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


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.


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.


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


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).


6/103

6


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


8/103

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


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.


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


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



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



13/103

13


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?


14/103

14


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?


15/103

15

5. Individual indicator reports

A. Headline 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


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


18/103

18


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


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


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



20/103

20


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


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.


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


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



23/103

23


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


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


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



25/103

25


Policy Question

Addressed




Indicator 3.2Development in Human Development Index for EEA countries and

developing countries


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


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


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



28/103

28


Policy Question

Addressed




Indicator 3.3 Developments in Income Inequality: Gini Index


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


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


Identification



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


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


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


Identification


4 World Resources Institute, EarthTrends Environmental Information (http://earthtrends.wri.org).


32/103

32

B1 Overall trends in European Consumption and

Production


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


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.


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



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


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


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


37/103

37


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


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.


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


Identification



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


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.


40/103

40

b) Agriculture, hunting, forestry and fishing:

c) Manufacturing:

d) Electricity, gas and water supply


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


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


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


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


Identification



44/103

44


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


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)


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


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



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


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


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


49/103

49

Generic Meta Data

Classification


Identification



50/103

50


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.


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

EIONET 2011 Indicators

Documents

Transcript of EIONET 2011 Indicators