduction-basedfootprintas

(scientificand)argumentativeweaponinthequestofafair(er)globalenvironmentalpolicybringsother

problematicissues.The‘polluterpays’principle(e.g.carbontax),whichisbasedinproductionperspective,

seemsreasonablycorrectsinceitisa(monetary)responsibilizationoftheproducerforanenvironmental

problem.However,thismeasurecanbacklashinseveralways.Thoughitcallsfortechnologicalinvestment

bynationsandcompanies,itmightalsoputtheinvestmentburdeninthefinalconsumer,viaincreasein

thefinalpriceofgoods.Itmightcreateadditionalimpedimentsforexportationscomingfromimpoverisher

countries as their products would be pricier when compared with others coming from nations and

industrieswithgreenerproductionprocesses.


Using consumption-based footprint is not without its limitations and normative implications

either, particularly when applied to the political discourse. The attribution of responsibility to the

consumertipsthepowerbalancetowardstheagentswithlesscapacitytoexerciseinfluence(individual

citizens).Thereareamongtheconsumers,companiesandinstitutionsthatneedproductsandservicesto

generate their own goods (midpoint consumers). Nevertheless, in the particular case of these

organizations,theycanfurtherdissipatetheirresponsibilitybycalculatingthefootprintoftheirgoods,in

relationtofinalconsumer(individualcitizens).

Consumption-basedaccountingisinitselfaproductofacertaineconomicperspectivethatlooks

attheconsumerasthekeydriverforproduction.Iftheconsumerisregardedasthebiggestbeneficiaryof

(economic)development,thenitisalsotheoriginoftheenvironmentalproblemsandthenaturaltarget

foraccountability.Producers,andconsequentiallynations, loose the (main) responsibility for fostering

changetowardssustainability.Theweakeningofgovernmentalpowertorulenationaleconomies,which

comesassociatedwiththeglobalizationmovement,hasbeenapowerfulallyinshiftingtheenvironmental

responsibilitytowardsthe(end)consumers.

Besidesconsumer-producerresponsibilitytension,footprintestablishesotherequallyimportant

dimensionsofresponsibility.Thepositioningoftheagentinindividualorcollectivecontextsdetermines

specificreasoningmodesthatcanharborethicaldilemmas.AsexemplifiedbyMrs.Xplight,bothpersonal

andpoliticaldecisionmakingprocessescanbehinderedbythelackofclarityconcerningtheaccounting

methodusedtocalculatethefootprint,whichis,inmanycases,the(scientific)basisforthedecision.The

situation worsens because footprints (with the exception of EF) do not give guidance to what is the

threshold from which remedial actions are required. Furthermore, the moral standards (e.g.

consequentialist,deontological)appliedtothecharacteroftheobligation,originatedfromtheattribution

of responsibility, might conflict when applied in singular or collective contexts. The case becomes

particularlychallengingwhenexternaljustificationforactionisrequired.

Weconclude,that(resource)footprintsarepowerfulmethodstoassessenvironmentalresources,

andconsequentlybehelpfulelementsinenvironmentaljusticedebate.However,thisquantifiedvisionof

sustainabilityharborsnormativeimplicationsanddilemmasthatshouldbemadeclearinthescientificand

politicaldiscourses.Failingindoingsowillfurthermaintainandintensifydisputesaroundthebestway

towardsafair(er)pathtoachievewaterandlandsustainability.


REFERENCES

Agarwal,B.(1994).Afieldofone'sown:GenderandlandrightsinSouthAsia(Vol.58):CambridgeUniversityPress.Arto,I.,Genty,A.,Rueda-Cantuche,J.M.,Villanueva,A.,&Andreoni,V.(2012).Globalresourcesuseandpollution,

volume 1: production, consumption and trade (1995-2008). Publication Office of the European Union,Luxembourg.

Bastianoni,S.,Pulselli,F.M.,&Tiezzi,E.(2004).Theproblemofassigningresponsibilityforgreenhousegasemissions.EcologicalEconomics,49(3),253-257.

Beatley,T.(1991).Asetofethicalprinciplestoguidelandusepolicy.LandUsePolicy,8(1),3-8.Bilsborrow,R.E.,&Ogendo,H.(1992).Population-drivenchangesinlanduseindevelopingcountries.Ambio,21(1),

37-45.Cazcarro,I.,Pac,R.D.,&Sánchez-Chóliz,J.(2010).WaterconsumptionbasedonadisaggregatedSocialAccounting

MatrixofHuesca(Spain).JournalofIndustrialEcology,14(3),496-511.Chico,D.,Aldaya,M.M.,&Garrido,A. (2013).Awater footprint assessmentof apair of jeans: the influenceof

agriculturalpoliciesonthesustainabilityofconsumerproducts.JournalofCleanerProduction,57,238-248.Cutter, S. L.,Holm,D.,&Clark, L. (1996). The role of geographic scale inmonitoring environmental justice.Risk

Analysis,16(4),517-526.Dunford,M.,Dunford,R.,Barbu,M.,&Liu,W.(2013).Globalisation,costcompetitivenessandinternationaltrade:

TheevolutionoftheItaliantextileandclothing industriesandthegrowthoftradewithChina.EuropeanUrbanandRegionalStudies,0969776413498763.

EarthDayNetwork.(2016).EcologicalFootprintQuizRetrievedfromhttp://www.earthday.org/take-action/footprint-calculator/?gclid=CJTyu6ywkc0CFSLicgodAeoLlQ

Eden,S.E.(1993).Individualenvironmentalresponsibilityanditsroleinpublicenvironmentalism.EnvironmentandPlanningA,25(12),1743-1758.

Eichner, T., & Pethig, R. (2011). Carbon leakage, the green paradox, and perfect futuremarkets*. InternationalEconomicReview,52(3),767-805.

European Comission. (2016). Carbon leakage. Retrieved fromhttp://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/cap/leakage/index_en.htm

FAO,J.(2012).Globalforestland-usechange1990–2005,byLindquistEJ,D’AnnunzioR,GerrandA,MacDickenK,AchardF,BeuchleR,BrinkA,EvaHD,MayauxP,San-Miguel-AyanzJ,StibigHJ.FAOForestryPaper,(169).

Foley,J.A.,DeFries,R.,Asner,G.P.,Barford,C.,Bonan,G.,Carpenter,S.R.,Gibbs,H.K.(2005).Globalconsequencesoflanduse.science,309(5734),570-574.

Franzen,A.,&Meyer,R.(2010).Environmentalattitudesincross-nationalperspective:AmultilevelanalysisoftheISSP1993and2000.EuropeanSociologicalReview,26(2),219-234.

Fredericks, S. E. (2012). Justice in sustainability indicators and indexes. International Journal of SustainableDevelopment&WorldEcology,19(6),490-499.

Giljum,S.,Lutter,S.,Bruckner,M.,&Aparcana,S.(2013).State-Of-PlayOfNationalConsumption-BasedIndicators:A reviewandevaluationof availablemethodsanddata to calculate footprint-type (consumption-based)indicators for materials, water, land and carbon. Retrieved fromhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/resource_efficiency/pdf/FootRev_Report.pdf

Global FootprintNetwork. (2016a). Footprint Basics Retrieved fromhttp://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/footprint_basics_overview/

Global FootprintNetwork. (2016b). Methodology and resources. Retrieved fromhttp://www.footprintnetwork.org/pt/index.php/GFN/page/methodology/

Grace Communications Foudation. (2016). Water Footprint- Concepts and definitions Retrieved fromhttp://www.gracelinks.org/1336/water-footprint-concepts-and-definitions

Heil,M.T.,&Wodon,Q.T. (1997). Inequality inCO2emissionsbetweenpoorand richcountries.The JournalofEnvironment&Development,6(4),426-452.

Hoekstra,A.Y.(2013).Thewaterfootprintofmodernconsumersociety:Routledge.Holifield,R.,Porter,M.,&Walker,G.(2009).Introductionspacesofenvironmentaljustice:frameworksforcritical

engagement.Antipode,41(4),591-612.


Høyer,K.G.,&Holden,E. (2003).Householdconsumptionandecological footprints inNorway–doesurban formmatter?JournalofConsumerPolicy,26(3),327-349.

IntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange.(2006).2006IPCCguidelinesfornationalgreenhousegasinventories.IntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange.

Jardine,C.N.(2009).Calculatingthecarbondioxideemissionsofflights.FinalreportbytheEnvironmentalChangeInstitute.

Jones,C.M.(2005).ALifecycleAssessmentofUSHouseholdConsumption:TheMethodologyandInspirationBehindthe“ConsumerFootprintCalculator”.UniversityofCaliforniaInternationalandAreaStudies.

Kanemoto,K.,Lenzen,M.,Peters,G.P.,Moran,D.D.,&Geschke,A.(2011).Frameworksforcomparingemissionsassociatedwith production, consumption, and international trade.Environmental science& technology,46(1),172-179.

LaRovere,E.L.,deMacedo,L.V.,&Baumert,K.A.(2002).TheBrazilianproposalonrelativeresponsibilityforglobalwarming.BuildingontheKyotoProtocol:OptionsforProtectingtheClimate.Washington,DC:WRI.

Lambin,E.F.,&Meyfroidt,P.(2011).Globallandusechange,economicglobalization,andtheloominglandscarcity.ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofSciences,108(9),3465-3472.

Larsen,H.N.,&Hertwich,E.G.(2009).Thecaseforconsumption-basedaccountingofgreenhousegasemissionstopromote local climate action. Environmental Science & Policy, 12(7), 791-798.doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2009.07.010

Lenzen,M.,Murray,J.,Sack,F.,&Wiedmann,T.(2007).Sharedproducerandconsumerresponsibility—Theoryandpractice.EcologicalEconomics,61(1),27-42.

Lugschitz,B.,Bruckner,M.,&Giljum,S.(2011).Europe'sgloballanddemand.AstudyontheactuallandembodiedinEuropeanimportsandexportsofagriculturalandforestryproducts.Vienna:SustainableEuropeResearchInstitute.

Lutter,S.,Giljum,S.,Pfister,S.,Raptis,C.,Mutel,C.,&Mekonnen,M.(2014).CREEAD8.1:WaterCaseStudyReport.Retrievedfromwww.creea.eu,Vienna/Zurich/Twente

Macedo,M.N.,DeFries,R.S.,Morton,D.C.,Stickler,C.M.,Galford,G.L.,&Shimabukuro,Y.E.(2012).Decouplingof deforestation and soy production in the southernAmazon during the late 2000s.Proceedings of theNationalAcademyofSciences,109(4),1341-1346.

Mayers, C. K., France, C.M., & Cowell, S. J. (2005). Extended Producer Responsibility forWaste Electronics: AnExample of Printer Recycling in the United Kingdom. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 9(3), 169-189.doi:10.1162/1088198054821672

Meier,T.,Christen,O.,Semler,E.,Jahreis,G.,Voget-Kleschin,L.,Schrode,A.,&Artmann,M.(2014).Balancingvirtualland imports by a shift in the diet. Using a land balance approach to assess the sustainability of foodconsumption.Germanyasanexample.Appetite,74,20-34.

Meyer,I.T.,&Jacob,F.(2008).Networkdesign:OptimizingtheglobalproductionfootprintGlobalProduction(pp.140-190):Springer.

Micheletti,M.,&Stolle,D.(2007).Mobilizingconsumerstotakeresponsibilityforglobalsocialjustice.TheannalsoftheAmericanacademyofpoliticalandsocialscience,611(1),157-175.

Milford,R.L.,Pauliuk,S.,Allwood,J.M.,&Müller,D.B.(2013).TherolesofenergyandmaterialefficiencyinmeetingsteelindustryCO2targets.Environmentalscience&technology,47(7),3455-3462.

Monfreda, C.,Wackernagel,M., & Deumling, D. (2004). Establishing national natural capital accounts based ondetailedecologicalfootprintandbiologicalcapacityassessments.LandUsePolicy,21(3),231-246.

Montgomery,C.,&Stone,G.(2009).Revisitingconsumerenvironmentalresponsibility:Afivenationcross-culturalanalysis and comparison of consumer ecological opinions and behaviors. International Journal ofManagementandMarketingResearch,2(1),35-58.

Munksgaard,J.,&Pedersen,K.A.(2001).CO2accountsforopeneconomies:producerorconsumerresponsibility?EnergyPolicy,29(4),327-334.

Murphy,K.M.,Shleifer,A.,&Vishny,R.W.(1989).IndustrializationandtheBigPush.JournalofPoliticalEconomy,97(5),1003-1026.doi:doi:10.1086/261641

OECD.(2001).GlossaryofStatisticalTerms.Retrievedfromhttps://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=830Palmer, J. A., Suggate, J., Bajd, B., & Tsaliki, E. (1998). Significant influences on the development of adults’

environmentalawarenessintheUK,SloveniaandGreece.EnvironmentalEducationResearch,4(4),429-444.


Paltsev, S. V. (2001). The Kyoto Protocol: regional and sectoral contributions to the carbon leakage.The EnergyJournal,53-79.

Pearsall,H.,&Pierce, J. (2010).Urban sustainability andenvironmental justice: evaluating the linkages in publicplanning/policydiscourse.LocalEnvironment,15(6),569-580.

Peters,P.E.(2004).InequalityandsocialconflictoverlandinAfrica.JournalofAgrarianChange,4(3),269-314.Pickles, J., & Smith, A. (2010). Clothing workers after worker states: the consequences for work and labour of

outsourcing,nearshoringanddelocalizationinpostsocialistEurope.Handbookofemploymentandsociety:workingspace.Cheltenham:EdwardElgar,106-123.

Proops,J.,Faber,M.,Wagenhals,G.,&CO,R.(1993).Emissions:acomparativeinput–outputstudyforGermanyandtheUK:Springer

Rathmann,R.,Szklo,A.,&Schaeffer,R.(2010).Landusecompetitionforproductionoffoodandliquidbiofuels:Ananalysisoftheargumentsinthecurrentdebate.RenewableEnergy,35(1),14-22.

Reinaud, J. (2008). Issues behind competitiveness and carbon leakage. Focus on Heavy Industry. Paris: IEA. IEAInformationPaper,2.

Rosenstein-Rodan,P.N.(1943).ProblemsofIndustrialisationofEasternandSouth-EasternEurope.TheEconomicJournal,53(210/211),202-211.doi:10.2307/2226317

Salman,S.,&McInerney-Lankford,S.(2004).Thehumanrighttowater:Legalandpolicydimensions:Washington,DC:WorldBank.

Serrano,M.,&Dietzenbacher,E.(2010).Responsibilityandtradeemissionbalances:Anevaluationofapproaches.EcologicalEconomics,69(11),2224-2232.

Smarzynska,B.K.,&Wei,S.J.(2001).Pollutionhavensandforeigndirectinvestment:dirtysecretorpopularmyth?(No.w8465).Nationalbureauofeconomicresearch.

Steen-Olsen,K.,Weinzettel,J.,Cranston,G.,Ercin,A.E.,&Hertwich,E.G.(2012).Carbon,Land,andWaterFootprintAccounts for the European Union: Consumption, Production, and Displacements through InternationalTrade.Environmentalscience&technology,46(20),10883-10891.doi:10.1021/es301949t

Steinfeld,H.,Gerber,P.,Wassenaar,T.,Castel,V.,Rosales,M.,&DeHaan,C.(2006).Livestock'slongshadow:FAORome.

Todd,H.,&Zografos,C.(2005).Justicefortheenvironment:developingasetofindicatorsofenvironmentaljusticeforScotland.EnvironmentalValues,483-501.

UN-DESA. (2012). Sustainable land use for the 21st century. Retrieved fromhttps://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/1124landuse.pdf

UNEP. (2004). LandUseManagementAndSoilConservationPolicyOfUNEP:StrengthenedFunctionalApproach.RetrievedfromNairobi:http://www.unep.org/pdf/UNEP-strategy-land-soil-03-2004.pdf

UNEP.(2010).AssessingtheEnvironmentalImpactsofConsumptionandProduction:PriorityProductsandMaterials,AReportoftheWorkingGroupontheEnvironmentalImpactsofProductsandMaterialstotheInternationalPanel for Sustainable Resource Management. Retrieved fromhttp://www.greeningtheblue.org/sites/default/files/Assessing%20the%20environmental%20impacts%20of%20consumption%20and%20production.pdf

UNEP.(2014).AssessingGlobalLandUse:BalancingConsumptionwithSustainableSupply.AReportoftheWorkingGrouponLandandSoilsoftheInternationalResourcePanel.InS.H.BringezuS.,PengueW.,O´BrienM.,Garcia F., Sims R., Howarth R., Kauppi L., Swilling M., Herrick J. (Ed.). Retrieved fromhttp://www.unep.org/resourcepanel/Portals/24102/PDFs/Full_Report-Assessing_Global_Land_UseEnglish_%28PDF%29.pdf.

UNEP. (s.d.-a). Ecosystems and Their Services: Executive Summary. In Ecosystems and Human Well-being: AFramework for Assessment. Retrieved fromhttp://www.unep.org/maweb/documents/document.300.aspx.pdf

UNEP. (s.d.-b). Life Cycle Approaches and Indicators. Retrieved fromhttp://www.unep.org/resourceefficiency/Assessment/LifeCycleApproachesandIndicators/tabid/55531/Default.aspx#

UNEP. (s.d.-c). UNEP's Resource Efficiency Programme. Retrieved fromhttp://www.unep.org/resourceefficiency/Home/UNEPsResourceEfficiencyProgramme/tabid/55552/Default.aspx


UNESCO. (2003). WWDR1: Water for People, Water for Life. Retrieved fromhttp://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001297/129726e.pdf#page=576

UNESCO. (2006). WWDR2: Water, a Shared Responsibility. Retrieved fromhttp://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001454/145405E.pdf

UNESCO. (2009). WWDR3: Water in a Changing World. Retrieved fromhttp://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001819/181993e.pdf

UNESCO. (2012). WWDR 4: Managing Water under Uncertainty and Risk. Retrieved fromhttp://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002156/215644e.pdf

UNESCO. (2014a). WWDR 2014: Facing the Challenges. Retrieved fromhttp://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002257/225741E.pdf#page=153S

UNESCO. (2014b). WWDR 2014: Water and Energy. Retrieved fromhttp://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002257/225741E.pdf

UNESCO. (2015a). WWDR 2015: Facing the Challenges: Case Studies and Indicators. Retrieved fromhttp://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002321/232179E.pdf

UNESCO. (2015b). WWDR 2015: Water in a Sustainable World. Retrieved fromhttp://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002318/231823E.pdf

UNESCO. (2016a). Managing Water under Uncertainty and Risk- WWDR4. Retrieved fromhttp://www.unwater.org/publications/publications-detail/en/c/202715/

UNESCO. (2016b). WWDR1: Water for People, Water for Life. Retrieved fromhttp://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/water/wwap/wwdr/wwdr1-2003/

UNESCO. (2016c). WWDR 2016: Water and Jobs. Retrieved fromhttp://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002439/243938e.pdf

UNFCCC. (2004).Guidelines for thepreparationofnational communicationbyParties included inAnnex I to theConvention, Part I: UNFCCC reporting guidelines on annual inventories (following incorporation of theprovisionofdecision13/CP.9).Retrievedfromhttp://unfccc.int/resource/docs/cop9/06a01.pdf#page=31

UNWater.(2013).Anincreasingdemand.Retrievedfromhttp://www.unwater.org/water-cooperation-2013/water-cooperation/facts-and-figures/en/

UN Water. (2016). The World Water Development Report (WWDR). Retrieved fromhttp://www.unwater.org/publications/world-water-development-report/en/

Veisi, H., Liaghati, H., & Alipour, A. (2016). Developing an ethics-based approach to indicators of sustainableagricultureusinganalytichierarchyprocess(AHP).EcologicalIndicators,60,644-654.

VonWitzke,H.,&Noleppa,S.(2010).EUagriculturalproductionandtrade:Canmoreefficiencypreventincreasing‘land-grabbing’outsideofEurope?HumboldtUniversitätzuBerlin.

Wackernagel,M.,Onisto,L.,Bello,P.,CallejasLinares,A.,SusanaLópezFalfán,I.,MéndezGarcıa,J.,GuadalupeSuárezGuerrero,M.(1999).Nationalnaturalcapitalaccountingwiththeecologicalfootprintconcept.EcologicalEconomics,29(3),375-390.doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(98)90063-5

Walker,G. (2009).Beyonddistributionandproximity:exploringthemultiplespatialitiesofenvironmental justice.Antipode,41(4),614-636.

Water Footprint Network. (s.d.).What is awater footprint? Retrieved from http://waterfootprint.org/en/water-footprint/what-is-water-footprint/

Weber,C.L.,Peters,G.P.,Guan,D.,&Hubacek,K.(2008).ThecontributionofChineseexportstoclimatechange.EnergyPolicy,36(9),3572-3577.

Weinzettel, J., Hertwich, E. G., Peters, G. P., Steen-Olsen, K., & Galli, A. (2013). Affluence drives the globaldisplacement of land use. Global Environmental Change, 23(2), 433-438.doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.12.010

Wiedmann, T., & Barrett, J. (2010). A review of the ecological footprint indicator—perceptions and methods.Sustainability,2(6),1645-1693.

Worrell, R., & Appleby,M. C. (2000). Stewardship of natural resources: definition, ethical and practical aspects.JournalofAgriculturalandEnvironmentalEthics,12(3),263-277.

WRI,&WBCSD. (2004).TheGreenhouseGas Protocol: A CorporateAccounting andReporting Standard (RevisedEdition).Retrievedfromhttp://www.ghgprotocol.org/standards/corporate-standard


Würtenberger, L., Koellner, T., & Binder, C. R. (2006). Virtual land use and agricultural trade: Estimatingenvironmental and socio-economic impacts. Ecological Economics, 57(4), 679-697.doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.06.004

i Fig. 1 provides an overview of the different ways accounting for resource use: (1) production-oriented (the territorialperspective),(2)partialconsumptionbasedand(3)fullconsumptionbased(insomeliteratureconsideredasthecorrectwayofusingtheterm‘footprint’).Inthisillustration,overallresourceusecanbeobservedeithertoimports(directandindirect),thedomesticproductionsystemorfinaldemand(domesticconsumptionorexports).

Figure1:Theframeworkforconsumption-orientedversusproduction-orientedaccountingofresources.AdaptedfromGiljum,Lutter,Bruckner,andAparcana(2013).

ii‘Waterfootprintassessment(WFA)accountsforthedirectandindirectuseoffreshwaterinindustryWFAsapplytothesupplychainaswellastotheproductionprocess’(UNESCO,2015b:62).

who is to blame for the footprint: the producer, the...

Documents