project no.: 022793 forescene development of a

Project no.: 022793

FORESCENE

Development of a Forecasting Framework and Scenarios to Support the EU Sustainable

Development Strategy

Instrument: STREP

Thematic Priority 8.1: Policy-oriented research, scientific support to policies, integrat-

ing and strengthening the European Research Area

D.1.3 – Technical report

Description of problem areas, review of objectives and determination

of cross-cutting drivers

Submission date: July 2007

Start date of project: 1/12/2005 Duration: 30 months

Organisation name of lead contractor for this deliverable:

Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy

Revision: final

Project co-funded by the European Commission within the Sixth Framework Programme (2002-2006)

Dissemination Level

PU Public X

PP Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services)

RE Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services)

CO Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services)

FORESCENE D.1.3 – Technical report

Description of problem areas, review of objectives and determination of cross-cutting drivers

3

Description of problem areas,

review of objectives and

determination of cross-cutting drivers

Technical Report of Work Package 1

July 2007

Stefan Bringezu, Christian Radtke, Mathieu Saurat, Isabel van de Sand, Markus

Schüller

Roy Haines-Young, Marion Potschin Mats G E Svensson

Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy University of Nottingham, Centre for Environmental Management

Lund University, Centre for Sustainability Studies



5

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................ 11

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 14

2. THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK............................... 17

2.1. Natural Resources ............................................................................................................... 17

2.1.1. Resource use and waste: socio-industrial metabolism and material flow analysis ... 17

2.1.2. Water: water catchment studies .................................................................................... 20

2.1.3. Landscape, biodiversity and soils: land cover stocks and flows ................................. 21

2.2. Driving forces, activities and underlying factors ........................................................... 25

3. TOPIC: RESOURCE USE AND WASTE............................................................. 30

3.1. Introduction........................................................................................................................... 30

3.2. Main policy goals and targets............................................................................................ 30

3.3. Environmental pressures and material flows ................................................................. 32

3.3.1. Resource use.................................................................................................................. 32

3.3.2. Fossil fuels ...................................................................................................................... 34

3.3.3. Metals and industrial minerals ....................................................................................... 37

3.3.4. Construction minerals, excavation and dredging ......................................................... 41

3.3.5. Biomass .......................................................................................................................... 42

3.3.6. Waste .............................................................................................................................. 45

4. TOPIC: WATER AND WATER USE.................................................................... 48

4.1. Introduction........................................................................................................................... 48

4.2. Main policy goals and targets............................................................................................ 49

4.3. Water availability and main water use in European countries .................................... 51

4.4. Current threats ..................................................................................................................... 52

4.5. Water quality......................................................................................................................... 53

4.6. Climate change and water stress...................................................................................... 55

5. TOPIC: LANDSCAPE, BIODIVERSITY AND SOILS .......................................... 57

5.1. Introduction........................................................................................................................... 57

5.2. Landscape............................................................................................................................. 57

5.2.1. Main policy goals and targets ........................................................................................ 57

6

5.2.2. Overview of the environmental, economic and social problems related to landscape

60

5.3. Biodiversity........................................................................................................................... 62

5.3.1. Main policy goals and targets........................................................................................ 62

5.3.2. Overview of the environmental, economic and social problems related to biodiversity

65

5.4. Soils ....................................................................................................................................... 68

5.4.1. Main policy goals and targets........................................................................................ 68

5.4.2. Overview of the environmental, economic and social problems related to soils ....... 68

6. DERIVATION OF CROSS-CUTTING DRIVERS.................................................. 71

6.1. Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 71

6.2. Delineation of driving forces in the topic field of resource use and waste............... 75

6.3. Delineation of driving forces in the topic field of water and water use ..................... 92

6.4. Delineation of driving forces in the topic field of landscape, biodiversity and soils

104

6.5. Determination of cross-cutting driving forces ............................................................. 123

7. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................ 128

8. REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 130

9. ANNEX .............................................................................................................. 135



7

List of Figures

Figure 1: General overview of the rationale and the work structure behind WP 1

(determination of cross-cutting drivers of the pressures and impacts on three

environmental topics) .......................................................................................... 13

Figure 2: The Concept of Industrial Metabolism – 'What goes in must come out'........ 18

Figure 3: Economy wide material balance scheme (excluding air and water) ............. 20

Figure 4: Water and water catchment area as a dynamic usage system, and its

extracted amounts and major usages. ................................................................. 21

Figure 5: Flow accounts for land cover and the relationship between the concepts of

stocks and flows and fundamental questions about sustainable development ..... 23

Figure 6: The structure of land cover and land use accounts...................................... 24

Figure 7: Activities and underlying factors in the socio-industrial metabolism. ............ 28

Figure 8: Composition of aggregated resource consumption (Domestic Material

Consumption, DMC) in 2000 ............................................................................... 32

Figure 9: Composition of the domestic material consumption of the EU-15 in 2000.... 33

Figure 10: Total Material Requirement of the EU-15................................................... 33

Figure 11: Domestic material consumption associated with fossil fuels in the EU-15.. 35

Figure 12: Material flows associated with fossil fuels in EU-15 ................................... 36

Figure 13: Domestic material consumption associated with industrial minerals and

metal ores in the EU-15....................................................................................... 38

Figure 14: Material flows associated metals and industrial minerals in the EU-15....... 38

Figure 15: Domestic material consumption associated with metals in the EU-15........ 39

Figure 16: Material flows associated with metals in the EU-15.................................... 40

Figure 17: Material flows associated with construction minerals and excavation ........ 41

Figure 18: Domestic material consumption associated with biomass in the EU-15 ..... 43

Figure 19: Material flows associated with biomass ..................................................... 43

Figure 20: Composition of the TMR associated with biomass in the EU-15 ................ 44

Figure 21: Composition of waste streams (in mass) in Europe ................................... 47

Figure 22: Annual water availability per capita per country in 2001............................. 52

Figure 23: Number of flooding events in Europe, 1900-2000 ...................................... 53

Figure 24: Annual nitrogen load in selected regions and catchment ........................... 54

Figure 25: Current water availability in Europe, and under the LREM-E climate change

scenario............................................................................................................... 56

8

Figure 26: Linkage between Ecosystem Services and Human Well-being .................. 66

Figure 27: Global status of ecosystem services ......................................................... 67

Figure 28: Areas at risk from soil erosion in Europe.................................................... 69

Figure 29: Matrix of activities ...................................................................................... 72

Figure 30: Tree of underlying factors .......................................................................... 73

Figure 31: Gross fixed capital formation in EU-25, broken down per investment product

............................................................................................................................ 77

Figure 32: Physical Trade Balance of EU 15 .............................................................. 79

Figure 33: Evolution of the DMI intensity in EU-15 compared with Gross domestic..... 82

Figure 34: DMC per capita with respect to population density in some EU-15 countries

in 2000 ................................................................................................................ 87

Figure 35: The socio-industrial metabolic system applied to water, with the surrounding

DPSIR framework and its’ impact on the underlying factors................................. 93

Figure 36: General overview of the rationale and the work structure behind the results

of WP 1 (determination of cross-cutting drivers of the pressures and impacts on

three environmental topics) ............................................................................... 129



9

List of Tables

Table 1: The key policy areas and objectives identified by the Commission for halting

the loss of biodiversity by 2010............................................................................ 64

Table 2: Relevance assessment of ‘economic growth’................................................ 76

Table 3: Relevance assessment of ‘investment patterns’............................................ 78

Table 4: Relevance assessment of ‘globalisation’....................................................... 79

Table 5: Relevance assessment of ‘innovation’ .......................................................... 82

Table 6: Relevance assessment of ‘composition of material input’ ............................. 83

Table 7: Relevance assessment of ‘recycling’ ............................................................ 83

Table 8: Relevance assessment of ‘resource intensity’............................................... 84

Table 9: Relevance assessment of ‘food and drink’ .................................................... 85

Table 10: Relevance assessment of ‘housing’ ............................................................ 85

Table 11: Relevance assessment of ‘leisure’ .............................................................. 85

Table 12: Relevance assessment of ‘transport and communication’ ........................... 86

Table 13: Relevance assessment of ‘ageing society’.................................................. 86

Table 14: Relevance assessment of ‘settlement patterns’ .......................................... 87

Table 15: Relevance assessment of ‘population density’ ............................................ 88

Table 16: Relevance assessment of ‘climate change’................................................. 88

Table 17: Relevance assessment of ‘resource depletion’ ........................................... 89

Table 18: Relevance assessment of ‘natural catastrophes’ ........................................ 90

Table 19: Analysis of underlying drivers for resource use and waste.......................... 92

Table 20: Relevance assessment of ‘economic growth’.............................................. 95

Table 21: Relevance assessment of ‘globalisation’..................................................... 95

Table 22: Relevance assessment of ‘Investment patterns’ ......................................... 96

Table 23: Relevance assessment of ‘innovation’ ........................................................ 96

Table 24: Relevance assessment of ‘recycling’ .......................................................... 97

Table 25: Relevance assessment of ‘composition of material input’ ........................... 97

Table 26: Relevance assessment of ‘material intensity’ .............................................. 98

Table 27: Relevance assessment of ‘food and drink’ .................................................. 98

Table 28: Relevance assessment of ‘housing’ ............................................................ 99

Table 29: Relevance assessment of ‘leisure’ .............................................................. 99

Table 30: Relevance assessment of ‘transport and communication’ ......................... 100

Table 31: Relevance assessment of ‘population settlement’..................................... 100

10

Table 32: Relevance assessment of ‘population density’ .......................................... 101

Table 33: Relevance assessment of ‘climate change’............................................... 101

Table 34: Relevance assessment of ‘resource depletion’ ......................................... 102

Table 35: Relevance assessment of ‘natural catastrophes’....................................... 103

Table 36: Analysis of underlying drivers for water and water use.............................. 104

Table 37: Relevance assessment to economic growth ............................................. 107

Table 38: Relevance assessment to globalisation .................................................... 107

Table 39: Relevance assessment to investment patterns ......................................... 109

Table 40: Relevance assessment to innovation ........................................................ 110

Table 41: Relevance assessment to recycling .......................................................... 112

Table 42: Relevance assessment to composition of material input ........................... 112

Table 43: Relevance assessment to material intensity.............................................. 113

Table 44: Relevance assessment to food and drink.................................................. 114

Table 45: Relevance assessment to housing............................................................ 115

Table 46: Relevance assessment to leisure11 ........................................................... 115

Table 47: Relevance assessment to transport and communication........................... 116

Table 48: Relevance assessment to the ‘ageing society’ .......................................... 117

Table 49: Relevance assessment to settlement patterns .......................................... 117

Table 50: Relevance assessment to population density............................................ 118

Table 51: Relevance assessment to climate change ................................................ 119

Table 52: Relevance assessment to natural catastrophes ........................................ 120

Table 53: Relevance assessment to resource depletion ........................................... 121

Table 54: Analysis of underlying drivers for landscapes, biodiversity and soils ......... 122

Table 55: Analysis of underlying drivers for the three environmental topics (resource

use and waste, water and water use, and landscape, biodiversity and soils) ..... 125

Table 56: Underlying factors (Level 1 to 3) used for the relevance analysis .............. 126

Table 58: Results of the scoring method used to determine the cross-cutting drivers

and the most relevant activities and underlying factors ...................................... 127



11

E x e c u t i v e S u m m a r y

Sustainable development is a complex phenomenon which encompasses several di-

mensions (e.g. economic, social and environmental) and operates at different scales

both in time as well as in space. The complexity and multidimensionality of the issue

has given raise to the need for integrated approaches that can deal with such complex

issues. In recent years a number of projects have been initiated at the EU-level in the

field of Integrated Sustainability Analysis.

The aim of the FORESCENE project is to devise a forecasting framework and scenar-

ios to support the EU Sustainable Development Strategy. In doing so, it focuses on the

environmental areas of resource use and waste, water and water use, and landscape,

biodiversity and soils. Rather than focusing on each of the environmental themes sepa-

rately, the added value of the project is that it will determine cross-cutting drivers for

the three fields, thereby creating a multidimensional analytical framework based on

relationships and interactions.

This report presents the finding of work package one: description of problem areas,

review of objectives and determination of cross-cutting drivers. The results of this work

package integrate the work of a stakeholder workshop and serve as important building

blocks for the subsequent work packages (development of core elements for integrated

sustainability scenarios and of a BAU scenario).

In order to identify cross-cutting drivers for the three environmental areas two frame-

works were used as the basis on which the subsequent analysis was built: the concept

of socio-industrial metabolism and the EEA’s DPSIR framework. The combination of

these frameworks offered a comprehensive systems analysis tool, which allowed to

quantify the interaction between the anthroposphere and the environment (socio-

industrial metabolism) as well as to qualify the results of this interaction (DPSIR).

For the purpose of the FORESCENE project, the environment part is separated into

the three topic areas: ‘resource use and waste generation’, ‘water and water use’, and

‘landscape, biodiversity and soils’. Each of these topic areas has developed specific

methodologies in the past, such as material flow accounting, water catchment studies

and land cover and land use accounts, which allow to translate the socio-industrial me-

tabolism into concrete flow analyses for each of the three environmental themes, re-

spectively.

By adapting the DPSIR framework, the FORESCENE project distinguished between

direct and indirect drivers, referred to as activities and underlying factors, respectively.

The underlying factors determine the quality and quantity of activities, which cause

pressures on the environment that change the state of the environment with subse-

quent impacts on human society and the environment alike.

In total eleven human (economic) activities are studied as vectors of human pressures

on the environment: ‘agriculture’, ‘forestry’, ‘basic metals’, ‘chemicals and chemical

products’, ‘construction’, ‘energy supply’, ‘water supply’, ‘food products and beverages’,

‘machinery equipment’, ‘motor vehicles’, and ‘transport’. These in turn are also influ-

enced by drivers – the ‘underlying factors’. This term reminds that the link between a

driver and an environmental pressure is not necessarily direct. This link is in fact often

12

indirect as a succession of interactions along a process-chain (e.g. production chain).

Five main categories of underlying factors are distinguished: ‘economic development’,

‘production patterns’, ‘consumption patterns’, ‘demography’ and ‘natural system’.

Figure 1 depicts the overall methodology used for the analysis of cross-cutting drivers.

Underlying factors and their relevance for the three environmental topic areas were

analysed in the context of the eleven activities. Each environmental topic encounters

specific environmental impacts, which, however, may be driven by the same underlying

factors. If this is the case, we speak of ‘cross-cutting drivers’. The analysis conducted

scrutinized the underlying factors in order to determine the cross-cutting drivers as well

as the activities most relevant for the environmental impacts. The results of the analy-

sis were then combined in a single unified matrix, which allowed the determination and

ranking of cross-cutting underlying factors.

The analysis revealed that energy supply, agriculture, water supply and construction

appear to be the activities most susceptible to cause pressures and impacts on the

three environmental themes. Transport, forestry, chemicals, basic metals, and food

products are also activities potentially important to consider, though to a lesser extent.

Among the underlying factors ‘production patterns’, i.e. ‘material intensity’, ‘composi-

tion of material input’, ‘innovation’ and ‘recycling’ act as powerful cross-cutting drivers

for the pressures on the environment. ‘Economic development’ (in particular ‘invest-

ment patterns’) and ‘consumption patterns’ (especially ‘food and drink’ and ‘transport

and communication’) are also important cross-cutting drivers, even though it seems

more difficult to stir change in them. Given the fact that ‘production patterns’ impact all

three environmental topic areas in almost all of the considered activities, special focus

should be put on this parameter for the integrated scenarios to be developed.



13

Figure 1: General overview of the rationale and the work structure behind WP 1 (determina-

tion of cross-cutting drivers of the pressures and impacts on three environmental topics)

14

1 . I n t r o d u c t i o n

Sustainable development is a complex phenomenon, which encompasses several di-

mensions (e.g. economic, social and environmental) and operates at different scales

both in time as well as in space. The complexity and multidimensionality of the issue

has given raise to the need for integrated approaches that can deal with such complex

issues. In recent years a number of projects have been initiated at the EU-level in the

field of Integrated Sustainability Analysis.

The aim of the FORESCENE project is to devise a forecasting framework and scenar-

ios to support the EU Sustainable Development Strategy. In doing so, it focuses on the

environmental areas of resource use and waste, water and water use, and landscape,

biodiversity and soils.

Despite the fact that the concept of sustainable development, as defined by the famous

Brundtland report ‘Our common future’ has been around for two decades, natural re-

sources continue to be used in an unsustainable manner. This was also recently high-

lighted by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment initiative, which reported that around

two thirds of ecosystem services examined are severely degraded or used unsustaina-

bly (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). The reports notes that while there have

been substantial gains in economic development and well-being during the past 50

years, these “have been achieved at growing costs in the form of the degradation of

many ecosystem services, increased risks of non-linear changes and the exacerbation

of poverty”.

In order to devise effective strategies for sustainable development, it is vital to gain a

profound knowledge of specific environmental problems and to determine the driving

forces standing behind these problems. In addition, the multidimensionality of sustain-

able development and the complexity of environment-economy interlinkages requires

taking an integrated approach, identifying cross-cutting drivers rather than looking at

each environmental problem area and/or driving force in isolation.

The aim of this report is twofold: first, to delineate the environmental topic areas re-

source use and waste, water and water use and landscape, biodiversity and soils. The

second aim of the report is to determine cross-cutting driving forces for the three envi-

ronmental topic areas.

Resource use and waste

The current resource use of industrial countries may not serve as a global model. If the

current total material consumption of these countries were adopted world-wide this

would lead to an increase of global resource consumption by a factor of 2 to 5 until

2050 (Bringezu et al. 2003). Because most of the resource requirements, usually about

90%, are naturally non-renewable1 minerals, the current resource use is associated

with a continuous change of the world’s surface and steady change of landscapes.

Current use of biomass also already leads to global degradation of ecosystems. Actual

1 within time scales relevant for human and biological systems´ adaptation



15

land use requirements of developed regions such as the EU-15 according to their con-

sumption of agricultural goods exceed their domestic arable land by about one fifth,

and a global adoption of Western style consumption patterns would lead to an expan-

sion of intensively cultivated land at the expense of the rest of natural ecosystems

(Bringezu and Steger 2005). Thus a global adoption of the production and consumption

patterns of industrial countries would be a major threat to the natural environment and

our resource and living base. Therefore, countries and regions such as the EU need to

use renewable and non-renewable resources in a significantly more efficient manner,

in order to reduce current natural resource consumption and give room to the devel-

opment of the rest of the world.

Water and water use

Water has been highlighted as an emerging and critical environmental issue of the 21st

century. All life forms and ecosystems on earth depend on its existence and availabil-

ity. Since there has been growing pressure on water resources, conflicts are unavoid-

able as we are reaching the limits to growth. Moreover, it is becoming increasingly evi-

dent that several issues are now continuously converging: food security, water security

and environmental security. Although water is a renewable resource, it is also finite and

has to be allocated between competing interests. The increase in the level of economic

activity implies a need for additional resources, which inevitably generates more pollu-

tion, whether from agricultural (non-point) or industrial (point) sources or both. This,

together with the corresponding increase in domestic pollution, can cause environ-

mental and water quality degradation, which in turn constrains further development.

Landscape, biodiversity and soil

In searching for a better understanding of the cross-cutting drivers that affect natural

resources associated with landscape, biodiversity and soils, the relationship to land

cover and the processes of land cover change is probably fundamental. While each

topic area is important in its own right, their individual fates are often highly correlated

because their state or condition is usually shaped by the way land is managed and the

way natural processes can modify the elements of land cover and their allied proper-

ties.

The impacts of economic growth, global trade and investment, together with changes

in consumption and production patterns are likely to be key socio-economic drivers of

change in relation to the three themes, because they fundamentally influence the way

in which land cover is transformed and managed over time, and the way land re-

sources are allocated between different activity sectors in the economy. Their influence

needs to be considered, however, against a backdrop of drivers more related to the

natural environment.

The report is structured in three parts. The first part lies down the methodological and

theoretical framework. The second part then focuses on the delineation of the three

topic areas, providing an overview of the existing main policy goals and targets as well

as the specific environmental problems and threats inherent to each topic area. The

determination of cross-cutting driving forces is the focus of the third part of the report.

16

Driving forces are first identified separately for each topic area, before the cross-cutting

drivers are determined. The report then draws conclusions and summarizes the main

implications of this analysis for the scenario building work that follows in subsequent

work packages of the FORESCENE project.



17

2 . T h e o r e t i c a l a n d M e t h o d o l o g i c a l F r a m e w o r k

2.1. Natural Resources

There is no commonly used definition of ‘natural resources’. It can range from a rather

narrow one, considering only raw materials, to a very broad one encompassing all ba-

sic functions provided by natural eco-systems from which society derives value.

The definition of natural resources as used by the Commission of the European Com-

munity in the preparation of the Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Natural

Resources (CEC - Commission of the European Communities 2003) basically distin-

guishes between 5 categories of natural resources:

• raw materials such as minerals, fossil energy carriers and biomass,

• biological resources (gene pools),

• environmental media such as air, water and soil,

• flow resources such as wind, geothermal, tidal and solar energy, and

• space, i.e. land used for mineral extraction, agriculture and forestry, infrastruc-

ture, industry and human settlements.

These correspond closely to the type of natural resources considered within the con-

text of the FORESCENE project. The project focuses on the topic areas of resource

use and waste, water as well as landscape, biodiversity and soils, although no explicit

focus is given to flow resources (wind, geothermal, tidal and solar energy).

The nature of sustainable development, which encompasses multiple dimensions and

scales, requires taking an integrated approach both within as well as across certain

topic areas and policy fields. The following section will provide an overview of the

methodological and theoretical approaches currently taken within each topic area (re-

source use and waste, water and water use, and landscape, biodiversity and soils).

2.1.1. Resource use and waste: socio-industrial metabolism and material flow

analysis

Our planet is a more or less closed material system. It is obvious, that any use of raw

materials will induce a material flow. In accordance with the law of conservation of mat-

ter these material inputs from the environment will become, over time, material outputs

to the environment. Hence environmental and sustainability impacts related to the use

of natural resources are associated not only with the extraction and harvesting of raw

materials on the one side (source function), but also with the subsequent production,

use and disposal of products and goods on the other side (sink function). In order to

capture the essentials of such a complex system and devise strategies for sustainable

resource management an integrated approach has to be taken which sufficiently takes

into account the boundaries between the natural and human induced environment.

The concept of the “socio-industrial metabolism” provides such a comprehensive sys-

tems perspective. It draws its analogy from the biological meaning of the term “metabo-

lism” and can be traced back to various scientific disciplines (Ayres and Simonis 1994;

18

Fischer-Kowalski 1998; Fischer-Kowalski and Hüttler 1999). It describes the interaction

between the environment (nature) and the economy/society (antroposphere), which are

linked through the flow of materials and energy (see Figure 2). Just as the metabolism

of living organisms converts food into energy an excretes matter back to the environ-

ment, the socio-industrial metabolism converts raw material, energy, and labour into

finished products, which fuel the socio-economic system, and discharges unwanted

matter, in the form of wastes and emissions, back to nature. The cycle of the socio-

industrial metabolism thus starts with the extraction of raw materials (e.g. biomass,

minerals and fossil fuels), followed by beneficiation, refining and manufacturing of

these raw materials into products and other durables using energy and releasing pol-

lutants and waste. These products are then either added to the physical stock of the

economy (e.g. in forms of buildings, infrastructure or other long lived products), ex-

ported to another economy, or finally undergo recycling or are deposited as waste after

the product has been used.

Anthropogenic activities lie at the core of the socio-industrial metabolism. They deter-

mine the extent to which raw materials and energy are used and thus also the subse-

quent environmental pressures generated. Although it remains difficult to establish a

causal link between material and resources used and specific environmental impacts,

recent research has shown, that as a general rule of thumb, higher levels of material,

resource and land use, are associated with larger impact potentials for the environment

(van der Voet et al. 2005). Material and resource flows can thus serve as indirect pres-

sure indicators. In essence the socio-industrial metabolism can thus be regarded as an

overarching framework and basis for the FORESCENE project.

Figure 2: The Concept of Industrial Metabolism – 'What goes in must come out'

The methodology of economy-wide Material Flow Analysis or Accounting (MFA) allows

to measure the socio-industrial metabolism of a national economy in physical units.

Economy-wide MFA is based on the principle of mass balance and systematically ac-

counts for all the material and resource input and output flows crossing the functional

border between the economy (technosphere, anthroposphere) and the environment. In

addition, it considers all material/resource flows crossing the national (geographical)

border, i.e. in form of imports and exports.

The methodology distinguishes between a variety of flows and indicators.



19

Input flows are defined as the extraction or movement of natural materials by humans

or human controlled means of technology. They are further differentiated according to

whether they are extracted from the domestic environment or imported from the rest of

the world. In addition, a distinction is made between used and unused extraction. Used

extraction refers to those materials that are directly used in the economy and are of

economic value. The term unused extraction, on the other hand, describes the materi-

als that are removed from nature during the extraction process, but are not further used

for technological processing and have no economic value. Unused domestic extraction

is also sometimes termed “domestic hidden flows”, whereas “foreign hidden flows” re-

late to the cradle to border primary requirement that occurred during the production of

the imported goods.

Output flows refer to those materials that leave the economy either as exports or in the

form of emissions and waste.

The mass differences between material inputs and outputs relate to the physical stock

changes in the national economy. This is termed net additions to stock (NAS). The an-

nual NAS corresponds to the physical growth rate of an economy. At the overview

level, economy-wide MFA does not account for the internal material flows within the

economy, but rather treats the economy as a black box.

A variety of indicators have been derived from economy-wide MFA. Similar to the type

of flows presented above, indicators can be grouped into different categories, such as

input, output, balance, consumption and efficiency indicators. A complete list and fur-

ther explanation of indicators is provided in the ANNEX.

In recent years considerable progress has been made towards the measurement of the

socio-industrial metabolism (Ayres and Ayres 2002). Economy-wide material flow

analysis and derived indicators (Bringezu et al. 2003) are increasingly introduced to

official statistics. European institutions such as Eurostat (2001a) and the EEA (2003)

as well as international organisations like OECD (2005) support harmonized account-

ing of materials use and productivity at the national level. Indicators have been devel-

oped which allow to describe the dynamics of the metabolic performance of countries,

regions and sectors. There is, however, still a debate on how to interpret the indicators

for the design and control of policy measures, and how to set priorities on the man-

agement of the different material and resource flows.

20

Figure 3: Economy wide material balance scheme (excluding air and water)

Source: Eurostat 2001

2.1.2. Water: water catchment studies

A water catchment area is a useful landscape unit for an integrated approach where a

balance between humans and nature should be sought (Letcher and Guipponi 2005).

In the water catchment area, the green water (vapour) flow supports terrestrial ecosys-

tems and the blue water (liquid) flow supports both aquatic ecosystems and multiple

forms of human use. The green water flow reflects the consumptive water use by both

natural vegetation and agro-ecosystems. The blue water moves above and below the

ground, from up- to downhill, and from land to water systems (see Figure 4).

The catchment can be seen as containing two usage systems: one of human water-

related activities, the other of water-dependent ecosystems, terrestrial as well as

aquatic. These usage systems are linked internally by water flows. The human activi-

ties include the following:

- Direct withdrawals, where the blue water after use is divided into two flows: con-

sumptive use leaving as green water flow to the atmosphere and not available for

reuse, and the blue water return flow to the system, often loaded with pollutants.

- In-stream blue water uses for power generation, navigation, recreation, etc.

- Land use influencing (blue) runoff generation, including urban, domestic and indus-

trial waste water (Falkenmark and Lindh 1993).

Ecosystems are of two types:

- Terrestrial, which are green water related.

- Aquatic, which are blue water related.

Evidently, human activities and ecosystems are, however, partly incompatible. There-

fore, a management task is to orchestrate the catchment for compatibility. This will de-



21

mand intentional trade-offs. The fact that the resulting trade-offs have to be socially

acceptable makes stakeholder dialogues an essential component.

The crucial question is of course: where is that water now? A set of alternatives exist:

irrigation using additional blue water; reducing water losses (those now evaporating

and those now recharging groundwater or rivers); horizontal expansion by using green

water now consumed by natural biomes (grasslands, wetlands, forests); and virtual

water by import from better endowed regions. If consumptive use is going to be in-

creased, runoff production may decrease, depleting rivers and producing effects on

aquatic ecosystems. If more green water is going to be appropriated by infringing on

natural biomes, terrestrial ecosystems will be affected. The issue of ecological security

as well as ecosystem services therefore will have to be better penetrated, based on an

awareness of these two unavoidable future challenges (Falkenmark 2004).

Figure 4: Water and water catchment area as a dynamic usage system, and its extracted amounts and major usages.

Source: Figure redrawn and modified from Falkenmark (2004), data from EEA (2005a).

2.1.3. Landscape, biodiversity and soils: land cover stocks and flows

The need to integrate thinking about landscape, biodiversity and soils through the

analysis of land cover, can best be explained in terms of the model of land cover and

ecosystem accounts proposed in the SEEA 2003 Handbook on Integrated Economic

22

and Environmental Accounting (United Nations et al. 2003). The latter is a general

document which proposes a ‘common framework for economic and environmental in-

formation’ that will allow both an analysis of the contribution that the environment

makes to the economy, and of the impact that the economy has for the environment.

Four basic types of account are envisaged, namely those describing:

• The physical flows of materials and energy, which can be used to assess the

extent to which more sustainable patterns of consumption and production are

being achieved by ‘decoupling’ economic growth from impact or dependency on

natural resource systems;

• The environmental transactions relevant to the good management of the envi-

ronment, such as expenditures made by businesses, governments and house-

holds to protect the environment, environmental taxes or permits;

• The stock and change of environmental assets (broadly represented by natural

resources, land and ecosystems) measured either in physical or monetary

terms; and,

• The depletion and degradation of natural capital in relation to the aggregates

used by SNA.

The development of the third type of account, namely those for land cover is currently

an important focus for work being undertaken at the European scale by the European

Environment Agency (Haines-Young and Weber 2006). An understanding of the pat-

terns and processes of land cover change is clearly seen by the EEA as being impor-

tant in its own right. It is also argued, however, that land account offer a platform for the

development of a broader set of environmental and ecosystem accounts which can be

better used to understand the cross-cutting drivers that impact on our ‘natural capital’,

including the elements related to landscape, biodiversity and soils.

Figure 5 described the basic logic that underlies the approach to land accounting pro-

posed by the SEEA Handbook. If we use the ‘accounting approach’ to represent land

cover change, then if changes in land cover and use are monitored over time, then at

the outset (time 1), we can envisage that there is an ‘opening balance’ which repre-

sents the physical areas of different land cover types. These may include different

types of woodland or agricultural land, or different types of urban cover. Over time, land

cover elements are transformed by the process of land cover change to produce the

‘closing balance’ at time 2. The gains and losses (‘flows’) are the transfers of land area

between the land use types. Despite its simplicity, the conceptual model described in

Figure 5is a powerful one because it provides a framework in which we can ask some

fundamental questions about land use and sustainability.

If we consider the quantitative changes in stock levels for a given land cover type over

time, the first important question that we may ask is whether the gains in stock com-

pensate for any of the losses that were experienced over the accounting period. As

many commentators have argued, questions about compensation are fundamental to

the issues associated with strong and weak notions of sustainability.

In relation to the FORESCENE project the model shown in Figure 5 is relevant when

we ask questions about the impact of changes in land cover on biodiversity. For exam-

ple, if the focus of interest is the forestry sector, then clearly net changes in woodland



23

cover are determined by the balance between the processes of afforestation and de-

forestation. When we consider such changes and ask whether the goals of sustainabil-

ity are being achieved, then we need to look at the qualities of the woodland elements

that are being gained or lost. One area of woodland is not always equivalent to an-

other. This is especially the case when we compare the biodiversity value of new

woodlands created through recent planting with the more mature woodlands that might

have been removed by felling. Supplementary accounts describing the biodiversity

characteristics of the woodland stock can be developed to extend the accounting

model so that we address the question of compensation in this particular case. What

the example illustrates, however, is that in a more general sense, understanding the

link between biodiversity, land cover and the processes that drive land cover change is

fundamental to any analysis of the relationships between economy and environment.

The second important question of sustainability that Figure 5 highlights, concerns the

issue of whether the quality of the stock carried over from time 1 to time 2 has been

maintained in terms of the benefits it provides to people or the support it offers to wider

ecosystem functions. The maintenance of the integrity of stocks of natural capital has

also been highlighted by a number of commentators as being fundamental to planning

for sustainability.

The relevance of this second question to the FORESCENE project can be illustrated by

reference to the relationship between land cover and soils. Soil, like biodiversity, can

be viewed as one of the important qualities of a given area of land. Clearly changes in

land cover may impact upon or transform the properties of the underling soils, as in the

case when built-up areas replace agricultural land. However, even though the stock of

a given type of land cover may not change in area terms, the land management prac-

tices that affect the stock ‘carried over’ may just be as important for the soil resource.

Changes in agricultural practices, for example, may make the soil more or less vulner-

able to soil erosion.

Figure 5: Flow accounts for land cover and the relationship between the concepts of stocks

and flows and fundamental questions about sustainable development Source: EEA 2006a

As in the case of biodiversity, supplementary accounts can clearly be used to show the

association of different soil types or soil vulnerability classes with the different stock of

24

land cover. Land accounts that describe the various qualities of land, can therefore be

a valuable framework for understanding the extent to which our natural resource base

is being sustained.

A more formal representation of the structure of land accounts is shown in Figure 6,

which illustrates how the processes of land cover change can be linked to the different

sectors of the economy to understand some of the cross-cutting drives of change. The

schema is derived from the SEEA Handbook on integrated environmental accounting,

which describes how one may move from the representation of the change in land

cover over time as a transition matrix (see Figure 6, left part) to the representation of

the transfers of land into and out of the different land cover categories as a set of

‘flows’ (Figure 6, right part), that can be linked to the ‘functions’ (i.e. purposes or eco-

nomic activities) associated with a given piece of land. Land use functions can then be

linked to the various economic or activity sectors that make use of the resources asso-

ciated with land.

A limitation of the model shown in Figure 6 is that it fails to make explicit the spatial

context in which land cover, land use functions and different economic activity sectors

interact. While individual qualities (biodiversity, soil etc.) can be associated with par-

ticular land cover types, in the ‘real world’ the output of ecosystem goods and services

also often depends on the combination of cover types or ecosystems that are found in

a particular area. Thus it may be argued that the identification and analysis of benefits

derived from natural resource systems can only be achieved if the problem is ap-

proached at a ‘landscape level’. Thus we need to understand not only how the drivers

of land cover change impact on ecosystem goods and services, but also how these

impacts are mediated in different places through the different combinations of land

covers that we find there, and thus how different landscapes (catchments, districts,

regions) might respond.

Figure 6: The structure of land cover and land use accounts

Source: after SEEA 2003



25

It is not necessary to discuss the land accounting framework in any further detail here,

except to make two points that are especially relevant in the context of the FORES-

CENE project:

a. In searching for a better understanding of the cross-cutting drivers that affect

natural resources such as soils, biodiversity, water and landscape, the relation-

ship to land cover and the processes of land cover change is probably funda-

mental. The processes that drive land cover change can be related to economic

and social pressures, as well as to more ‘natural’ drivers such as those associ-

ated with climate or sea levels. Thus the approach is consistent with the general

model of socio-industrial metabolism that has been proposed as the basis of the

FORESCENE Project. Changes in the stock of land cover are one of the path-

ways through which pressures on the underlying factors that drive change in the

production system may be exerted.

b. Land accounts offer a way of integrating thinking about the different themes be-

ing considered by FORESCENE, given the potential they have for linking with

the analysis of material flows and wastes in production chains, that is so impor-

tant in the context of policies for sustainable consumption and production. In the

long term, the development of integrated economic and environmental accounts

will expose current understandings of the way social and natural systems are

coupled to more critical review. Thus the analysis of the causes and conse-

quences of land cover change will be central to the analysis being attempted

through the FORESCENE ‘analytical matrix’ (see section 6.4) which attempts to

delineate activities, driving forces relevant to each thematic area and ultimately

the identification of cross-cutting drivers of change.

2.2. Driving forces, activities and underlying factors

One of the overall goals of FORESCENE is to contribute to the integration of Commu-

nity policies by analysing the cross-sectoral driving forces for environmental problem

issues such as water, soil, biodiversity, landscape, resource use and waste. This will

allow to define sustainability goals and to identify suitable response measures with

cross-cutting effects, i.e. policy measures with multi-beneficial effects. In doing so, it

will also foster integration of environmental aspects into sectoral policies such as agri-

culture, transport, production and consumption.

It is only by understanding and analysing the driving forces of the deeper underlying

unsustainability problems that potential solutions can be explored. But, as a matter of

fact, we have to acknowledge that the relationship between the environmental system

and the anthropogenic system is not sufficiently understood. Hence, there remains a

certain arbitrariness in the distinction between the two systems. For obvious reasons

we will thus have to simplify causal relations in our systems analysis. As shown in sec-

tion 2.1.1 the concept of the “socio-industrial metabolism” provides a comprehensive

systems perspective of the interaction between environment and economy/society. It

will thus be used as a basis or framework concept for the FORESCENE project as a

whole, and for the definition and delineation of driving forces in particular.

26

In a very general manner drivers can be understood as any natural or human-induced

factors leading to increased or reduced environmental pressure and subsequently to a

change in the environmental system. In the literature, however, there is no common

understanding of the term "driving forces".

There are, however, a variety of general frameworks that make use of the term driving

force, without, however, describing it in great detail. One example includes the Driving

Pressure State Impact Response (DPSIR) framework used by the European Environ-

ment Agency. The adaptation of the DPSIR assessment framework of the EEA serves

as a basis for analyzing the interrelated factors that impact the environment in

FORESCENE. According to this framework the driving forces of the socio-economic

metabolism result in environmental pressures, which then change the state of the envi-

ronment. The changed state of the environment leads then to an impact, e.g. loss of

biodiversity. Policy makers and institutions respond to the impact by means of regula-

tions and laws, addressing the different stages of the DPSIR framework.

The framework is built on indicators for pressures, states and impacts. Pressure indica-

tors describe the variables, which directly cause (or may cause) environmental prob-

lems (e.g. GHG emissions cause Global Warming Potential, resource extraction

causes landscape changes). State indicators monitor the state of the environment,

whereas impact indicators describe the ultimate effects of the changed state. Yet the

DPSIR framework is a relative linear approach that does not reflect sufficiently the in-

terrelation between different driving factors nor the multi-scale nature of decision-

making.

In order to provide an example about the complexity of interwoven driving forces and

the multiscale nature of decision-making, we will briefly consider the construction sec-

tor, which is characterized by its high material requirement. Over 40 percent of the do-

mestic material consumption in EU 15 is attributed to this sector.

The construction sector carries out a number of activities, mainly with regards to build-

ings and transport infrastructure, which are associated with different environmental

burdens along the production-consumption chain. At the beginning of the chain, for

instance, construction activities require the excavation and translocation of soil. Inevi-

tably this leads to an environmental burden in the local and regional surroundings with

impacts such as landscape changes as well as possible losses of natural habitats or

disintegration effects, possibly leading to a reduction in biodiversity, hydrological im-

pacts and sometimes eco-toxic effects. The input of building materials, minerals and

fuels for construction and during the use phase of buildings and infrastructures lead to

a stock addition and emissions to air, water and soil and to further special demands. In

the case of Germany the built-up land is currently increasing by about 420 km2 per

year, mainly at the expense of agricultural land. This growing urban sprawl induces

further material flows in other economic sectors, such as transport and motor vehicles.

A number of driving factors can be identified that will influence the performance of the

construction activities. Economic development may have influence, because a certain

amount of peoples' income (GDP) is invested in buildings and infrastructures (depend-

ing on the development status of a country). These investment decisions will also be

influenced by other factors, for instance by consumption patterns. Available data indi-

cate an increase in floor space per capita. In the long-term this might be influenced by



27

demographic factors such as ageing of society and cultural factors which drive the

trend towards more single households,. The demand for transport infrastructure is also

influenced by population density. It can be assumed that in countries with lower popu-

lation density the building and maintenance of roads and railways will require larger

amounts of resources per capita than countries with higher population density.

There are also factors that influence the quality of construction activities (and their

products), which impact the quantity of resource use. The resource requirements of the

construction sector are influenced by the available technologies, which e.g. determine

the amount of minerals per square meter or cubic meter of the constructed area. Inno-

vation might lead to changes in construction design with associated changes in the

composition of material input and in energy demand during the use phase of a building

(e.g. for heating or cooling). The construction design will also be influenced by natural

system conditions such as climate or topography.

There is thus a whole variety and combination of factors that influence the volume or

quantity of construction activities and thus the volume of resources used by the

construction sector.

Instead of the construction sector one could also look at a variety of other production

activities or product groups. An analysis of the driving forces will thus lead to a broad

range of influencing factors that directly or indirectly impact the environment. These

driving factors are more or less interwoven, influencing the resource requirement of

economies directly or by indirect interactions. In order to operationalize the term

“driver” for the purpose of the FORESCENE project, we distinguish between direct

drivers (= activities) and indirect drivers (= underlying factors). Direct drivers unequivo-

cally take influence on the environmental system. These type of drivers predominantly

correspond to the understanding of drivers in the DPSIR framework. The “activities” are

addressed as proximate causes for environmental pressures and can be measured to

a differing degree of accuracy. From the conceptual view this type of driver can be

seen as an endogenous driver to the “socio-industrial metabolism”. We will refer to the

direct drivers in the following as activities.

28

Figure 7: Activities and underlying factors in the socio-industrial metabolism.

A preliminary definition of relevant variables for this type of driver is:

• Activities in production and consumption determine pressures on the environ-

ment which against the background of the system perspective of the socio-

industrial metabolism can be distinguished between:

o Inputs to production and consumption such as extraction and harvests

of resources;

o Outputs to the environment such as emissions to air, water and soil;

o Changes in material stock resulting from construction of infrastructure

and buildings;



29

o Changes in land use (changes between different types of land use, and

changes of intensity of a certain type of land use).

In contrast, indirect drivers exert influence more diffusely, nevertheless determining the

environmental performance of activities. Indirect drivers, in the following referred to as

underlying factors, can be defined as exogenous drivers, influencing one or more

activities and, at the same time, being interrelated amongst each other. The environ-

mental impact of driving forces will probably not be grasped by looking at singular

causal chains but rather by understanding their effect on activities.

The underlying factors determine the quality and quantity of activities, which influence

their environmental performance. These may comprise:

o Economic development (e.g. GDP growth, structure of the economy, global

trade, investment patterns) o Production patterns (e.g. innovation, resource intensity, composition of ma-

terial input)

o Consumption patterns (e.g. housing, transport, communication, leisure) o Demographic factors (e.g. population growth, population density, ageing so-

ciety)

o Natural systems conditions (e.g. climate, topography, natural catastrophes) o Institutional settings, policies and management activities.

A special role is attributed to institutional factors, such as policies and management

activities, since they represent the response to impacts on the environment. The insti-

tutional response can be directed to mitigate pressures, rearrange the state of the envi-

ronment, influence activities, or control some of the driving forces through adequate

policy measures (e.g. regulatory instruments, planning procedures, voluntary pro-

grammes and informative measures).

Some of the driving forces may be changed more easily than others. Climate change

can significantly alter the framework conditions of the driving forces but is difficult to

control on a short time scale. Institutional change and development will also take time,

however, given that the right institutions are in place, they can exert control over the

driving forces of environmental pressure via economic and technological factors (e.g.

with regard to investment patterns or resource intensity of products).

Besides the controlling feed-back loop of the response indicated in Figure 7, which

seems to be a key towards sustainable development, there might be other feed-back

loops, which may have an accelerating or attenuating effect on the environmental per-

formance of human activities.

A detailed analysis of driving forces for the three problem areas of resource use and

waste, water and landscape, biodiversity and soils is provided in section 6.2, together

with the determination of cross-cutting drivers.

30

3 . T o p i c : R e s o u r c e U s e a n d W a s t e

3.1. Introduction

Natural resources can be defined in a broad sense. This encompasses the source and

sink functions of the natural environment, i.e. the provision of raw materials and space,

as well as the absorption of residual materials (waste and emissions). Environmental

impacts are associated not only with the extraction and harvesting of raw materials but

also with the subsequent production, use and disposal of products and goods. It is the

total of environmental impacts associated with the entire life cycle of raw materials,

which has to be considered.

In the European Union wealth and prosperity is based on the intensive utilisation of

natural resources. The average domestic material consumption (DMC) within the EU-

15 sums up to about 16 tonnes per year and capita. Still, there can be no doubt that

progress has been achieved in the past with regard to resource efficiency. In the face

of an increase of GDP over the past decade, economic growth relatively decoupled

from material input, fluctuating around the same magnitude over the time period. Nev-

ertheless, in absolute terms, resource consumption, with a share of about 75% non-

renewables, still stays with regard to volume and composition on an unsustainable high

level.

At the same time, a significant shift in resource use from domestic sources towards

imports can be observed. The resource requirements of the EU, in particular metals

and industrial minerals, are increasingly met by imports. These material flows are as-

sociated with indirect “hidden” flows, thus increasingly shifting environmental burdens

to other regions of the world. A further burden shifting arises from the physical growth

of EU economies. The physical growth is related to the expansion of build-up areas

and the requirements for the maintenance of buildings and infrastructures. Currently

the material stock of the economy is growing by about 10 tonnes per capita and year,

which is around 60% of the annual direct material input of the economy. This will inevi-

tably lead to an increase of construction waste in the future, thus shifting environmental

burden to future generations.

3.2. Main policy goals and targets

It is broadly acknowledged that if current patterns of natural resource use in European

economies are kept unaltered, further degradation and depletion of natural resources

will result and constitute long term brakes on growth. At the EU policy level there is

consensus that it is a core challenge to facilitate and stimulate economic growth while

shifting towards a sustainable path for natural resource use.

The strategic goal for the next decade, set up at the 2000 European Council Meeting in

Lisbon is to “become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in

the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and

greater social cohesion” (CEC – Commission of the European Communities 2000). The

Lisbon Agenda, which focuses primarily on jobs and growth, was complemented by the

European Council Conclusions of Gothenburg (2001), which laid down the main ele-



31

ments of a strategy for sustainable development. This was widely seen as adding a

third, environmental, dimension to the Lisbon process. The Sustainable Development

Strategy that is built upon the Gothenburg Conclusions identified the reduction of re-

source use and the environmental impact of waste as one of the focal targets. Headline

objective is to break the link between economic growth, the use of resources and the

generation of waste.

The Sixth Community Environment Action Programme (CEC – Commission of the

European Communities 2002) identified natural resources and wastes as one of four

key environmental priorities. With regard to sustainable use and management of natu-

ral resources and wastes the 6th EAP set out the following objectives:

• Consumption of resources should not exceed carrying capacity of the environ-

ment;

• Decoupling of economic growth and resource use, increasing drastically re-

source and energy efficiency comprising a 22% target of the electricity produc-

tion from renewable sources by 2010;

• Reduction of volumes of waste generated through waste prevention, better re-

source efficiency and a shift towards more sustainable production and con-

sumption patterns;

• Reduction in quantity of municipal and hazardous waste while avoiding related

emissions to air, water, soil;

• Increasing recycling rates of wastes generated and reduction of the hazardous-

ness of disposed wastes to as little risk as possible.

Under its 6th EAP, the Commission developed a thematic strategy on the sustainable

use of natural resources (TSSURE) (CEC 2003b and CEC 2005c). It is meant to com-

plement the strategies on the prevention and recycling of waste (CEC – Commission of

the European Communities 2005a) and Integrated Product Policy, to provide an over-

all framework for sustaining the resource basis of the EU, and to help filling gaps,

healing deficiencies and supporting the integration of environmental concerns into sec-

toral policies. More specifically, the aim of the TSSURE is to "improve understanding

and knowledge of European resource use, its negative environmental impact and sig-

nificance in the EU and globally". Besides improved methods and indicators for moni-

toring, and support for awareness raising, it shall also "foster the application of strate-

gic approaches and processes both in economic sectors and in the member states".

The TSSURE stresses the ultimate goal as being the reduction of the environmental

impacts of resource use (rather than resource use per se). A double decoupling is sug-

gested for sustaining resource use: first, decoupling of economic growth from resource

use (through increased resource efficiency), and second, a decoupling of resource use

from its environmental impacts (through mitigation of resource specific impacts). Both

effects combined are expected to enhance "eco-efficiency". To achieve this objective it

is inevitable that policy-makers will need a better understanding of the driving forces of

resource use that result in environmental pressures and impacts. In particular, there is

a need for the analysis of cross-sectoral driving forces for environmental problem is-

sues such as water, soil, biodiversity, landscape, resource use and waste in order to

explore policy measures with multi-beneficial effects.

32

3.3. Environmental pressures and material flows

The main concerns related to the increasing use of natural resources are the associ-

ated environmental impacts. Environmental pressures result from discharges of pollut-

ants, releases of harmful substances, consumption of resources beyond reproductive

capacities and conversion of natural land into mined “lunar landscapes”, arable land or

urban zones. These cause broad impacts on the environment and the society as a

whole, as changes in environmental conditions affect human beings, ecosystems and

man-made infrastructure alike.

There is considerable experience in quantifying the use of natural resources. Pres-

sures can be expressed in terms of quantities of pollutants discharged, weights or vol-

umes of resource extracted or material consumed, volumes of fish or timber harvested,

or, at the most aggregated level, presented as material flows through an economy in

tonnes per time (usually per year).

3.3.1. Resource use

The aggregated material consumption of the EU-15 has only changed little over the

last two decades, keeping steady at about 15 to 16 tonnes per capita. There are, how-

ever, considerable differences between the individual countries, both concerning abso-

lute levels (which vary from about 12 tonnes per capita in Italy to 38 tonnes per capita

in Finland (see Figure 8), as well as regarding development trends of the direct mate-

rial consumption (DMC) over time.

Figure 8: Composition of aggregated resource consumption (Domestic Material Consumption,

DMC) in 2000 Source: Eurostat and IFF 2002; data set B

The material consumption of the EU-15 in 2000, as shown in Figure 9, is dominated by

a share of construction minerals of 44%, comprising minerals such as gravel, sands,

natural stones or clay. This is followed by biomass (26%), which includes biomass from

agriculture, forestry and fishery. Fossil fuels, like hard coal, lignite, petroleum and its

derivatives, and natural gas account for almost a fourth of the EU’s material consump-



33

tion. The smallest share of 6%, in mass, is represented by the aggregated consump-

tion of metals and industrial minerals.

Figure 9: Composition of the domestic material consumption of the EU-15 in 2000

Source: Eurostat and IFF 2002; data set B

Figure 10: Total Material Requirement of the EU-15 Source: Bringezu and Schütz 2001

The domestic material consumption is an indicator that reflects the apparent material

consumption of an economy. It does not account for unapparent material flows, which

are named either hidden or indirect flows. Figure 10 shows the material flows used by

the economy of the EU-15 along with the corresponding economically unused material

flows. In 2000, hidden flows accounted for 64% of the total material requirement

(TMR). It is rather stable compared with the situation ten years before (67% in 1990).

34

When considering the evolution of the different terms of the European TMR over the

past ten years, it appears that domestic (used and unused) extraction decreased (by

1% and 23%, respectively). During the same period, imports increased by 20% and the

associated indirect flows by 8%. In absolute terms, however, the hidden flows associ-

ated with imports increased by about twice the amount the imports did (454 Mt and 237

Mt, respectively). This sheds light on another problem, the shifting of environmental

burden. The extraction of raw materials (especially fossil fuels and metals), which is the

most costly operation in terms of mobilised resources (and all the associated environ-

mental problems), tends to happen more and more outside the EU. The development

of global trade and the depletion or inexistence of domestic reserves are some expla-

nations for this ongoing trend.

In the present study, eleven sectors of activity were picked up for their potential rele-

vance with regard to the resource use issue. Some preliminary results from the

“NAMEA-based environmental Input-Output analyses” 2 project (Moll et al. 2006) point

to the ‘usual suspects’. The NAMEA study, using input-output methodology, considers

the Direct Material Input (DMI) as an indicator for material flows (only the apparent

ones). It appears clearly that regarding domestic extraction, the most important indus-

tries are ‘construction’, ‘mining and quarrying’ (of energy and non energy producing

materials) and agriculture. The most important activities receiving physical imports are

the manufacture of coke and refined petroleum products, the manufacture of basic

metals and fabricated metal products, energy and water supply, and transport. In a life-

cycle-wide perspective, the food and beverage industry also appear to be relevant.

Upstream in the production chain, agriculture is responsible for heavy resource and

land use, which can also contribute to burden shifting, if conducted abroad. The follow-

ing process phases preparing, freezing and transporting the food are particularly en-

ergy intensive. Generally speaking, the activities of concern regarding resource use,

and with possibly the highest potential for improvement, are actually the so-called ‘ba-

sic needs’: housing, infrastructures (those two rely on the construction sector), food

(which means agriculture, processing and delivering) and transport (especially private

transport means such as motor vehicles).

Although all types of material resources need to be used much more efficiently in the

future, the major types of resources also differ with regard to main problems, future

perspective and regulatory status quo (see also Moll et al. 2003).

3.3.2. Fossil fuels

Fossil fuels belong to the group of the most important and strategic non-renewable

natural resources of modern society. Ever since the invention of the steam engine, the

demand for fossil fuels has been growing constantly, satisfying the energy require-

ments of industrialized countries.

Fossil fuels are mainly used for energy generation via combustion. Lignite and hard

coal are mainly used for electricity production and partly also for industrial processing

(iron and steel, petrochemicals). Besides electricity, the main uses of oil and gas occur

in transport and residential heating and also as feedstock for the petrochemical indus-

2 NAMEA: National Accounts Matrix including Environmental Accounts



35

try. The EU’s apparent consumption of fossil fuels in relation to the world production

varies across the different fuels. In the case of lignite, the EU is one of the major pro-

ducers and users with more than one fourth of the world production. About 3% of

world-wide hard coal production takes place within the EU territory. About the same

amount of hard coal is net-imported to the EU so that the actual consumption of hard

coal amounts to some 7% of world production. Almost one fifth of world oil production

is consumed within the EU. Only 5% of world oil production is extracted within the EU,

indicating net-imports of oil into the EU (Moll et al. 2003).

Figure 11 shows the rising importance of fossil fuels imports for the EU-15. Ten years

ago the imports represented for the first time a larger tonnage than domestic extrac-

tion. Imports represented in 2002 about 60% of the DMC. Figure 12 presents the impli-

cations of fossil fuel use in the EU-15 with regard to the associated hidden flows. Dur-

ing the ten year period 1990-2000, domestic extraction (used) decreased by 23% and

the unused domestic extraction decreased by 40%. But in parallel imports increased by

23% and the indirect flows by 29%.

Figure 11: Domestic material consumption associated with fossil fuels in the EU-15 Source: Eurostat and IFF 2002; data set B

36

Figure 12: Material flows associated with fossil fuels in EU-15 Source: Bringezu and Schütz 2001

Pressures:

The major threats associated with the use of fossil fuels are the consequences of com-

bustion and resulting greenhouse gas emissions. Climate change mitigation policies

have been initiated by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

and the subsequent Kyoto process and certain follow-up activities are underway. What

has been neglected so far, is that the extraction of fossil fuels is linked to significant

landscape changes, hydrological impacts and habitat disruptions at various places over

the world, especially concerning coal mining. Although some of the extracted non-

energy material is used for infrastructures, it does not seem realistic to expect that

overburden and extraction waste of fossil fuel mining could to a significant extent be

used for other purposes. Alternative ways to finally deposit carbon dioxide through se-

questration also seem to be rather limited with regard to available volume of under-

ground caverns or are associated with high risks of leakage (e.g. submarine deposi-

tion).

Unsurprisingly, the energy and chemical sectors are the most relevant activities for the

use of fossil fuels. Energy intensive industries also play an important role as indirect

users. As already mentioned the food and beverage sector is among them. The pro-

duction of basic metals (e.g. aluminium from bauxite) is also very energy intensive.

Trends:

Due to the growth in the transport sector as well as in the household and service sec-

tor, the consumption of fossil fuels is still rising. But at the same time, environmental

pressures, like emissions to the air, are decoupling from energy carrier use. In the EU-

15, fossil fuel related emissions of air pollutants (SO2, NOx, NMVOC, CO2) were signifi-

cantly reduced during the 1980s and 1990s, mainly by means of end of pipe technolo-

gies. Total energy related greenhouse gas emissions have decreased slightly over the

past decade, while CO2 emissions increased slightly (EEA 2005b).

About half of the fossil fuels input of the EU-15 economy is imported. From the second

half of the 1980s onwards the share of imports increased steadily and reached a



37

growth rate of about 10% between 1992 and 2000 while domestic extraction decreased

at about the same amount.

There are, of course, a number of factors explaining, directly or not, the increasing use

of fossil fuel. One should actually consider a complex interlinkage of underlying factors.

But in a first approach, partial explanations could come from the economic growth,

coupled with production patterns (e.g. in chemical and energy sectors) characterised

by a limited share of renewables in the material input. On top of the increasing de-

mand, the depletion or limited size of domestic reserves explain the massive turn to

imports.

3.3.3. Metals and industrial minerals

Since metals and industrial minerals show similar patterns in extraction and use, they

are treated within one section. The metal and ore sector comprises metals such as iron

and steel, bauxite and aluminium, copper, zinc, lead, nickel and precious metals. The

industrial minerals sector includes diamonds, precious stones, mineral fertilizer, pot-

ash, salt and others. Metals and industrial minerals are naturally non-renewable but

technically metals are fully recyclable and industrial minerals to a certain extent de-

pending on the type and use.

Overall the imports of metals and industrial minerals follow an increasing trend, inter-

rupted by slight decreases every two years or so (see Figure 13). The domestic extrac-

tion, on the other hand, shows a steady decreasing trend. This, coupled with rather

strong exports, explains that imports are actually higher than DMC in the second half of

the 1990s.

Figure 14 illustrates the burden supported by countries exporting raw materials such as

metals and industrial minerals. In 2000, the ratio of indirect flows over imports reached

12.5:1. But, even though the ratio decreased compared to ten years before, the

amount of materials mobilised outside the EU is larger. Imports indeed increased by

13% over the period, while indirect flows increased by 2%.

38

Figure 13: Domestic material consumption associated with industrial minerals and metal ores

in the EU-15 Source: Eurostat and IFF 2002; data set B

Figure 14: Material flows associated metals and industrial minerals in the EU-15 Source: Bringezu and Schütz 2001

Metals are of special relevance, since their production goes along with the movement

of large amounts of unused extraction and energy inputs for the beneficiation of ores

and refining of the finally consumed high-grade metals. They are therefore the material

flows with the highest specific total material requirement (TMR)3, due to the high vol-

ume of hidden flows.

Over the nineties a decreasing domestic extraction in the EU-15 could be observed.

Linked to this the unused domestic extraction decreased as well. At the same time im-

ports of metals from outside the Union increased in a slightly higher proportion, leading

to an overall higher direct material consumption. The considerable high levels of hid-

3 Total Material Requirement (TMR) comprises the direct material input and the hidden flows.



39

den flows associated to the imports of metals result into a significant increase of the

total material requirement (Schütz et al. 2004).

The comparison of Figure 13 and Figure 14 with Figure 11 and Figure 12, respectively,

shows that the resource category ‘metals and industrial minerals’ is dominated by the

former. The evolutions of the imports of metals (increasing) and of domestic extraction

(decreasing) give the overall pattern. In 2000, metals imports represented about 60%

of whole ‘metals and industrial minerals’ imports, while the exports accounted for about

50% of the total.

Figure 15: Domestic material consumption associated with metals in the EU-15


Pressures:

Main pressures on the environment occur on the inflow-side through the extraction of

metal ores and industrial minerals and the associated landscape disruptions, hydro-

logical impacts, and habitat destruction due to large extraction volumes. Dependent on

the type of metal ore, pollution of soil and water (heavy metals, acids) may also consti-

tute a problem. Indicators proposed to anticipate the volume related effects are the

specific TMR and specific land use per tonne metal extracted or imported. Indicators

on the pollution of soil and water are dependent on the metal and also on regional or

local circumstances.

40

Figure 16: Material flows associated with metals in the EU-15

Source: Bringezu and Schütz 2001

On the outflow-side, polluting emissions of, for example, heavy metals constitute the

main impact. Information can be obtained from specifically tailored indicators such as

heavy metal concentration in sewage sludge or metal content in waste from batteries.

Trends in consumption and use and the related environmental pressures vary from

metal to metal. Whereas steel and aluminium play an important role due the high de-

mand, precious metals, and base metals like copper and zinc, are significant because

of their large amounts of hidden flows; lead, nickel and cadmium because of their hu-

man- and eco-toxicity.

Some industrial minerals, especially precious stones like diamonds, show a similar

pattern as observed with the metals: they are mainly imported, and are associated with

large hidden flows. The flows of industrial minerals stem from the earth crust, are used

for various purposes such as precious assets (diamonds, precious stones) as well as

for dissipative use in agriculture (mineral fertiliser), and thus are finally either deposited

on land or are dispersed via the soil into water bodies where they may contribute to

eutrophication. Dissipative use of metals is especially relevant for the heavy metals,

such as copper (used in roof constructions, fungicides, wood preservation and washing

agents) and zinc and tin (coating of steel products). Therefore, the environmental per-

formance related to material flows may vary considerably. The issue of mineral fertilizer

use in agriculture, however, appears to be a cross-cutting problem.

Trends:

Industrial economies such as the EU are increasingly producing base metals and

manufactures based on imports of raw materials from developing countries, and they

export a rising amount of metal products to the rest of the world. The disparity between

countries with regard to the asymmetry of economic gains and environmental burden is

going to grow. Recycling may contribute to reductions in resource consumption, al-



41

though only to a limited extent due to the ongoing physical growth of the world’s

technosphere. New products, e.g. for ICT and energy conversion require rising

amounts of rare metals such as platinum, which are associated with significant

ecological rucksacks in mining and refining.

Here again, economic growth and small or no domestic reserves lead to increasing

imports of metals and industrial metals. The composition of material input to industrial

processes or finished products also plays a role. But a physically growing economy

cannot rely totally on the sole secondary input; primary materials are still needed to a

significant extent.

3.3.4. Construction minerals, excavation and dredging

Construction minerals comprise sand, gravel, natural stones, clay, limestone, etc., and

are mainly extracted domestically. In Germany sand, gravel and natural stones ac-

counted for 84% of the total construction minerals in 2001. Construction minerals are

naturally non-renewable, but technically through recycling. Construction minerals are

extracted from the earth crust and will, after their use phase in infrastructure and build-

ings finally be deposited again in the earth crust, although at different locations and

compositions. In the EU-15, domestic consumption of construction minerals increased

slightly during the 1990s, reaching 2.6 billion tonnes per year (about 7.0 tonnes per

capita). Construction minerals are mainly extracted and used domestically, thus im-

ports are not significant as shown in Figure 17. Domestic material consumption is prac-

tically limited to domestic used extraction. Unused domestic extraction represents

about 17% of the TMR if one excludes ‘excavation and dredging’ from the account. The

share of unused extraction reaches 35% if ‘excavation and dredging’ are accounted for

as hidden flows.

Figure 17: Material flows associated with construction minerals and excavation


Pressures:

Pressures on the environment occur at the extraction site due to the deposition of un-

used extraction and a high noise level of the activities. More profound, however, are

42

the interferences with the environment during the use phase of the materials in form of

additional buildings and infrastructures, since they cover a significantly larger area.

Construction minerals mainly contribute to the net additions to stock of the physical

economy thereby contributing to the increase of built-up area. The environmental pres-

sures are among others a loss of natural habitats or disintegration effects, possibly

leading to a reduction of biodiversity; global warming potential due to the emission of

greenhouse gases (for construction and during the use phase). Furthermore, the proc-

essing of materials is energy and therefore emission intensive. After the use at the end

of their life-cycle, construction minerals are difficult to recycle or re-use due to a con-

glomeration of different materials and are mostly turned into waste.

Trends:

The use of minerals such as cement, sand and gravel, limestone etc. is linked to the

construction of buildings and infrastructures. In the ongoing phase of physical growth,

demand for these materials will further grow especially in developing and transition

countries. Some industrial countries still have low recycling of construction and demoli-

tion waste, and even high rates convey a distorted picture because demolishing waste

from buildings is used for road construction (down-cycling). There are some examples

that gravel is transported across Europe by truck due to local shortages, and models of

construction flows for instance for the Netherlands show that this country will always be

dependant from importing construction minerals from neighbouring countries only for

maintenance of the existing buildings and infrastructures.

3.3.5. Biomass

About 20% of the material input into the European economy corresponds to biomass

from agriculture (grazing and cultivation), forestry, and fishing and hunting. Biomass is

naturally renewable; yet the actual regeneration depends on proper, i.e. sustainable,

cultivation schemes. The flows of biomass are produced by natural processes and

originate from plants, which use solar energy to synthesise a variety of organic sub-

stances. Biomass is either cultivated in agriculture, forestry and aquaculture or it stems

from wild harvest (including fisheries). After use, organic residuals and their nutrient

components are either recycled (only in cultivation mode) or they directly and finally

enter land deposits or water bodies. The main environmental problems due to biomass

use are the overexploitation of wild forests and fish reserves, and the depletion of fer-

tile soils and the overload of manure and fertiliser through cultivation practices, which

are not adjusted to local environmental capacities.

With 6 tones per capita biomass represents 12% of the TMR in the EU-15. This is only

2% lower than the US biomass harvest in 1994. Most of the biomass stems from agri-

culture.

As shown in Figure 18, the EU-15 is a net importer of biomass, but DMC is still domi-

nated by domestic production, which is eight times higher than imports. The conditions

of production are probably very different domestically and overseas: while the ratio

between domestic production and imports is about eight, the ratio between erosion

associated with domestic production and that associated with imports reaches only 1.3

(see Figure 19). This is another example of shifting the environmental burden to some



43

other countries. As Figure 20 shows, the shifted burden of erosion is likely to stem from

crops production (55% of the European TMR for biomass). When including feedstock

production, it is 87% of the TMR associated with biomass in the EU-15 that is covered.

Figure 18: Domestic material consumption associated with biomass in the EU-15


Figure 19: Material flows associated with biomass


44

Figure 20: Composition of the TMR associated with biomass in the EU-15

Source: Moll et al. 2003

Pressures

The current use of biomass is characterized by overexploitation of natural productive

capacities, e.g. as in the case of fisheries, overload of the environment through ineffi-

cient use of fertilizers, the extension of arable land at the expense of natural ecosys-

tems and a high risk of land degradation. The sectoral threats can be highlighted as:

Sector Threats

Fishing Overfishing: 1/3 of world fish stock is estimated to be overexploited

(Complex interactions in ecosystem >> loss of biodiversity).

Forestry,

Other biomass from

forests

Industrial emissions of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide;

Climate change;

Loss of biodiversity and habitat change.

Agriculture Production intensification is likely to lead to further soil erosion and

loss of biodiversity;

Further demand for bio-fuels and biomaterials tends to expand world-

wide arable land at the expense of natural forests and savannas.

Most of the renewable resources in the EU are not cultivated in a sustainable manner.

This is especially true for agriculture, which is associated with a continuous degrada-

tion of fertile soil due to erosion and excessive use of mineral fertilizer and/or manure,

indicating a high risk of eluviation of nutrients and hence increasing problems of water

pollution (EEA 2005c).

The expanding global trade, the growing food and beverage industry as well as the

energy sector may cause some further ‘burden shifting’. The transport sector, too,



45

could soon utilize large quantities of bio-fuels, whose production exacerbates pres-

sures on rain forests.

Trends:

The main challenge for agriculture, forestry and fisheries will be to develop and orien-

tate towards sustainable modes of cultivation and sustainable yields. In some coun-

tries, progress is being made towards this end by introducing standards for organic

farming as well as labels for sustainable forestry, and industry has also indicated self-

commitment in applying standards for own products stemming from integrated agricul-

ture and fisheries respecting sustainable yield thresholds. Yet, in the EU-15 and the

EFTA countries the share of organic farming has just reached a quota of about 4% of

the agricultural area. At the same time the expansion of built-up land (e.g. due to urban

sprawl and the demands for transport infrastructure) in the long run may increase envi-

ronmental pressures. Beyond that, the expansion of arable land under cultivation for

the production of bio-fuel crops might lead to further agricultural intensification, which is

considered to be an environmental pressure (EEA 2005a).

The mitigation of the development of unsustainable intensive agriculture relies on a

multitude of interconnected parameters. Competition for land should be minimised, for

instance by limiting urban sprawl over arable land. A diet with less meat could also be

part of the solution. The consumer’s willingness to pay for more expensive organic food

could also be a key.

3.3.6. Waste

It is a proximate assumption of the socio-industrial metabolism that resources entering

the technosphere are sooner or later released to the environment in form of solid

waste, emissions to air, water or soils, or waste heat. Where a waste management

system exists, solid waste can be collected and then either landfilled, incinerated, recy-

cled or reused. Waste in the form of emissions can be reduced via end-of-pipe equip-

ment, turning the gas or water waste flow into solid waste (e.g. filter cakes, sludge from

waste water treatment plants) which in turn needs to be taken care of.

The major waste streams are:

• municipal waste (mainly originating from households, but waste from com-

merce and trade, office buildings, institutions and small businesses is also in-

cluded);

• industrial waste (including manufacturing);

• waste from the construction and demolition sectors;

• mining and quarrying waste;

• End-of Life Vehicles (ELVs);

• tyres and waste oil;

• agricultural waste

• packaging waste (up to 17% of municipal waste stream).

46

The EU target of 300 kg municipal waste per capita in 2000 was overshot by a number

of western European countries, which had waste generation rates of 500 kg per capita

and more (EEA 2005a). This represents an enormous loss of resources and energy:

municipal waste is preceded by large amounts of industrial waste (during the produc-

tion phase of the goods), mining waste (e.g. during the extraction of metals necessary

for the production), water use, land use, erosion (if biomass was used at some stage),

emissions (during production, transport etc), energy use etc.

The treatment of waste also requires energy, water and material resources. However,

reuse, recycling or incineration of certain materials, whose primary production is re-

source intensive, result in a net balance in favour of waste management with regards

to energy and material use, or emissions. The resource intensity of waste management

still grows with the heterogeneity (waste badly sorted) and the dilution of waste (e.g.

metals and especially precious metals from electronic scrap diluted in the municipal

waste stream; the WEEE4 Directive addresses the problem).

Pressures:

The amount of waste, being a flow from the technosphere to the environment, is in it-

self a pressure to the environment. The total amount of accounted waste generated

annually in the European Union exceeds 1,8 billion tonnes. It corresponds to 3,8 ton-

nes per capita and year (EEA 2005a).

The distribution of this volume among different waste categories is shown in Figure 21.

The single largest waste stream emanates from mining and quarrying activities, which

amounts to 29% of the total generated waste. On average about 50% of the materials

extracted turn into waste either directly at the mining stage (overburden of topsoil,

waste rock) or during the subsequent beneficiation and refining processes (tailings,

smelting slag). The proportion of unused material varies between 80% for the extrac-

tion of fossil fuels and 20% for construction minerals extraction.

Besides the large volumes, the composition of waste streams and their interactions

with the environment give rise to a large range of pressures. Hazardous substances

directly released at any production stage (e.g. mercury and arsenic from some pre-

cious metals mines) or resulting from chemical processes operating after the release

(e.g. acid building in tailings leakages or stack fumes loaded with sulphur) are of great

concern for the ecosystems as well as for human health.

Even the reintegration of part of the waste stream into the technosphere through reuse,

recycling or incinerating can generate potentially hazardous products (e.g. emissions

from incinerators). Nonetheless, such a strategy substitutes some primary resources.

However, in a growing physical economy, even a recycling rate reaching 100% would

not be sufficient to cover the demand.

4 WEEE: Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment



47

Figure 21: Composition of waste streams (in mass) in Europe Source: ETC/WMF 2004

Trends:

According to scenario projections conducted by the European Topic Centre on Re-

source and Waste Management (Skovgaard et al. 2005), some waste streams, such as

municipal waste, packaging, and construction and demolition waste are likely to rela-

tively decouple from economic growth.5 Still, they remain on a high level. As already

mentioned above, the generation of municipal waste has increased from an average

1985 EU level of 300 kg per capita and year to a level beyond 500 kg per capita and

year in Western European countries (EEA 2005a). Packaging waste has reached an

average figure of 172 kg per capita in 2002. Projections for the construction and demo-

lition sector estimate a further increase of the waste stream in a magnitude of over

15% by 2020. This figure is in so far significant, as this sector accounts for some 70 to

80% of the total waste (Skovgaard et al. 2005).

The paper and cardboard consumption increased in the EU-15 since 1990 by 10-15%

to a per capita consumption varying between 100-120 kg (Greece, Ireland, Portugal)

and 305-310 kg (Belgium, Netherlands). Industrial waste generation varies between

0,5 tonnes per capita (Germany, Spain, Denmark) and 3 tonnes per capita (Finland)

depending on the industrial and technological structure of the countries. For both waste

sectors a further increase in waste generation is estimated in the magnitude of more

than 45% by 2020.

Overall waste generation is deemed to stay a key pressure on the environment. It can-

not be assumed that a significant overall reduction of volumes in waste generation can

solemnly be achieved by sectoral policy approaches. Rather than solely tackling the

output, it is the material input into the economies that needs to be considered further.

5 Relative decoupling means, that the rate of increase in waste generation is lower the growth

rate of GDP.

48

4 . T o p i c : W a t e r a n d W a t e r U s e

4.1. Introduction

The initial era of intense water usage can be described as an exploitation era where

the water resources were viewed as unlimited compared to the demand, and the basic

function of a water agency was to provide no cost or low cost water for a specific pur-

pose, such as navigation, water supply, or hydropower. During an exploitation era,

technology is the primary concern. Water for agricultural purposes, recreation, waste

assimilation, and in stream uses is abundant and does not appear to be impacted by

use during this era. However, this unlimited water usage did not last long in Europe.

The second era, the management era, was replacing the first, where conflicting uses

for the same body of water exists, and the various water oriented institutions must

share the water resources with competing users. This need to optimize multiple uses

stimulated economists to participate with the technologists to develop strategies and

facilities to meet the growing needs of many different types of water users.

The basic technology for storing, diverting, and transporting water has been practiced

for centuries. Physical laws force water to run downhill. The classical strategy is to cap-

ture the water in the hills, and use gravity to facilitate the distribution to the low lands.

Siphons are used to transport water over lower hills, and reservoirs are used to provide

pressure heads to generate hydropower and pressurize urban water supply systems. If

surface waters were inadequate, water could be pumped from underground supplies if

energy was available. Most water resource systems have design lives of decades or

centuries, and are major engineering structures. The original Roman aqueducts are still

functional, and many dams were built many years ago. A common problem with the

development of water resource facilities, such as storage systems, flood protection

systems, transportation systems, and treatment facilities, is that the amount of water

that flows in the rivers is not uniformly distributed in space or time.

The responsibility for the provision of water services in most European countries lays

with municipalities, which may delegate or outsource services. There is a large number

(more than 30 000) and diversity of operators, both public and private, or mixed.

Attempts for an early unified protection of water resources, mainly fresh water, began

with the “European Water Legislation” by setting some standards for rivers and lakes

used for drinking water in 1975, followed by setting quality targets for drinking water in

1980. The Water Framework Directive (WFD) came into force on 22 December 2000.

The Water Framework Directive set the following key aims (CEC – Commission of the

European Communities 2000): water management based on river basins, achieving

‘good status’ for all waters, expanding the water protection to all types of water, i.e.

surface water and groundwater, combined approach of emission limit values and qual-

ity standards. The WFD is also important for its holistic and trans-boundary attitude

towards rivers defining them as a whole body, rather than an administrative or political

entity, and for its promotion of participatory approaches.

The ultimate challenge of a sustainability oriented environmental management is to find

the proper balance between humans and the impacts their activities have on ecosys-



49

tems. Strong driving forces in terms of continuing population growth, industrialization

and urbanization are at work.

4.2. Main policy goals and targets

The fundamental principle of sustainable development is well established and widely

accepted – economic growth can, and should, be made compatible with stewardship of

the planet for future generations.

At EU and Member State levels, and within individual cities and regions, most policy-

makers now appreciate the need to reconcile the triple objectives of wealth creation,

social cohesion and environmental protection. Many even understand that win-win so-

lutions are possible. But how can they find these solutions? What combination of poli-

cies, support measures and technologies will optimise benefits in all three domains?

And how should their decisions respond to the often conflicting views of residents,

businesses, public authorities and landowners? Europe does not have unlimited water

resources.

Management of water resources is more a political and economic problem than a tech-

nical problem. Previous discussions on technology to support water resource man-

agement suggest that exact predictions of where and when water is returned to the

earth by the hydrological cycle are not possible. Most economies subsidize systems:

the construction and operations of systems that store, distribute, and clean water to

support human activities. This makes the costs of using water much cheaper than it

should be and encourages wasteful consumptions and use.

The future can never be accurately or completely known because of the multiplicity, the

complexity and the interactions of forces that shape it. Consequently, most planners

and futurists today reject the idea that planning should be conducted against a single

“most likely” image of the future. Rather, sets of scenarios should be used in planning;

if the sets encompass a broad span of futures and plans are generated to cope with

their eventualities, then the plans will be robust and the future can be met with some

degree of confidence. Scenarios are narrative descriptions of the future that focus at-

tention on causal processes and decision points. Accuracy is not the measure of a

good scenario; rather, it is: plausibility (a rational route from here to there); internal

consistency; description of causal processes; and usefulness in decision making.

Benefits of water protection policies:

- Protection and enhancement of health and biodiversity of the aquatic ecosystem, in

particular since good ecological status requires good quality of the structure and

the functioning of this ecosystem, to be able to provide the ecosystem services

needed.

- Protection of human health through water-related exposure (e.g. through drinking

and food production, bathing and consumption of fish).

- Lower costs for water uses, e.g. water supply or fisheries and more cost effectively

achieved improvements by reducing treatment and remediation costs (e.g. drinking

water supply, sediment pollution).

50

- Improvement of efficiency and effectiveness of water policy based on the “polluter-

pays principle” (in particular by adequate water pricing policies and cost-

effectiveness assessment of measures, example: reduction of amount of water use

per capita).

- Increased cost-effectiveness of water management, in particular of measures to

implement and apply, for example the Nitrates, Urban Wastewater Treatment and

IPPC Directives.

- Integrated river basin management – as introduced by the WFD – should help

authorities to maximise the economic and social benefits derived from water re-

sources in an equitable manner instead of repeating the mistaken and fragmented

approaches of the past, which dealt with problems in a local, and usually tempo-

rary, basis. This should translate, inter alia, in designing more cost-effective meas-

ures to meet the environmental objectives of other EU legislation. Especially for

new Member States, the cost-saving potential is great if the lessons from the expe-

riences in EU-15 are learnt.

- Improvement of the quality of life by increasing the value of surface waters (e.g. for

visitors, tourists, water-sports users, conservationists) and by increasing its non-

use value and all non-market benefits associated. (CEC – Commission of the Euro-

pean Communities 2005b)

Background: The Water framework directive

Managing the water cycle is thus a case study in sustainable use of a key natural re-

source. The EU Water Framework Directive, WFD (CEC – Commission of the Euro-

pean Communities, 2000), introduces an innovative, integrated and holistic approach

to the protection and management of water resources. Since 2000 the water framework

directive has been in place as the main European legislation to protect our water re-

sources. With its two main principles focusing on the 'good status' of all water bodies,

and assessing them in relation to activities in the river basin, the WFD follows an inte-

grated approach to water resource management.

Europe adopted the water framework directive to bring together and integrate work on

water resource management. The basis for the directive's work is the river basin. Most

water, once it falls to the ground in precipitation, remains within a single river basin,

flowing by gravity either to the sea or into groundwater reserves. Human management

of the water cycle almost invariably follows this pattern. Water is sometimes moved

between river basins, and this may be required more in dry climates in the future. Such

bulk transfers usually involve pumping against the forces of gravity and are very ex-

pensive — cripplingly so for many uses, including agricultural irrigation.

The directive's second principle is to restore every river, lake, groundwater, wetland

and other water body across the Community to a 'good status' by 2015. This includes a

good ecological and chemical status for surface waters and a good chemical and quan-

titative status for groundwater. It requires managing the river basin so that the quality

and quantity of water does not affect the ecological services of any specific water body.

Thus, any abstraction has to maintain ecologically sustainable flows in rivers and pre-

serve groundwater reserves. Discharges and land-based activities have to be restricted



51

to a level of pollution that does not affect the expected biology of the water. In particu-

lar, the directive means that new measures will have to be taken to control the agricul-

tural sector so as to manage both its diffuse pollution sources and its abstractions of

water for irrigation.

The WFD will repeal several older pieces of legislation, such as the surface water di-

rective, the freshwater fish and shellfish directives and the groundwater directive. In

future, the objectives of these directives will be covered in a more coherent and inte-

grated way by the WFD and daughter directives. Only four water-related directives will

stay in place: the urban waste water treatment directive, the bathing water directive,

the nitrates directive and the drinking water directive. Measures and objectives to com-

bat extreme floods and droughts beyond securing a good quantity of groundwater are

not covered by the WFD but will be dealt with by an action programme and a directive,

which are currently under development. Europe has also recognized that, to achieve

the aims of the water framework directive, 'the role of citizens and citizen groups will be

crucial'. The implementation of the directive will require careful balancing of the inter-

ests of a wide range of stakeholders. The greater the transparency in the establish-

ment of objectives, the higher burden of measures and the reporting of standards, the

greater the care Member States will take in implementing the legislation in good faith,

and the greater the power of citizens to influence the direction of environmental protec-

tion. Caring for Europe's waters requires more involvement of citizens, interested par-

ties and non-governmental organizations, especially at the local and regional levels.

Thus the framework directive has established a network for the exchange of informa-

tion and experience to ensure that implementation will not be left unexamined until it is

already behind schedule or out of compliance (CEC – Commission of the European

Communities 2000).

4.3. Water availability and main water use in European countries

Countries where withdrawals are greater than 20% of total available supplies are gen-

erally regarded as water stressed. Four countries — Cyprus, Italy, Malta and Spain —

already fall in that category (EEA 2006b). Others are likely to join them as climate

change is expected to influence both the supply and demand for water (Figure 22).

Irrigation, meanwhile, currently accounts for less than 10% of water abstractions in

most of the temperate countries of northern Europe, but in southern Europe, in coun-

tries such as Cyprus, Greece and Malta and parts of Italy, Portugal, Spain and Turkey,

irrigation accounts for more than 60% of water use. In the EU-15, 85% of the irrigated

land is in the Mediterranean countries (EEA 2005b; EEA 2006b).

Overall in Europe, 80% of the water used in agriculture is either absorbed by crops or

evaporates from fields. In manufacturing and households, 80% is returned to the local

environment, albeit often polluted and at a different location or catchment. In electricity

generation, 95% of the abstracted water is returned, a little warmer than it left but oth-

erwise generally unchanged. Warmer water can, however, negatively impact on local

ecosystem structures.

52

Figure 22: Annual water availability per capita per country in 2001.

Meanwhile demographic and economic trends are likely to raise water use in other sec-

tors. Domestic use, currently around 25% of the European total, can be expected to

rise with wealth and with diminishing household size, a function, among others, of

Europe's ageing population. The increase in second homes and mass tourism, includ-

ing water-intensive activities such as watering golf courses, also raises per capita wa-

ter use. It is possible, however, that trends to increase domestic water use could be

moderated by regulations or economic incentives to encourage people to switch to

more water-efficient lavatories and household appliances. Water use in manufacturing

is likely to be dependent on the future of the heavy industries that currently use around

80% of the water in this sector (such as iron and steel, chemicals, metals and minerals,

paper and pulp, food processing, engineering and textiles). Increases are expected to

be greatest among the industrializing candidate EU countries, but use may decline

elsewhere as heavy industry declines or adopts more water-efficient industrial tech-

nologies.

4.4. Current threats

Terrestrial ecosystems are water consumptive and linked to green water flow; their key

water determinant is soil water and the macro- and micronutrients that they carry to

plants. But the terrestrial ecosystems, if altered, will have effects on runoff generation,

i.e. blue water flow, and therefore possibilities for the societal use of that water. In other

words, the change in land use affects blue water. The aquatic ecosystems dwell in blue

water habitats and their key determinants are river flow and seasonality, flood episodes

and water quality. Since they tend to accumulate the impacts of all human activities

upstream, these ecosystems are particularly vulnerable, e.g. to biodiversity loss.



53

Figure 23: Number of flooding events in Europe, 1900-2000 Source: EEA 2005a

Regarding flood risk management, the EEA report “The European Environment – State

and Outlook 2005” reconfirms that in general northern Europe is likely to become more

flood prone and southern Europe more drought prone as the extra energy in the cli-

mate system increases the probability of extremes – including severe storms and

floods – such as those witnessed in central Europe in recent years. The report also

finds that urban areas continue to grow, with effects like removal of woodland cover

that can radically alter rainwater run-off, provoking mudslides and other problems while

increasing the areas at risk from flooding. Many remaining wetlands have also been

lost to coastal developments, mountain reservoirs and river engineering works. These

findings reinforce the importance of improving integrated flood risk management in

Europe.

Many changes in climate and their impacts on ecosystems and human health are al-

ready visible in Europe, particularly in southern Europe where water shortages, fires

and droughts are increasingly apparent, along with more unpredictable weather pat-

terns. Meanwhile, the scientific evidence of climate change is getting firmer, with the

manifestation of more robust indicators suggesting a much faster rate of change than

previously thought (EEA 2005a; Eurostat 2005).

4.5. Water quality

It is not only the amount of water available that matters. Also the quality of water is of

importance. Water quality is usually defined by biological and chemical parameters.

For instance, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) is an index widely used to assess the

amount of organic oxygen-consuming pollution in a river. Water quality is also influ-

enced by the physical management of rivers and the wider hydrological environment of

a river basin. Canalisation, dam building, river bank management and other changes to

the hydrological flow can disrupt natural habitats, and change the seasonal patterns.

Groundwaters, too, suffer from the consequences of intensive agriculture and the use

of nitrogen fertilisers and pesticides. Nitrates contamination is widespread across

54

Europe, where the EU drinking standard for nitrate is exceeded in many of the ground-

water bodies (EEA 2005b).

Point sources of pollution are largely under control, while tackling the diffuse sources of

pollution is more difficult. The main source of diffuse pollution to water is from the larg-

est land use across most of Europe — agriculture. A particular focus of concern is nu-

trients, primarily nitrates and phosphates. Nitrates are generally the greatest problem.

More than half of the nutrient discharges in Europe now come from diffuse sources.

Agricultural emissions are now the dominant source of pollution in many river basins. In

1991, the EU introduced a nitrates directive, aimed at stemming the flow of nitrates into

the natural environment and drinking water. However, the implementation of the nitrate

directive has been rather poor. The patchy implementation of the nitrates directive has

been reflected in a patchy pattern of trends in nitrate pollution across Europe.

Discharges of both nitrogen and phosphorus from point sources have decreased sig-

nificantly during the past 30 years, whereas the loss from diffuse sources has generally

remained at a constant level. These changes have been largest for phosphorus, where

it has also resulted in the largest reduction in the total load due to the previously very

high share of point source discharges. The loss from diffuse sources has become rela-

tively more significant as a consequence of the reduced point source discharges.

Figure 24: Annual nitrogen load in selected regions and catchment Source: EEA 2005a



55

The changes are mainly due to improved purification of urban wastewater. In the Nor-

dic and western European countries, purification is now very effective and eastern

European countries are now following a similar development. Measures to reduce the

nitrogen surplus on agricultural land are now beginning to show results in terms of a

reduction in diffuse losses of nitrogen, but there is still a long way to go, see Figure 24

above (EEA 2005b). In most of Europe, agriculture is a dominating anthropogenic

source of pollution with nitrogen and phosphorus. Its current relative significance is

partly a result of the great efforts to reduce point source pollution during the past dec-

ades. The estimates of agricultural diffuse loss range from about 0 to 30 kg/ha for ni-

trogen and about 0 to 1 kg/ha for phosphorus. The highest loss is found in agriculturally

intensive regions in the north-western part of Europe, where the average (mineral) fer-

tiliser consumption per country is commonly about 40–70 kg/ha of nitrogen and 8–13

kg/ha of phosphorus (FAO, Eurostat).

At large scale, agriculture is the single dominating source of nitrogen pollution, typically

contributing 50–80% of the total load. The situation may be different in smaller catch-

ments with high population densities (e.g. large cities), very poor wastewater treatment,

or many industrial facilities discharging poorly treated wastewater. Moreover, due to a

combination of processes affecting the nitrogen cycle in soil and water, the reduction in

diffuse loading of the aquatic environment can be delayed by many years after meas-

ures have been implemented on land (EEA 2005a).

4.6. Climate change and water stress

Substantial changes in precipitation patterns, possibly linked to climate change, are

already apparent in Europe. In some northern countries there has been a marked in-

crease in precipitation in recent decades, particularly in winter, while declining rainfall is

a recent feature of southern and central Europe, especially in summer. These trends

are expected to continue, causing serious water stress in parts of southern Europe in

particular.

In parts of northern Europe, additional rainfall will increase river flow. Water availability

may increase by 10% or more in much of Scandinavia and parts of the United Kingdom

by 2030. In southern Europe a combination of reduced rainfall and increased evapora-

tion will cause a reduction of 10% or more in the run-off in many river basins in Greece,

southern Italy and Spain, and parts of Turkey. In southern Europe, this reduced supply

will be made worse by sharply rising demand, particularly from farmers needing more

water to irrigate their crops. In general, northern Europe is likely to become more flood

prone and southern Europe more drought prone as the extra energy in the climate sys-

tem increases the probability of extremes (EEA 2005b).

Higher temperatures are likely to have an even larger impact on water demand in

southern Europe, where the need for irrigation of crops will undoubtedly increase.

Baseline assumptions foresee a 20% increase in the area of southern Europe under

irrigation by 2030. In many places, there is simply not the water to meet this demand,

so there will be strong pressure for significant improvements in the efficiency of irriga-

tion systems.

56

Even allowing for such improvements, current projections see a rise of 11% in water

demand for agriculture. The question remains whether this water will be available in

practice, and how countries will meet the competing needs of agriculture and the eco-

logical protection of aquatic ecosystems. This will raise further questions about the

sustainability of certain patterns of agriculture, particularly in southern Europe, in the

light of projected changes in climate in already water-short areas, see Figure 25.

Figure 25: Current water availability in Europe, and under the LREM-E climate change sce-nario

Source: EEA 2005b

Not all these expected increases need to occur. The potential for greater efficiency in

water use may be much greater than currently anticipated. Such improvements may be

unlocked by more realistic water pricing, which would make investment in efficiency

more attractive, especially in agriculture (Roth 2001). It requires Member States to en-

sure that water pricing policies provide adequate incentives for users to use water

more efficiently and it requires that the environmental objectives of the Water Frame-

work Directive are supported.

Domestic water use could be cut through tougher water efficiency standards for

household appliances such as washing machines, dishwashers and lavatories. Per-

haps the greatest potential for water saving lies in reducing leakage rates in water dis-

tribution systems, particularly for domestic use. In some older cities in Europe, losses

exceed a third. Average leakage rates for Public Water Supply (PWS) range from 10%

in Austria and Denmark to 33% in the Czech Republic (OECD 1999). Incentives for

more efficient urban water use and supply are therefore urgently needed.

In some places this leakage is not strictly 'lost', since it recharges groundwater, from

where it can be pumped to the surface again. However, in many places this is impossi-

ble because the groundwater beneath cities is too contaminated to be used (EEA

2005a).



57

5 . T o p i c : L a n d s c a p e , B i o d i v e r s i t y a n d S o i l s

5.1. Introduction

The thematic topics of landscape, biodiversity and soils have been considered together

in this review, because the environmental and social factors that impact upon them are

often highly interconnected. While each topic area is important in its own right, their

individual fates are often highly correlated because their state or condition is usually

shaped by the way land is managed, and the way natural processes can modify the

elements of land cover and their associated properties. An understanding of the direct

and indirect drivers of land cover change is therefore taken as the starting point of this

review.

We now turn to the analysis of the three themes of landscape, biodiversity and soils in

more detail, to explore the nature of the forces that are currently impacting upon them

(Sections 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4). In the account that follows we make the distinction (see

Section 3.2) between the ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’ drivers of change, where the more im-

mediate or proximal pressures are those arising from the various activities associated

with internal or endogenous processes generated by the metabolism of the socio-

industrial system, and the external or exogenous forces that may influence the system

through their influence on quality and quantity of activities that affect economic per-

formance.

5.2. Landscape

5.2.1. Main policy goals and targets

Landscape is a particularly interesting topic area to consider, because while it is not

one to which a major raft of EU policy has been directed, a landscape focus provides a

way in which a number of cross-cutting environmental issues can be explored. The

importance of landscape in the policy arena has been emphasised by the European

Landscape Convention6, which defines landscape as ‘a distinctive and recognisable

area, an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and

interaction of natural and/or human factors’. The Convention argues that consideration

of landscape issues is important both because it can provide a way of developing an

integrated understanding of the interaction of people with their environment, and be-

cause it is an important element in its own right, in terms of the role it lays in maintain-

ing the quality of people’s lives. The aims of the Landscape Convention are to promote

European landscape protection, management and planning, and to organise European

co-operation on landscape issues.

For those who deal with landscape mainly in terms of its structure, landscape is seen in

terms of the physical arrangements of various types of feature. Thus in the landscape

ecological literature ‘landscape’ is often defined in terms of the structure and pattern of

6 http://www.coe.int/T/e/Cultural%5FCo%2Doperation/Environment/Landscape/

58

a land cover or land use mosaic, and its relationships with physical and biotic elements

such as terrain, geology, soils and vegetation, and cultural factors associated with peo-

ple’s use and management of the land over time. Landscapes are represented as a

heterogeneous area over which the patterns of association of the various elements

exhibit a repeated and consistent pattern.

It is widely acknowledged that the landscapes of Europe are extremely diverse be-

cause of the many combinations of geology, soils, relief, land cover, and historical and

cultural patterns that we can find across the member states. However, it is also ac-

knowledged that the landscapes of Europe are changing. Although natural factors

shape our landscapes, their character also results from the impact of cultural influ-

ences from the past and current land management practices. Thus, as a result of con-

temporary pressures such as urbanisation, agricultural intensification or the develop-

ment of new recreational patterns, many landscapes have been or are being trans-

formed.

Thus, while landscape per se is not an explicit focus of EU policy, issues of land cover

and land use change certainly are. It is argued here that consideration of them in a

wider landscape context allows them to be more easily considered in an integrated

way, so that cross-cutting issues can be more easily identified and managed. The ‘in-

tegrative’ that consideration of landscape can bring to debates is best illustrated by

reference to the general problem of ‘multi-functionality’.

The term ‘multi-functionality’ is used to describe situations where people achieve or

attempt to achieve multiple goals in their use of a parcel of land or the wider landscape.

In the rural areas of Europe and many other parts of the world, multi-functionality is the

norm since rarely do individual land parcels have only one purpose or use. The prob-

lem of multi-functionality has become the focus of discussion in much of the recent

research literature (see for example, Brandt and Vejre 2004; Helming and Wiggering

2003) because people and communities increasingly need to find ways of sustaining

the range of benefits or outputs they have traditionally enjoyed from a given area and

at the same time adapt management approaches so that new opportunities and needs

can be accommodated. Problems occur because, in a mixed land cover mosaic, use

conflicts may arise.

The need to find ways of dealing with the use conflicts that arise in multi-functional land

use systems (i.e. whole landscapes) has become a central concern of recent EU pol-

icy. Although there are no specific policies dealing with multi-functionality the problem

of resolving conflicts between alternative land uses or activities related to land man-

agement are often central to much recent thinking. Thus, the European Water Frame-

work Directive (CEC – Commission of the European Communities 2000) will profoundly

change the way in which land and associated water resources are managed, by pro-

moting and requiring a more integrated approach to land and water management than

has occurred in the past. The key objectives of the WFD, for example, are to:

• Enhance the status and prevent further deterioration of aquatic ecosystems and

associated wetlands. There is a requirement for nearly all inland and coastal

waters to achieve ‘good status’ by 2015;

• Promote the sustainable use of water;



59

• Reduce pollution of water, especially by ‘priority’ and ‘priority hazardous’ sub-

stances;

• Lessen the effects of floods and droughts; and,

• Rationalise and update existing water legislation and introduce a co-ordinated

approach to water management based on the concept of river basin planning.

The integrated approaches to river basin management required by the WFD will there-

fore involve a more holistic consideration of the spatial patterns of land use elements

within a catchment and the land management practices associated with them. As a

result, it will serve to expand the range of criteria that will have to be included in future

land use planning decisions.

A second important area that has implications for the way whole landscapes are likely

to be managed in the future is the EU Habitats Directive (CEC – Commission of the

European Communities 1992), which explicitly recognises that the integrity of many of

our most important nature conservation sites is undermined both by the effects of sur-

rounding land management practices, and the consequences of habitat fragmentation

and isolation. As a result, many regional and local land use planning policies are cur-

rently seeking to strengthen the ‘green infrastructure’ by creating buffer zones around

important sites, or designing green corridors or networks to connect up remnant

patches.

A final example, of how consideration of issues at the landscape scale have been

thrown into sharper focus by current EU Policy initiatives is the development of agro-

environmental measures following the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy

(CAP)7, which has increasingly aimed at heading off the risks of environmental degra-

dation, while encouraging farmers to continue to play a positive role in the maintenance

of the countryside and the environment by targeted rural development measures and

by contributing to securing farming profitability in the different EU regions.

The agro-environmental strategy of the CAP is largely aimed at enhancing the sustain-

ability of agro-ecosystems, with measures to address the integration of environmental

concerns by promoting minimum standards of farm practise through cross-compliance,

as well as targeted environmental measures that form part of the Rural Development

Programmes (e.g. agro-environment schemes). Under agro-environmental schemes,

farmers commit themselves for a five-year minimum period to adopt environmentally-

friendly farming techniques that go beyond usual good farming practice. In return they

receive payments that compensate for additional costs and loss of income that arise as

a result of their altered farming practices. Examples of commitments covered by na-

tional/regional agro-environmental schemes are:

• environmentally favourable extensification of farming;

• management of low-intensity pasture systems;

• integrated farm management and organic agriculture;

• preservation of landscape and historical features such as hedgerows, ditches

and woods; and,

7 http://europa.eu/pol/agr/index_en.htm

60

• conservation of high-value habitats and their associated biodiversity.

The Water Framework and Habitats directives and the development of agro-

environmental measures are particular examples of policy areas that involve a consid-

eration of landscape scale issues in order to develop appropriate spatial planning

strategies. In fact, such moves are just part of a much broader attempt in Europe to

develop a stronger and more balanced spatial approach to policy making.

The current impetus for improved approaches to spatial planning was stimulated by the

Member States and the European Commission through the publication of the 1999

European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP). The ESDP recognised that pre-

sent patterns of development across Europe are highly concentrated and that marked

variations of economic wealth and prosperity exist. For the future it was argued that

there should be many geographically well-spread prosperous regions across Europe,

and that stronger ‘territorial cohesion’ could be achieved by ‘polycentric’ spatial devel-

opment. More specifically the ESDP aims to put in place mechanisms to:

• strengthen the partnership between urban and rural areas, so as to create new

urban-rural relationships, to address issues related to household growth and

urban sprawl, and the need to promote new economic opportunities through

such concepts as “gateway” cities;

• promote integrated transport and communication initiatives, which support the

polycentric development of the EU territory, so that there is gradual progress

towards parity of access to infrastructure and knowledge, thereby helping to

address issues arising from patterns of migration, unemployment and signifi-

cant variations in GDP per capita across the EU; and,

• ensure the wise management of the natural and cultural heritage, which will

help conserve regional identities and cultural diversity in the face of globalisa-

tion and climate change.

Although the Lisbon Strategy that was launched in 2000 did not have a strong territorial

dimension, one of its key priorities was the need to make Europe an attractive area in

which people would like to live and work. This priority related not only to access to

markets and the provision of services, but also to the creation of a healthy environ-

ment. As our initial reference to the European Landscape Convention emphasised, an

ingredient of future success will be the extent to which regional and local identities can

be preserved and the distinctive aspects and character of different landscapes pre-

served. With increasing pressures of globalization on economies, landscape can be

seen as an important resource that can contribute directly to people’s well-being by

helping, for example, to ‘market’ different localities and their associated products in the

context of tourism or the local and regional labelling of food and other goods.

5.2.2. Overview of the environmental, economic and social problems related to

landscape

An overview of the environmental, economic and social problems that are associated

with landscape can best be gained by considering some of the major processes of

landscape change that can be identified across Europe. These include problems asso-



61

ciated with urban expansion, the intensification of agriculture, the abandonment of land

and the fragmentation of habitats.

Urban expansion or urban sprawl is widely recognised as an important issue in many

European countries. The EEA has shown that between 1990 and 2000, for example,

urban areas and associated infrastructure increased by more than 800,000 ha in

Europe as a whole (i.e. EU23), or roughly 5.3%. While the actual area of increase is

small compared to the total stock of land available, analysis shows that urban growth is

highly concentrated, occurring in places where expansion had already occurred in the

previous two decades. At present rates of change there would be a doubling of the

urban area in Europe in the next century. (EEA 2006a)

Although the economic and social consequences of urban expansion are advanta-

geous, rapid development places pressures on the environment through the modifica-

tions to patterns of consumption of energy and material resources, the production of

waste, and the indirect impacts of the expansion of artificial surfaces wider environ-

mental resources systems (e.g. through increased risks of flooding). Resource and

waste issues are covered elsewhere in this document. In terms of impacts on wider

resource systems, urbanisation impacts on the ‘water environment’ through increases

in surface sealing which alters the rate at which water is discharged from catchments,

by increasing pollution loads as a result of expansion of transport infrastructures,

changing local microclimates, and by fragmenting semi-natural habitats. Urban sprawl

is particularly evident in many of Europe’s coastal areas and has had considerable im-

plications for the Mediterranean, which is one of the world 34 global hotspots for biodi-

versity.

Agricultural intensification, and in particular the conversion of pastures to other types of

agricultural land cover, is also a major factor that has to be considered in relation to

understand the environmental, economic and social problems associated with land-

scape. The latter half of the 20th century was characterised by marked changes in rural

landscapes, as more intensive forms of agriculture developed in response to the post-

war drive for food security. More recently, as a result of the need to develop more lib-

eral, market orientated approaches and concerns for the environmental implications of

such intensive agricultures, different trajectories have been set in train. Between 1990

and 2000, analysis of land cover change data by the EEA shows that the main trends

have been the overall loss of agricultural land (mainly to urban and forest), and within

the farmed landscape the conversion of arable and permanent crops to pasture, set-

aside and fallow. However, the overall statistics mask quite marked regional and local

differences.

For example, conversion of new marginal land to agriculture appears to be taking place

in Portugal and Spain, SW France and eastern Germany and Hungary. This process is

in part due to the limited areas of good agricultural land in some countries and the loss

of the best areas through urbanisation. In other places, however, it represents the ex-

pansion of more intensive industrialised agricultural practices as a result of the trans-

formation of farming following accession, or the growth of new patterns of demand and

supply (e.g. irrigated horticultural crops in the Mediterranean region; conversion from

pasture to crops in SE Ireland driven by more intensive livestock farming and the de-

mand for animal feed).

62

The changes seen in Europe’s rural landscapes are particularly interesting because

while some are clearly showing the effects of more intensive agriculture management

practices, others show the effects of reduced management or even withdrawal. Indeed

the economic and social consequences of land abandonment are now important issues

in many European countries. Such trends can be observed in many of the mountain

regions of Europe, in some parts of Germany, Hungary and Slovakia, where arable

land has been transformed to forest through the process of natural regeneration. In

part the process has been triggered by the uneconomic nature of farming in more mar-

ginal areas. In Slovakia, however, it was also triggered partly by the fact that land was

returned to its former owners who did not necessarily have an interest in farming. The

consequences of abandonment are varied. Clearly if it is associated with rural depopu-

lation then the viability of rural communities and their associated services may be put in

jeopardy. In terms of biodiversity, the richness of species associated with the farmed

landscapes in many marginal areas is dependent on traditional land management prac-

tice, and so may also be transformed as management is withdrawn.

Throughout Europe, a consequence of land cover changes is the increasing fragmen-

tation of habitats and the increasing vulnerability of the remaining patches as a conse-

quence of the pressures of surrounding land uses. Landscape ecologists often think of

landscapes as a mosaic, and describe its structure in terms of the arrangement of dif-

ferent land cover types. They use the terms ‘patches’, ‘corridors’ and ‘matrix’ to de-

scribe these different elements, and go on to devise various measures of pattern to

describe the degree of fragmentation or connectedness that exists, and in particular, to

trace its implications for biodiversity. We can see many examples of national and inter-

national initiatives that have sought indicators to monitor the process and the effective-

ness of policies aimed to mitigate the problem.

Thus Norwegian 3Q Programme (Puschmann et al. 2004), which has been set up to

monitor change in agricultural landscapes with the aim to establish whether agro-

environmental policies are having the desired effects, has a whole range of structural

indicators such as landscape diversity (number of land cover types), edge density

(length of boundaries per unit area) and fragmentation (average patch size). At the

European scale the EnRisk/IRENA Project (Delbeare 2003) has proposed a range of

structural indicators describing openness, coherence and diversity of landscapes that

can be calculated using pan-European land cover data such available from CORINE.

5.3. Biodiversity


In contrast to landscape, which is not an explicit target of EU policy, biodiversity in its

broadest sense, has been the focus in a number of specific policy directives and

measures. Although many initiatives now reflect and reinforce Europe’s commitment to

various international agreements, such as the 1992 Convention for Biological Diversity

(CBD), in fact policies for different aspects of biodiversity have been developed over a

long period, and have been shaped by Europe’s commitments under many earlier

agreements, such as the 1971, Ramsar Convention, which concerns the conservation

and protection of wetlands, and the 1979 Bern Convention, which aimed to ensure



63

conservation and protection of all wild plant and animal species and their natural habi-

tats, and the 1979 Bonn Convention, which focused on migratory species.

To implement the Bern Convention in Europe, the European Community adopted

Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the Conservation of Wild Birds (CEC – Commission

of the European Communities 1979) in 1979, and Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the

Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (CEC – Commission of

the European Communities 1992) in 1992. Among other things the Directives provide

for the establishment of a European network of protected areas (known as Natura2000

sites), to tackle the continuing losses of European biodiversity on land, at the coast and

in the sea, all of which largely result from the impact of human activities on species and

the wider environment.

Such initiatives have been reinforced by Europe’s subsequent commitments under the

CBD, which resulted in the publication of the Pan-European Biological and Landscape

Diversity Strategy in 1994. The Strategy sought to introduce a coordinating and unify-

ing framework for strengthening and building on existing initiatives, which support the

implementation of the CBD. In 1998 the European Community Biodiversity Strategy

was adopted, defining a framework for action, by setting out four major themes and

specifying sectoral and horizontal objectives to be achieved. This was followed in 2001

by the production of Biodiversity Action Plans for fisheries, agriculture, economic coop-

eration and development, and conservation of natural resources. These sectoral Plans

define concrete actions and measures to meet the objectives defined in the strategy,

and specify measurable targets, and have stimulated more specific biodiversity action

plans at national and local levels.

A key requirement of Europe’s commitment made under the CBD, was to halt biodiver-

sity loss by 2010. In 2006, the EU reviewed this goal (CEC – Commission of the Euro-

pean Communities 2006a) and the extent to which it might be achieved given current

progress, and emphasised that while success was still possible, further effort was

needed. The Commission identified four key policy areas for action and, related to

these, ten priority objectives (Table 1).

64

Table 1: The key policy areas and objectives identified by the Commission for halting the loss

of biodiversity by 2010

The close integration of the various Directives concerned with biodiversity and other

policies and measures promoted by the EU can be seen in relation to:

• The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive (CEC - Commission of

the European Communities 2003a), which requires consideration of potential

environmental impacts of specified types of regional and territorial develop-

ments, and specifically the evaluation of alternative designs and measures to

prevent and reduce negative impacts on biodiversity; and,

• The recent introduction of Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA) (CEC –

Commission of the European Communities 2001), which apply to certain plans

and programmes, and which is intended to better reconcile conservation and

development needs by ensuring consideration of impacts at an early stage in

the planning process.

• The Water Framework Directive (WFD) which aims, amongst other things, to

enhance the status and prevent further deterioration of aquatic ecosystems and

associated wetlands, and to ensure all inland and coastal waters to achieve

‘good status’ by 2015. All conservation sites designated under the Habitats Di-

rective will become ‘protected areas’ under the WFD, and water quality objec-

tives developed through the WFD will be shaped by the conservation objectives

and ecological quality criteria developed under the Habitats Directive.

POLICY AREA 1: Biodiversity in the EU

! Objective 1: To safeguard the EU's most important habitats and species. ! Objective 2: To conserve and restore biodiversity and ecosystem services in the wider

EU countryside. ! Objective 3: To conserve and restore biodiversity and ecosystem services in the wider

EU marine environment. ! Objective 4: To reinforce compatibility of regional and territorial development with bio-

diversity in the EU. ! Objective 5: To substantially reduce the impact on EU biodiversity of invasive alien

species and alien genotypes.

POLICY AREA 2: The EU and global biodiversity

! Objective 6: To substantially strengthen effectiveness of international governance for biodiversity and ecosystem services.

! Objective 7: To substantially strengthen support for biodiversity and ecosystem serv-ices in EU external assistance.

! Objective 8: To substantially reduce the impact of international trade on global biodi-versity and ecosystem services.

POLICY AREA 3: Biodiversity and climate change

! To support biodiversity adaptation to climate change.

POLICY AREA 4: The knowledge base

! To substantially strengthen the knowledge base for conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, in the EU and globally.



65

• The EU’s Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection (TSSP), which aims to promote

the sustainable management and use of soil, both as a natural resource in its

own right, and as an ecosystem which supports a significant component of our

terrestrial biodiversity (see below, Section 6.4). The TSSP notes that not only

are soil ecosystems often amongst the richest in terms of the biodiversity that

they support, but that reductions in soil biodiversity make soils more vulnerable

to other degradation processes such as erosion by wind and water. The con-

servation of soil biodiversity is therefore seen as an essential part of the sus-

tainable management of this important natural resource.


biodiversity

An overview of the environmental, economic and social problems that arise in relation

to biodiversity loss can best be given by reference to the recently published ‘Millennium

Ecosystem Assessment’ (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). This international

initiative, which has been based on contributions of over 1300 researchers over a five

year period, has become central to current debates about nature-society relations, and

in particular the way the environment, and in particular biodiversity, is valued.

The MA Board provides a conceptual map of the relationships between ecosystem

functions and the benefits people and societies derive (Figure 26). It suggests that in

general terms four major categories of benefit are identified, namely:

a. Supporting functions, such as nutrient cycling, soil formation and primary pro-

duction;

b. Provisioning functions, such as the production of food and fibre;

c. Regulation functions, covering the role that ecosystems have in controlling cli-

mate, disease, flooding and water supply; and,

d. Cultural functions, which include spiritual, aesthetic, educational and scientific

roles that ecosystems can fulfil.

66

Figure 26: Linkage between Ecosystem Services and Human Well-being Source: after Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005

Using this classification, the MA provides a global analysis of the current status of eco-

system functions (Figure 27), and highlights those which are currently being degraded

largely as a result of the human pressures on the service exceeding its limits. The as-

sessment has shown that at global scales, about 60% of the services identified have

been and continue to be undermined by human impact. In the context of the EU, the

MA suggested that only 1–3% of Western Europe’s forests can be classed as ‘undis-

turbed by humans’ and that since the 1950s, Europe has lost more than half of its wet-

lands and most high–nature–value farmland. Many of the EU’s marine ecosystems are

also highly degraded.

At the species level, 42% of Europe’s native mammals, 43% of birds, 45% of butter-

flies, 30% of amphibians, 45% of reptiles and 52% of freshwater fish are threatened

with extinction; most major marine fish stocks are below safe biological limits; some

800 plant species in Europe are at risk of global extinction; and there are unknown but

potentially significant changes in lower life forms including invertebrate and microbial

diversity. Moreover, many once common species show population declines. This loss

of species and decline in species’ abundance is accompanied by significant loss of

genetic diversity.

Although the value of biodiversity is difficult to quantify precisely, an insight into the

nature of the economic, social and environmental problems that arise in relation to loss

of biodiversity and habitat function are summarized in Figure 26 and Figure 27. Many

species have, for example, direct economic value in that they provide food and fibre

(i.e. serve a provisioning function). Overexploitation of populations, such as those as-

sociated with marine ecosystems, has lead to significant declines in yields with wider



67

consequences both for other species that depend on them and the people that derived

a living from the industries that have been built around them. Beyond such obvious

direct economic consequences, loss of ecological function resulting from human im-

pacts on biodiversity and habitat structure include the consequences for a range of

regulation functions, such as the protection of soils, the maintenance of water quality

and quantity, disease and pest regulation and food security, pollination, and protection

against natural hazards such as flooding or landslides.

Figure 27: Global status of ecosystem services Source: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005

Although the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment has stimulated much discussion,

there is as yet little systematic information on the state of ecosystem goods and serv-

ices at the European scale. It is likely, however, that in the near future several national

assessments may be undertaken, and that organizations such as the EEA may coordi-

nate work at the Community level.

68

5.4. Soils


Soil is both an important ecosystem in its own right, and a fundamental part of other

ecosystems. Thus many of the concerns that affect the output of ecosystem goods and

services through land cover change and impact on biodiversity, do so through the soil

system. The problem of eutrophication, resulting from diffuse air pollution illustrates the

complex nature of the interactions involved. Nevertheless, because of the importance

that soils have for economic prosperity and well-being, it is useful to focus on them

separately to ensure that their role is fully explored.

The 6th Community Action Programme of the EU required the development of a The-

matic Strategy for soil protection that involved addressing the main factors impacting

on their integrity (CEC – Commission of the European Communities 2002). These driv-

ers included pollution, erosion, desertification, and land degradation and hydrological

risks. Since then, work has taken forward the development of a soils strategy, and

these efforts have most recently resulted in the publication of an assessment that such

a strategy would have in the context of promoting soil protection at European Scales

(CEC – Commission of the European Communities 2006b).

The impact assessment is particularly interesting in the present context since it at-

tempts to cost the benefits of adopting policies for improved soil protection. It is esti-

mated that full implementation of a Directive on soils would result in a benefit of around

!38M annually. It is noted that it is difficult to compare this estimate with the costs of

soil degradation, however, or the mitigation measures needed to ameliorate the worst

impacts of current activities, because they are difficult to calculate.

In its response to the results of the impact assessment the Commission accepts that

the best option for achieving improved soil protection is a specific Soils Directive. Such

a measure will therefore be a key future policy driver, that is likely to require Member

States to identify areas at risk for erosion, organic matter decline, compaction, salani-

sation and landslide, and to adopt risk reduction targets and measures to alleviate

these problems. Given the importance that soil integrity has for achieving the goals of

other Directive, such as those for water and biodiversity, it is also likely that these other

policy initiatives will also shape future management strategies.


soils

A number of studies have sought to identify the key drivers impacting on soil integrity at

European scales. A recent study published by the EEA (2006c) looked specifically at

the drivers and trends related to agriculture. They suggested that pressures on the soil

resource that arise from agriculture may result from changes in cropping and livestock

patterns, farm management regimes, in particular tillage practices and the manage-

ment of soil cover, and intensification/extensification processes. A range of indicators,

identified by IRENA, Nos. 13, 14 and 15, respectively, have been proposed to monitor

these processes.



69

Figure 28: Areas at risk from soil erosion in Europe

It is interesting to note that land cover change was also identified as a key issue, and it

was proposed that the indicator IRENA No. 24, which focuses on the land cover flows

between agriculture, forest and semi-natural areas, should be used to capture these

trends. The state of soils is also shown by the indicators on erosion (IRENA No. 23,

see Figure 28) and soil quality (IRENA No. 29).

At present, at the European level, few policies address problems of soil erosion either

directly or indirectly, although issues related to the problem are included in the Sewage

Sludge Directive. This instrument aims to protect and improve the quality of soils that

might contribute to a reduction of soil erosion, especially in the southern regions of

Europe. Within the Water Framework Directive, soil erosion issues are addressed

through the aim to establish a “good status of all waters” by 2015; in the context of soil

this will be achieved mainly by the management of sediment and chemical run-off. To

reach this aim, Member States are required to develop Programmes of Measures for

river basin districts by 2008.

In the context of the Common Agricultural Policies, the most important measures are

provided through the cross-compliance scheme and the rural development pro-

grammes. Member States are required to include soil erosion measures within the

minimum requirements to keep all agricultural land in good agricultural and environ-

mental conditions (cross-compliance), which has been conditional from 2005 onwards.

70

Moreover, measures to reduce soil erosion can be included within afforestation

schemes and agro-environmental programmes.

Soil organic carbon content in topsoil has been adopted as a proxy indicator for soil

quality for agro-environmental purposes, because it covers both strictly agricultural

criteria and wider environmental and societal concerns. Practices that give rise to low

carbon content increase the risk of erosion by wind and water. By contrast, mainte-

nance of high carbon content ensures both the integrity of soil for agricultural produc-

tion and the sequestration of carbon in relation to issues of climate change. Areas of

very low organic carbon content (between 0 and 1%) appear mostly in southern

Europe and correspond with areas with high soil erosion rates and warmer climates. In

northern Europe, highly organic soils (peat) are clearly distinguished.

In the absence of an overarching Soils Directive, from the perspective of existing Euro-

pean policies three initiatives specifically address the issue of soil organic matter,

namely those relating to the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), Climate Change and

Waste. CAP is probably the most important in that it has set in place a number of

measures supporting the build-up of soil organic matter. Agro-environmental schemes,

for example, aim to mitigate the negative pressures of farming on the environment, and

thus offer a significant opportunity to promote the build up of soil organic matter, by

encouraging such activities as organic farming. The requirement for cross-compliance

also sets in place mechanisms to ensure that all agricultural land receiving payments is

kept in good agricultural and environmental conditions. Thus Member States have to

define at national or regional level minimum requirements for what constitutes good

agricultural and environmental conditions that take into consideration the specific char-

acteristics of the area concerned.

Cross-compliance measures are also particularly important in the context of attempts

to reduce the negative effects of soil compaction, that may lead both to erosion of top-

soil and flooding. Under the requirements for cross-compliance, Member States are

required to implement measures for maintaining the soil structure, through, for example

the appropriate use of machinery use or the maintenance of lower livestock densities.

Beyond the direct impacts of agricultural practices on soil, there is also some concern

about the consequences of loss of soils through ‘surface sealing’, that is the loss and

transformation of soils through development processes. At present there appears to be

no legally binding instruments at the European level to address soil sealing, other than

measures promoted by the Directives for Environmental Impact Assessment and the

Strategic Environmental Assessment. The impact regulations require that the analysis

should include attention to the need for soil protection issues. However, the effects of

irreplaceable soil losses are often not sufficiently taken into account, mainly due to a

lack of available data and methods for evaluation (Kraemer et al. 2004). At present the

main indicator of such transformations is loss of agricultural and other open areas

through land cover change to urban.



71

6 . D e r i v a t i o n o f C r o s s - c u t t i n g d r i v e r s

6.1. Methodology

Integration of different issues has often been lacking in scenario development (Raskin

et al. 2004). Against the background of the DPSIR-concept, it is the goal of the

FORESCENE project to analyze environmental problems with regard to their interrela-

tions and search for underlying common drivers. For instance, the use of resources in

the production and consumption system is associated with the extraction and harvest

of resources that impact soil (e.g. for building infrastructures), biodiversity (e.g. by min-

ing/quarrying) and water (e.g. by agriculture). One may expect that important driving

forces, which – in a cross-cutting manner – relate to various environmental topics, are

linked to the material flows of the physical economy. These flows are determined by

economic characteristics of intermediate and final demand; they are influenced by

technological and institutional changes, and are associated with social and cultural

implications. Thus one can expect that the development of integrated scenarios will be

critically depending on the determination and assessment of the cross-thematic and

cross-sectoral drivers of resource use. These parameters determine the volume and

structure of the societal or industrial metabolism, and thus the interaction with the envi-

ronment through resource extraction, final waste disposal and physical expansion of

the technosphere (infrastructures, buildings).

In order to derive and delineate cross-cutting drivers for the three problem fields re-

source use and waste, water, and landscape, biodiversity and soils a unified matrix

was developed. As explained in section 2.1.1 the DPSIR framework was used as a

reference framework, with the distinction that it was decided in the FORESCENE pro-

ject to further differentiate drivers into direct drivers (=activities) and indirect drivers

(=underlying factors).

The distinction between direct drivers (= activities) and indirect drivers (= underlying

factors or driving forces) is not clear-cut in terms of the addressed topic areas, as there

are both quantitative as well as qualitative aspects of pressures on natural resources.

The environmental impact of driving forces will probably not be grasped by looking at

singular causal chains but rather by understanding the effect on activities.

The matrix serves as basis for delineating activities, driving forces and the three prob-

lem areas in order to identify the cross-cutting drivers. This actually would lead to a

three dimensional matrix, but for clarity reasons the following matrix was developed

(see Fehler! Verweisquelle konnte nicht gefunden werden.). In the top part the ac-

tivities (direct drivers) are assigned in the columns. These activities, which are speci-

fied according to the headline classes of the NACE-code, are presumably of relevance

for the three topic fields.

The first rows contain the three problem fields, which have been assessed in the differ-

ent sections above. The top part of the matrix serves to indicate and weight (at first in

relative terms) the relevance of the activities by sector for the different problem fields.

72

Figure 29: Matrix of activities

The systematic search for underlying factors likely to drive environmental pressures

with potential cross-cutting effects in the EU is symbolized by the “mind map” or, sim-

ply, the “tree” presented in Figure 30, which is based on the results of a mind mapping

session organized at the 1st integration workshop of the FORESCENE project in Brus-

sels (6 September 2006).



73

Figure 30: Tree of underlying factors

74

Starting from the “trunk” (underlying factors), three levels of aggregation are investi-

gated to list and organize the underlying factors. The third level (L3) consists of indica-

tors corresponding to numerical, empirical data.

The relevance of the listed underlying factors needs to be assessed with regard to the

environmental issues at stake. For this purpose, a three-dimensional matrix is used

(see Table 2). The relevance of level 2 (L2) underlying factors is scrutinized for the

three environmental problem fields in the context of eleven production activities or

product groups. Assessing the relevance of the L2 underlying factors actually consists

in assessing the plausibility of a causal effect between these L2 factors and the envi-

ronmental problems within given production activities. The trends and absolute levels

observed for the L3 indicators (representing the L2 underlying factors) constitute the

basis of the plausibility-relevance reasoning.

The experts’ views, data, literature or any other material used to scrutinize the behav-

iour of L3 indicators in relation to the environmental fields should, whenever possible,

encompass certain time and geographical scopes. When looking at the trends of some

indicators, time-series covering the last ten years should be favoured. The relevance

assessment should apply to the EU-25 as a whole. If a problem field needs to be con-

sidered at a smaller geographical scope (e.g. regional scope for water issues), the final

results of the relevance assessment should, however, refer to the whole EU-25 (e.g.

through extrapolation).

In order to classify a L2 underlying factor in terms of relevance, a number of criteria

were developed. The L2 factor is classed as very relevant if there is a direct link be-

tween underlying factor, activity and resulting impact bundle, or a strong indirect link

with impacts occurring inside the EU. It is classed as relevant if an indirect link (via the

process-chain) with impacts occurring either within or outside EU can be established.

The (plausible) relevance of the underlying factors, with regard to the three environ-

mental topics in the context of the eleven activities, is then documented in the matrix,

according to a simple three degree rating scale:

O (not regarded as relevant)

X (relevant, indirect link with impacts)

XX (very relevant, direct link with impacts)

? (plausibility could not be assessed)

This was done for each problem area separately (sections 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4), before

combining the results in the overall unified matrix (section 6.5).



75

Table 2: Matrix of underlying factors

6.2. Delineation of driving forces in the topic field of resource use and waste

Based on the methodological framework described in the previous section, a plausibil-

ity check is conducted on the underlying factors listed in Table 2. The following points

provide qualitative and quantitative explanations on which the relevance assessment of

the underlying factors with their differing influence on the eleven activity sectors are

76

based for the problem area of resource use and waste generation. Table 20 (at the end

of this section) presents the results of the analysis in a unified matrix.

Level 1 – Economic development

Level 2 – Economic growth

Growth Domestic Product (GDP) is the usual headline indicator for economic growth.

Times series for GDP and GDP per capita, as well as for their respective growth rates,

are available from Eurostat. The growth rate of the GDP per capita in the EU-25 was

lower than 2% in the years 2001-2005, in contrast to the five years before that period,

where the growth rate has been higher. There are large discrepancies among the EU-

25 member states with regard to the growth rates of GDP and the levels of GDP per

capita.

In general, the direct material input (DMI) and the total material requirement (TMR)

grow with GDP (Bringezu et al. 2004, p.111). There is a trend towards relative decou-

pling between these two parameters and GDP. Absolute decoupling between TMR per

capita and GDP could only be observed in particular cases, under extraordinary politi-

cal and economic changes.

The future development of TMR and its structure depend on the initial level of income.

Higher coupling generally occurs for lower income countries, where construction mate-

rials account for a large share of the TMR. The flows for those materials usually slightly

decrease in the course of economic growth, while metals and industrial minerals show

an increasing trend. We assume after Bringezu et al.’s (2004) findings that the growth

of GDP and its level per capita are very relevant for the production activities ‘basic

metals’, ‘chemicals and chemical products’ and ‘construction’, and to a lesser extent for

the sector ‘machinery equipment’. Even though the correlation between the activities

‘motor vehicle’ and ‘transport’, and GDP was not considered as very high by Bringezu

et al. (2004), it is assumed here that economic growth is very relevant for the develop-

ment of transport and, hence, for the development of resource use in the motor vehicle

industry.

The share of biomass in TMR, and notably the erosion associated with its production,

does not show any significant relation to GDP (Bringezu et al. 2004, p.116). The per-

formance of the energy supply with regard to TMR varies considerably from country to

country and does not correlate with GDP (Bringezu et al. 2004, p.117).

Table 3: Relevance assessment of ‘economic growth’

Agricultu

re

Fo

restr

y

Basic

meta

ls

Che

mic

als

and

che

mic

al pro

d-

ucts

Fo

od p

roducts

and b

evera

ges

Machin

ery

equ

ipm

ent

Moto

r ve

hic

les

En

erg

y s

upp

ly

Wate

r su

pply

Constr

uction

Tra

nsport

O O XX XX ? X XX O O XX XX



77

Level 2 – Investment patterns

Two types of investment can be considered for the Level 3 indicators: investment in

fixed or human capital. Time-series for investments described as gross fixed capital

formation (GFCF) are available from Eurostat. Gross fixed capital formation consists of

resident producers' acquisitions, less disposals of fixed tangible or intangible assets

(including buildings, infrastructures, machinery and equipment, mineral exploration,

computer software, literary or artistic originals) plus certain additions to the value of

non-produced (usually natural) assets realised by productive activity (e.g. major

improvement to land, such as the clearance of forests or the draining of marshes).

The total GFCF increased in absolute terms in EU-25 for the period 1995-2005. Its

share of the GDP, however, remained stable between 19.5% and 20.5%. The varia-

tions, as well as the level, of the GFCF differ when considering the individual invest-

ment products separately (see Figure 31). Apart from the ‘products of agriculture’, all

the product groups showed an increasing trend in 2005. The highest level of invest-

ment is associated with construction work, followed by metal products and machinery,

transport equipment and products of agriculture, respectively.

The investment in human capital can be represented by three indicators:

• expenditure on education

• the percentage of all enterprises providing CVT (Continuing Vocational Train-

ing) courses

• the percentage of people benefiting from lifelong learning

These data are available from Eurostat. The total public expenditure on education in-

creased by about 18% over the period 1995-2002 in EU-25. There is no time series

available for the share of enterprises providing CVT. In 2005 in EU-25, 3% more peo-

ple benefited from lifelong learning than in 2000.

Figure 31: Gross fixed capital formation in EU-25, broken down per investment product Source: Eurostat

78

Given the very nature of GFCF (purchase of buildings, infrastructure, durable equip-

ment such as machinery etc), these investments are expected to cause the increase of

the construction mineral and metal flows. The GFCF indicator is therefore considered

relevant for the production activities ‘basic metals’, ‘construction’, ‘machinery equip-

ment’, ‘energy’, ‘water’, ‘chemicals’, ‘transport’ and ‘motor vehicles’. However, certain

investments, e.g. fostered by a “national efficiency plan” and aiming at reducing en-

ergy, material and water intensity, would result in a reduction of auxiliary input, if not

compensated by an increase in production output.

The percentage of enterprises in EU-25 which were providing intern CVT courses in

1999 varies from 41% to 79% depending on the sector considered:

> 75%: Electricity, gas and water supply (79%)

> 60%: Motor vehicles (66%), Machinery equipment (63%), Chemicals and

chemical products (60%)

> 50%: Mining and quarrying (59%), Food and beverages (55%)

> 40%: Transport (47%), Construction (41%)

It is assumed that the investments in training sessions for the human capital could re-

duce the use of resources. However, considering the high levels of GFCF occurring in

construction works, metal products and machinery, it is assumed that investments in

training for the human capital in those sectors do not significantly affect the assumed

strong coupling of GFCF and resource use.

Table 4: Relevance assessment of ‘investment patterns’

Level 2 – Globalisation

The ‘globalisation’ process goes hand in hand with increasing trade flows, both in

monetary and physical terms. New trade opportunities through globalisation seem to

favour an increase of resource use. Developing countries tend to be net exporters of

raw materials, which are associated with large amounts of hidden flows, while industrial

countries import those materials and export finished industrial products with high added

value. The physical volume of exchanges (imports and exports measured in tonnes)

gives insight into the resource use mobilised for global trade, though hidden flows are

not accounted for.

The volume of trade seems a more reasonable indicator than the physical trade bal-

ance (PTB) or the monetary trade balance (MTB), which only represent differences.

One could, however, argue that the PTB could be used to look at burden shifting is-

Agricultu

re

Fo

restr

y

Basic

meta

ls

Che

mic

als

and

che

mic

al pro

d-

ucts

Fo

od p

roducts

and b

evera

ges

Machin

ery

equ

ipm

ent

Moto

r ve

hic

les

En

erg

y s

upp

ly

Wate

r su

pply

Constr

uction

Tra

nsport

O O XX X O XX X X X XX X



79

sues. In the same way, the MTB can give insight into the equity of trade between two

partners. But, in terms of resource use and associated environmental impacts, it is the

nature and the absolute amount of resources used that matters. Figure 32 shows that

the EU-15 is a net importer of fossil fuels, biomass and industrial minerals. Construc-

tion minerals do not appear because domestic extraction is usually sufficient to satisfy

European needs.

Figure 32: Physical Trade Balance of EU 15 Source: Eurostat and IFF 2002; Data set B

Table 5: Relevance assessment of ‘globalisation’

Level 1 – Production patterns

Level 2 – Innovation

A reasonable L3 indicator to represent the innovation effort in Europe may be the ex-

penditure on research and development. Numerical data are available from Eurostat as

the GERD (Gross domestic Expenditure on R&D). For the period 1990-2004 the GERD

increased in absolute terms but remained almost constant at around 2% of the GDP.

Industry accounts for 55% (constant), while the governments represent around 34% of

the total (slight decrease over the period); about 8% comes from abroad (slight de-

crease also). There is no data detailed per production activity. Based on the compari-

son of GERD with GDP, it is assumed that there is no real positive trend in the innova-

tion effort at the EU-25 level.

Eurostat (2004, p.52) presents the results of a survey, which aimed to elicit the propor-

tion of European enterprises with innovation activities. According to this survey the fol-

Agricultu

re

Fo

restr

y

Basic

meta

ls

Che

mic

als

and

che

mic

al pro

d-

ucts

Fo

od p

roducts

and b

evera

ges

Machin

ery

equ

ipm

ent

Moto

r ve

hic

les

En

erg

y s

upp

ly

Wate

r su

pply

Constr

uction

Tra

nsport

XX XX XX XX XX XX X XX XX X XX

80

lowing shares of enterprises had innovation activities going on between 1998 and 2000

(the classification is based on NACE; the construction sector is not evaluated):

(i)

• Mining and quarrying: 34%

• Manufacturing: 47%

• Electricity, gas and water supply: 37%

• Transport and communication: 28%

Eurostat (2004, p.59) reveals that, among the enterprises where innovation activities

were conducted, the following proportion considered that their innovation activity had a

high impact with regard to the reduction of “materials and energy per produced unit”:

(ii)

• Mining and quarrying + electricity, gas and water supply: 15%


• Transport and communication + Financial intermediation: 7%

By multiplying the aforementioned results (i) and (ii), one can estimate the proportion of

enterprises in the EU in which the innovation activity had a high contribution to the re-

duction of materials and energy per produced unit:

(iii)

• Mining and quarrying + electricity, gas and water supply: 5.1%

• Manufacturing: 5.2%

• Transport and communication: 2%

It is assumed that these shares reflect the relevance of innovation on resource use.

However, a good proportion of enterprises with innovation activities also report that

their innovation activity had a high positive impact on their production capacity (EC

2004, p.59):

(iv)

• Mining and quarrying + electricity, gas and water supply: 22%


• Transport and communication + Financial intermediation: 16%

By multiplying (i) and (iv), one can therefore estimate the proportion of enterprises in

the EU in which innovation activities had a high positive impact on production capaci-

ties:

(v)

• Mining and quarrying + electricity, gas and water supply: 7.5%

• Manufacturing: 14.1%

• Transport and communication: 4.5%



81

Thus, the net effect of innovation on resource use depends on the evolution of the pro-

duction. If production does not increase, then innovation can actually induce a reduc-

tion in resource use. However, if a larger production capacity is developed and utilized,

then this effect could be offset and one could even end up with innovation being a

cause of increased resource use. In both cases, the underlying factor “Innovation” is

considered to be relevant for the issue of resource use.

One can wonder whether there is a different impact of public and private GERD on

resource use. A linear regression applied to the plot of direct material intensity (DMI

intensity, in t / mio euro GDP) according to the public or private GERD of EU-15 gives

the same result as with total GERD (see Figure 33): a negative correlation (bi = -16.34)

with a high R2 (0.97). Due to lack of data, the plot only covers the period 1990-2000.

This result has been cross-checked by applying the same treatment to certain EU

members separately. The results are then similar for Finland, France, the Netherlands

and UK but there is no correlation at all for Spain. The seemingly negative correlation

between GERD (whether public or private) and DMI intensity given by this very rough

analysis should be considered with great care. Hoffmann (2004) indeed conducted a

multi-variable regression analysis in order to find factors influencing DMI and con-

cluded that the significance of the GERD factor was generally negligible in relation to

other factors.

Given the uncertainty at this point, the assumption made in the former paragraph

(“GERD is relevant”) is retained. The construction sector is assumed to follow the same

pattern as the activities studied by (Eurostat 2004). The results from Eurostat (2004)

for ‘manufacturing’ are assumed to be relevant in the present study for ‘chemicals and

chemical products’, ‘machinery equipment’ and ‘motor vehicles’, while the results for

‘mining and quarrying’ are associated here with ‘basic metals’. It is furthermore as-

sumed that the production of renewable raw materials or energy carriers from biomass

will profit strongly in the near future from R&D investments. Therefore, the ‘innovation’

underlying factor is seen as very relevant for the agricultural and forestry sectors and

as a consequence for the food and beverage industry. Along with land competition and

changing agricultural production patterns, the possibly increased dependence on im-

ported biomass and the associated burden shifting are of primary concern.

82

Figure 33: Evolution of the DMI intensity in EU-15 compared with Gross domestic Source: Eurostat

Table 6: Relevance assessment of ‘innovation’

Level 2 – Composition of material input

Considering the eleven activities separately, one could decide upon a set of indicators

representing the composition of the material input to those activities, and thus get an

insight into their respective resource use. The share of secondary input could be one

such indicator, as the production of secondary material is usually associated with lower

resource use than the primary production. It could also be reasonable to track the input

of certain sensitive materials, either because their production is traditionally associated

with high resource use and waste (e.g. precious metals), or because their transforma-

tion in the production process will generate waste that is of particular concern (e.g.

hazardous chemicals). Keeping record of the composition of the material input of pro-

duction activities also provides information about their (waste) output, in line with the

concept of the industrial metabolism of: “what goes in must come out”. The share of

renewable feedstock and fuel in the input to the manufacturing industry and energy

sector, respectively, could be another indicator of the sustainability of the material input

composition.

Agricultu

re

Fo

restr

y

Basic

meta

ls

Che

mic

als

and

che

mic

al pro

d-

ucts

Fo

od p

roducts

and b

evera

ges

Machin

ery

equ

ipm

ent

Moto

r ve

hic

les

En

erg

y s

upp

ly

Wate

r su

pply

Constr

uction

Tra

nsport

XX XX X X XX X X X X X X



83

Table 7: Relevance assessment of ‘composition of material input’

Level 2 – Recycling

When it comes to limiting the use of primary resources, one obvious option (besides

reducing production output) is to increase the use of secondary input at the expense of

primary material. In this respect, the indicator called ‘rate of secondary production’ rep-

resents the share of secondary input in total input. The ‘recycling rate’, on the other

hand, stands for the amount of secondary material produced out of end-of-life products

or waste. An increasing recycling rate could offer increasing amounts of secondary

material for industrial production. An important parameter to consider besides the recy-

cling rate is the lifetime of products or systems. The recycling rate indeed only applies

to end-of-life products. The absolute amount of secondary material actually available

therefore depends on where one is situated in the life cycle of a production-

consumption system.

For instance, the introduction of a new technology at a large scale (e.g. fuel cell vehi-

cles) could require huge amounts of primary resources (e.g. platinum) associated with

important environmental impacts and waste. Even though this resource is recyclable

(e.g. platinum is technically 100% recyclable), significant amounts of secondary mate-

rials will not be available before a period roughly equal to the lifetime of the first prod-

ucts. And even then, in absence of important technological improvement, the secon-

dary input will not cover the demand for resources of such an expanding technology.

It is assumed that recycling is also relevant for resource use in the ‘transport’, ‘energy’

and ‘water’ sectors. The important logistics behind any recollection and recycling

scheme explain the choice for the former activities. As an alternative to landfill disposal

and energy recovery through incineration, recycling (incl. reuse) is relevant regarding

energy and water use (e.g. paper recycling or reusable glass bottles).

Table 8: Relevance assessment of ‘recycling’

Agricultu

re

Fo

restr

y

Basic

meta

ls

Che

mic

als

and

che

mic

al pro

d-

ucts

Fo

od p

roducts

and b

evera

ges

Machin

ery

equ

ipm

ent

Moto

r ve

hic

les

En

erg

y s

upp

ly

Wate

r su

pply

Constr

uction

Tra

nsport

X X XX XX X XX XX XX X XX X

Agricultu

re

Fo

restr

y

Basic

meta

ls

Che

mic

als

and

che

mic

al pro

d-

ucts

Fo

od p

roducts

and b

evera

ges

Machin

ery

equ

ipm

ent

Moto

r ve

hic

les

En

erg

y s

upp

ly

Wate

r su

pply

Constr

uction

Tra

nsport

X X XX XX ? X X X X X X

84

Level 2 – Material intensity

Obviously ‘material intensity’ (measured as material input per economic output, where

the latter is measured in physical, functional or economic terms) is an underlying factor

highly relevant for all the considered activities. In each of them the material flows ob-

served at the European level are indeed too high to be sustainable. More precisely,

when looking at the material part of resource intensity, it can reflect the influence of (or

the need for) strategies towards sustainability, such as dematerialisation. The previous

two underlying factors (‘composition of material input’ and ‘recycling’) are in this re-

spect more relevant for strategies such as the substitution of a problematic input by

another one, hopefully less harmful.

Table 9: Relevance assessment of ‘resource intensity’

Level 1 – Consumption patterns

Level 2 – Food and drink

The consumption of meat and dairy produce is stressed here as the most influential

aspect of the food and drink consumption, when it comes to its impact on resource use.

The L3 indicator is represented by the ‘meat consumption per capita’, available online

on the Eurostat website. Data, however, is only available for the EU-15. The meat con-

sumption oscillates for the period 1995-2002, but the general trend is on the increase.

The same is assumed for dairy produce.

Since the production of meat is the least efficient of all food production from the field to

the fork, it is assumed that meat consumption is very relevant regarding resource use

for the following sectors: ‘agricultural and forestry’, ‘chemicals and chemical products’

(mainly due to the use of fertilizers and pesticides to grow feed crops), ‘food products

and beverages’ and ‘energy’ and ‘water’ (in the agriculture as well as in the food proc-

essing industry). It is assumed that the correlation is lower for ‘motor vehicles’ ‘machin-

ery equipment’ and ‘transport’. The ‘meat and dairy produce consumption’ indicator is

assumed to have no relevance for the production of basic metals and for the construc-

tion sector.

Agricultu

re

Fo

restr

y

Basic

meta

ls

Che

mic

als

and

che

mic

al pro

d-

ucts

Fo

od p

roducts

and b

evera

ges

Machin

ery

equ

ipm

ent

Moto

r ve

hic

les

En

erg

y s

upp

ly

Wate

r su

pply

Constr

uction

Tra

nsport

XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX



85

Table 10: Relevance assessment of ‘food and drink’

Level 2 – Housing, leisure, transport and communication

The patterns applying to the three consumption areas ‘housing’, ‘leisure’ and ‘transport

and communication’ can be seen as underlying factors driving resource use and waste

generation in certain activities. It can be considered, as a first approximation, that the

relevant activities are those directly involved in fulfilling these three needs. The way

consumers choose to fulfil these needs depends on other factors, like their aforemen-

tioned ‘aspirations’, level of income or natural conditions. The effect of this choice could

be captured by indicators such as the average size of households, the average vaca-

tion time or the average electronic equipment rate.

For instance, ‘housing’ is obviously relevant for ‘construction’ (and hence for ‘machin-

ery’). The construction techniques have developed towards a massive use of steel (for

the structure) and copper (e.g. for the electrical equipment etc), which indicates a rele-

vance for the ‘basic metals’ sector. ‘Chemicals and chemical products’ are also in-

creasingly important (e.g. plastics, surface treatments).

Table 11: Relevance assessment of ‘housing’

Table 12: Relevance assessment of ‘leisure’

Agricultu

re

Fo

restr

y

Basic

meta

ls

Che

mic

als

and

che

mic

al pro

d-

ucts

Fo

od p

roducts

and b

evera

ges

Machin

ery

equ

ipm

ent

Moto

r ve

hic

les

En

erg

y s

upp

ly

Wate

r su

pply

Constr

uction

Tra

nsport

XX XX O XX XX X X XX XX O X

Agricultu

re

Fo

restr

y

Basic

meta

ls

Che

mic

als

and

che

mic

al pro

d-

ucts

Fo

od p

roducts

and b

evera

ges

Machin

ery

equ

ipm

ent

Moto

r ve

hic

les

En

erg

y s

upp

ly

Wate

r su

pply

Constr

uction

Tra

nsport

O X X X O X X XX X XX X

Agricultu

re

Fo

restr

y

Basic

meta

ls

Che

mic

als

and

che

mic

al pro

d-

ucts

Fo

od p

roducts

and b

evera

ges

Machin

ery

equ

ipm

ent

Moto

r ve

hic

les

En

erg

y s

upp

ly

Wate

r su

pply

Constr

uction

Tra

nsport

? ? O O O O X X X X XX

86

Table 13: Relevance assessment of ‘transport and communication’

Level 1 – Demographical factors

Level 2 – Ageing society

It can be assumed that the ongoing ageing of the European population will have an

influence (positive or negative) on certain sectors regarding resource use. For in-

stance, an increasingly ageing society could lead to increases in pharmaceutical con-

sumption (relevant for ‘chemical products’). The development towards an ageing soci-

ety also raises other questions, such as: Where will a rapidly growing number of older

people decide to live and in which type of lodging? Which transport means will fit

them? Will there be a change in the average European diet as a result of more and

older people? Which consequences would this have for European agriculture?

Table 14: Relevance assessment of ‘ageing society’

Level 2 – Settlement patterns

Different indicators, such as the respective shares of rural and urban populations,

could be used to reflect certain trends in settlement patterns of the European popula-

tion. These patterns are also most likely to be relevant for the environmental problem

fields considered in the present study. Urban sprawl, for instance, is responsible for the

sealing of agricultural land; unless urban planning favours an increase of population

density and therefore refrains from using agricultural land to build residential areas.

A report from the EEA (2005d, p.21) anticipates further increases in the number of

households in Europe for the coming 25 years (over 35% more households in 2030

than in 1990 but with less than 2.5 persons per household instead of slightly more than

3 persons in 1990). This forecast thus points towards an increased risk of further urban

sprawl. This is likely to have positive impacts on the construction sector with knock on

Agricultu

re

Fo

restr

y

Basic

meta

ls

Che

mic

als

and

che

mic

al pro

d-

ucts

Fo

od p

roducts

and b

evera

ges

Machin

ery

equ

ipm

ent

Moto

r ve

hic

les

En

erg

y s

upp

ly

Wate

r su

pply

Constr

uction

Tra

nsport

O O X X O XX XX XX X XX XX

Agricultu

re

Fo

restr

y

Basic

meta

ls

Che

mic

als

and

che

mic

al pro

d-

ucts

Fo

od p

roducts

and b

evera

ges

Machin

ery

equ

ipm

ent

Moto

r ve

hic

les

En

erg

y s

upp

ly

Wate

r su

pply

Constr

uction

Tra

nsport

X ? ? X X ? X X X X X



87

effects on other activities, such as ‘basic metals’, ‘machinery equipment’ and ‘chemi-

cals’. Extended urban and suburban areas will also have relevant knock on effects in

terms of transport infrastructure (especially private transport), making ‘transport’ also

very relevant.

Table 15: Relevance assessment of ‘settlement patterns’

Level 2 – Population density

Population density in itself is already a numerical, empirical indicator. As already indi-

cated above lower population density might imply higher resource use for a number of

activities such as ‘construction’ (infrastructure needed to connect scattered settle-

ments), ‘transport’ (probably predominance of private transport over collective and less

resource intensive means of transport), ‘energy’ (e.g. detached family house requires

more energy for heating than semi-detached houses or flats), and ‘motor vehicles

manufacturing’ (importance of private transport). The relevance for the other activities,

however, is not quite clear. An illustration of the possible link between population den-

sity and resource use is shown at an aggregate level in Figure 34, which shows that

the per capita material consumption of a country tends to decrease with increases in

population density.

Figure 34: DMC per capita with respect to population density in some EU-15 countries in 2000 Source: Eurostat, Schütz

Agricultu

re

Fo

restr

y

Basic

meta

ls

Che

mic

als

and

che

mic

al pro

d-

ucts

Fo

od p

roducts

and b

evera

ges

Machin

ery

equ

ipm

ent

Moto

r ve

hic

les

En

erg

y s

upp

ly

Wate

r su

pply

Constr

uction

Tra

nsport

X X X X ? X X XX XX XX XX

88

Table 16: Relevance assessment of ‘population density’

Level 1 – Natural system conditions

Level 2 – Climate change

The exact nature and scale of environmental impacts directly and indirectly caused by

climate change are currently unknown and can only be estimated. What is, however,

widely accepted, is that climate change will increase water stress in southern Europe,

while precipitations will increase in northern Europe. More extreme weather episodes

are also expected, which implies e.g. more drought periods and an increased fre-

quency of flooding events. This will have large consequences for the agricultural sec-

tor. One can also assume that the construction sector might benefit from increases in

extreme weather events due to rebuilding and restoration activities. In some cases,

infrastructures could require more resource use in the future, if they are dimensioned to

resist to such events. The increasingly unbalanced precipitations between northern and

southern Europe, coupled with higher irrigation demand, especially in the south, could

lead to the export of water from the north to the south, which would have an impact on

the construction (e.g. pipelines) and transport sectors (e.g. tankers). Another plausible

outcome would be the development of desalinisation facilities in the south, which would

have an influence on the energy sector.

Table 17: Relevance assessment of ‘climate change’

Level 2 – Resource depletion

The inevitable exhaustion of exploited ore bodies or fossil fuel deposits induces price

increases of those raw materials and pushes the limits of economically viable exploita-

tion. Following the depletion of existing high grade ores, mining companies will start to

extract ores of lower grades and petroleum companies will drill deeper or treat non-

Agricultu

re

Fo

restr

y

Basic

meta

ls

Che

mic

als

and

che

mic

al pro

d-

ucts

Fo

od p

roducts

and b

evera

ges

Machin

ery

equ

ipm

ent

Moto

r ve

hic

les

En

erg

y s

upp

ly

Wate

r su

pply

Constr

uction

Tra

nsport

X X X ? ? X X XX X XX XX

Agricultu

re

Fo

restr

y

Basic

meta

ls

Che

mic

als

and

che

mic

al pro

d-

ucts

Fo

od p

roducts

and b

evera

ges

Machin

ery

equ

ipm

ent

Moto

r ve

hic

les

En

erg

y s

upp

ly

Wate

r su

pply

Constr

uction

Tra

nsport

XX XX ? ? X ? X XX XX X X



89

traditional oil reserves (e.g. sand oil in Canada). As a consequence, there will be an

increase in the ratio of unused over used extraction and in the energy needed for the

beneficiation process. As larger amounts of materials have to be transported and

treated for the same production, the machinery equipments are scaled up. The exhaus-

tion of domestic resources implies that raw materials will need to be imported from fur-

ther away (high relevance for ‘transport’). The future availability and prices of resources

such as metals or fossil fuels will probably impact sectors such as ‘motor vehicles

manufacturing’ and ‘transport’ (e.g. dematerialisation, substitution, secondary materi-

als). Construction minerals are generally fairly abundant but regional discrepancies

could explain that some regions (e.g. the Netherlands) will increasingly rely on imports

of such minerals to cover the needs of their construction activities.

Land, soil and water are other resources whose depletion can lead to tremendous in-

creases in resource use. For instance, lack of land or of soil nutrients might be com-

pensated through intensive agriculture with regards to the use of fertilizers and other

chemicals. Importing or producing fresh water also has a large cost in terms of energy

and resource use.

The volume and composition of the industrial material flows are both drivers of re-

source depletion. In return, the depletion of resources has an impact on the composi-

tion of material flows (e.g. though substitution effects) and on the volume, at least of

hidden flows (processing of lower grade ores).

Table 18: Relevance assessment of ‘resource depletion’

Level 2 – Natural catastrophes

The ‘natural catastrophes’ underlying factor could be represented by indicators dealing

with e.g. the type, the frequency or the intensity of these events. There is, however, no

obvious link between resource use and natural catastrophes, even though one could

argue that the rebuilding of possibly destroyed infrastructures would impact the amount

of resources used by the construction sector.

Agricultu

re

Fo

restr

y

Basic

meta

ls

Che

mic

als

and

che

mic

al pro

d-

ucts

Fo

od p

roducts

and b

evera

ges

Machin

ery

equ

ipm

ent

Moto

r ve

hic

les

En

erg

y s

upp

ly

Wate

r su

pply

Constr

uction

Tra

nsport

XX X XX XX ? X X XX XX X XX

90

Table 19: Relevance assessment of ‘natural catastrophes’

Summary

The ‘usual suspects’ regarding resource use (construction, mining and quarrying, agri-

culture, basic metals and fabricated metal products, energy and water supply, and

transport) seem primarily sensitive to drivers stemming from the economic develop-

ment and production patterns arenas. Consumption patterns also play a role in driving

resource use, especially when it comes to satisfying the basic need for food. All these

drivers of resource use in the EU are all the more relevant in that they are also drivers

of waste generation (remember the socio-industrial metabolism), which for certain ac-

tivities, such as mining or agriculture, may occur in other parts of the world (which

leads to problem shifting, but not problem solving). It is difficult to assess, and certainly

even more difficult to control, the driving effect of underlying factors such as ageing

population or climate change. It is, however, very probable that such profound changes

will bear important consequences on resource use and waste generation.

Agricultu

re

Fo

restr

y

Basic

meta

ls

Che

mic

als

and

che

mic

al pro

d-

ucts

Fo

od p

roducts

and b

evera

ges

Machin

ery

equ

ipm

ent

Moto

r ve

hic

les

En

erg

y s

upp

ly

Wate

r su

pply

Constr

uction

Tra

nsport

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? X ?



91

Table 20 shows the results of the plausibility analysis conducted above for the driving

forces of the theme resource use and waste.

92

Table 20: Analysis of underlying drivers for resource use and waste

6.3. Delineation of driving forces in the topic field of water and water use

As explained above, the concept of the socio-industrial metabolism and the DPSIR

framework are used as the basis for the delineation of driving forces for each problem

field. Figure 35 shows the concept of the socio-industrial metabolism and the adapted

DPSIR framework in the context of the topic field of water and water use.



93

Figure 35: The socio-industrial metabolic system applied to water, with the surrounding

DPSIR framework and its’ impact on the underlying factors.

Increasing water stress or shortage of water, is affecting an increasing part of the world

and is of increasing severity. Primary drivers for water stress are high population den-

sity, extensive and inefficient irrigation, rapid industrial growth, changes in rainfall pat-

terns, and various uses of water sources for waste assimilation and exploitation for

hydropower generation, but also other factors. Below follows a list following the general

matrix of drivers developed within the FORESCENE project. As before, the unified ma-

trix, presenting an overview of the underlying drivers identified for the theme water and

water use., is provided at the end of this section.


Europe does not have a homogeneous pattern of wealth and economic development.

Western and northern Europe have some of the highest standards of living in the world

in terms of gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, life expectancy, literacy rate, level

of health care, or other common criteria. The standard of living in southern Europe to-

day is close to that in most western European countries. The new EU member states in

eastern Europe faced major economic difficulties related to the rapid transition from the

planned economies that prevailed into the early 1990s, but are all on their way towards

free-market economies; the Czech Republic, Poland, and Hungary have been most

successful in the transition to a free-market economy.

94


Economic growth is the obvious cause of many biophysical impacts. The most impor-

tant economic practices as drivers of the adverse biophysical impacts in the context of

water are:

- Irrigation and drainage, use of fertilizers and manure, use of pesticides and herbi-

cides, agricultural land use, disturbance of natural vegetation, fish and wildlife,

- Primary water consumption, industrial process consumption and waste assimila-

tion,

- Power generation, which is including dam construction, changing water levels of

rivers, changing the course of rivers, water use for cooling and cleaning.

In addition, chemical production, which goes hand in hand with economic growth in

advanced economies, requires significant amounts of water. The same applies to the

food industry with increasing level of processed food. Economic growth, especially in

Eastern Europe, will lead to increased construction and transport activities and thus to

higher levels of sealed surfaces with derivation of rain water flows.



95

Table 21: Relevance assessment of ‘economic growth’


Globalisation is a general trend affecting many sectors within the societies of the EU25.

The increasing amount of import and export of agricultural products is associated with

growing importance of virtual water and thus a different distribution pattern of water

supply for and consumption of agricultural goods. Increased import of plantation wood

may impact the hydrological systems in the supplying regions. The increased import of

base metals into the EU is associated with growing mining and refining activities, which

often compete for water with other activities, such as agriculture, in the supplying coun-

tries.

The production of chemicals, machinery and motor vehicles also requires process wa-

ter, although the impact of globalisation on the latter can hardly be assessed.

The use of energy and water is affecting the water resources also in an indirect way, as

the demand for transporting and storing products is increasing with increasing global-

isation.

Table 22: Relevance assessment of ‘globalisation’


Investment patterns of all sectors may have significant impact on all sectors and their

water consumption, either through enhancement of water use according to existing

technologies and use pattern or through more qualified use and the introduction of new

and possibly more efficient technologies (the latter aspect is not regarded here but un-

der the category of material intensity).

Agricultu

re

Fo

restr

y

Basic

meta

ls

Che

mic

als

and

che

mic

al pro

d-

ucts

Fo

od p

roducts

and b

evera

ges

Machin

ery

equ

ipm

ent

Moto

r ve

hic

les

En

erg

y s

upp

ly

Wate

r su

pply

Constr

uction

Tra

nsport

XX X X XX XX O O XX XX X X

Agricultu

re

Fo

restr

y

Basic

meta

ls

Che

mic

als

and

che

mic

al pro

d-

ucts

Fo

od p

roducts

and b

evera

ges

Machin

ery

equ

ipm

ent

Moto

r ve

hic

les

En

erg

y s

upp

ly

Wate

r su

pply

Constr

uction

Tra

nsport

X X X X X ? ? X X O ?

96

Investment patterns are likely to change, if water charges are to be included in the pro-

duction costs. It will likely have most impact on the water use of sectors where much

water is needed for the processes, such as in the agricultural and food product indus-

try.

Table 23: Relevance assessment of ‘Investment patterns’

Level 1– Production patterns


Innovations will be stimulated within water-saving technologies and improvement of

processes within all sectors that use water during processing and manufacturing. Po-

tential innovations that lead to lower water consumption may be expected in agriculture

and the energy supply sector, which require the highest water input.

There has been a relative decoupling of water use from economic growth, driven in

part by technological innovation (EEA 2004a). This trend is likely to continue.

Table 24: Relevance assessment of ‘innovation’


Improved recycling of blue water resource, including grey water, will increase substan-

tially in parts of Europe where these resources will be limited. This will influence both

the agricultural sector as well as the construction sector.

Agricultu

re

Fo

restr

y

Basic

meta

ls

Che

mic

als

and

che

mic

al pro

d-

ucts

Fo

od p

roducts

and b

evera

ges

Machin

ery

equ

ipm

ent

Moto

r ve

hic

les

En

erg

y s

upp

ly

Wate

r su

pply

Constr

uction

Tra

nsport

X X X X X ? O XX XX X O

Agricultu

re

Fo

restr

y

Basic

meta

ls

Che

mic

als

and

che

mic

al pro

d-

ucts

Fo

od p

roducts

and b

evera

ges

Machin

ery

equ

ipm

ent

Moto

r ve

hic

les

En

erg

y s

upp

ly

Wate

r su

pply

Constr

uction

Tra

nsport

XX X X X X X X XX X O O



97

Table 25: Relevance assessment of ‘recycling’

Level 2 – Composition of material input

Material input in a wider sense comprises also water inputs, and in that regard the dis-

tinction between deep ground water and (near) surface water as inputs for agricultural

and sometimes other industrial activities may become important, although this seems

more relevant for countries providing exports to the EU. Material input in a more narrow

sense comprises all the various solid, liquid and gaseous materials used for certain

processes. Depending on the technologies used, processing of different materials re-

quires different amounts, and sometimes quality, of water. For instance, maize in agri-

culture requires more water input than other cereals. Coal fired central power genera-

tion require significantly higher amounts of cooling water than indirect water require-

ments of small-scale gas fired CHP power stations or wind turbines.

Table 26: Relevance assessment of ‘composition of material input’

Level 2 – Material intensity

Material intensity analysis comprises water as one of five separate input categories. In

order to avoid confusion, "water intensity" should be distinguished from the material

intensity in the narrow sense (the latter comprising the materials considered also by

TMR accounting). Water intensity per se determines the amount of water used in the

various sectors. Material intensity of products – in a life cycle wide perspective – is of-

ten linked to water intensity because the more materials are extracted, processed,

transported, used, recycled and disposed off, the more water is derived from natural

water bodies. Here, a sectoral perspective is applied, and for the various activities the

material intensity of their products (within each sector) seems directly and at least indi-

rectly related to the water consumption in the processes applied or in upstream proc-

Agricultu

re

Fo

restr

y

Basic

meta

ls

Che

mic

als

and

che

mic

al pro

d-

ucts

Fo

od p

roducts

and b

evera

ges

Machin

ery

equ

ipm

ent

Moto

r ve

hic

les

En

erg

y s

upp

ly

Wate

r su

pply

Constr

uction

Tra

nsport

XX O X X X X X X XX XX O

Agricultu

re

Fo

restr

y

Basic

meta

ls

Che

mic

als

and

che

mic

al pro

d-

ucts

Fo

od p

roducts

and b

evera

ges

Machin

ery

equ

ipm

ent

Moto

r ve

hic

les

En

erg

y s

upp

ly

Wate

r su

pply

Constr

uction

Tra

nsport

XX X X X XX O O XX XX X O

98

esses. Of special importance seem the linkages in agriculture, where higher harvest

usually requires higher input of water (rain or irrigation), energy supply (where material

intensive power generation uses enormous amounts of cooling water), and water sup-

ply itself (where the extent of the infrastructure depends on the amount of water man-

aged).

Table 27: Relevance assessment of ‘material intensity’


Level 2 – Food and Drink

The demand for food and drink, i.e. the consumption pattern of food, determines the

type of crop produced, whether it comes from irrigated or water fed regions, and

whether it is animal based or plant based, the former usually requiring more water in-

put. The indirect water use, especially for energy supply, usually exceeds direct water

consumption of households. Introduction and/or increases of water prices will with ne-

cessity influence the food and beverage industry.

Table 28: Relevance assessment of ‘food and drink’

Level 2 – Housing

The demand for housing is associated with direct water supply, and indirect water use

for energy provision. Construction activities lead to an expansion of sealed surfaces

and thus interfere with blue water flows. Chemicals are used for water supply and

waste water treatment.

Housing in both urban as well as rural areas will be affected by water shortage, as it

will demand special attention to infrastructure issues such as utilization of water supply,

as well as water quality.

Agricultu

re

Fo

restr

y

Basic

meta

ls

Che

mic

als

and

che

mic

al pro

d-

ucts

Fo

od p

roducts

and b

evera

ges

Machin

ery

equ

ipm

ent

Moto

r ve

hic

les

En

erg

y s

upp

ly

Wate

r su

pply

Constr

uction

Tra

nsport

XX X X X X X X XX XX X X

Agricultu

re

Fo

restr

y

Basic

meta

ls

Che

mic

als

and

che

mic

al pro

d-

ucts

Fo

od p

roducts

and b

evera

ges

Machin

ery

equ

ipm

ent

Moto

r ve

hic

les

En

erg

y s

upp

ly

Wate

r su

pply

Constr

uction

Tra

nsport

X O O X XX O O X XX O O



99

Table 29: Relevance assessment of ‘housing’

Level 2 – Leisure

Increasing demand for leisure activities will also impact water related problems. Many

leisure activities are directly or indirectly coupled to water resources and many leisure

and green areas are often established in the vicinity of water bodies. This will affect the

consumption patterns of populations which tend to shift towards services such as so-

cial and leisure activities, including mass tourism with subsequent environmental im-

pacts (EEA 2004a).

Table 30: Relevance assessment of ‘leisure’

Level 2 – Transport and Communication

Demand for transport and communication will also induce consumption of resource

intensive goods, which may enhance water related problems. Europe has highly devel-

oped transportation systems, which are densest in the central part of the continent;

Fennoscandia, the former Soviet Union, and southern Europe have fewer transport

facilities in relation to their land area. Europeans own large numbers of private cars,

and much freight is transported by road. Rail networks are well maintained in most

European countries and are important carriers of passengers as well as freight. Water

transport also plays a major role in the European economy. Rotterdam, in The Nether-

lands, is one of the world's busiest seaports. Much freight is carried on inland water-

ways; European rivers with substantial traffic include the Rhine, Elbe, Danube, Volga,

and Dnepr. In addition, Europe has a number of important canals.

Agricultu

re

Fo

restr

y

Basic

meta

ls

Che

mic

als

and

che

mic

al pro

d-

ucts

Fo

od p

roducts

and b

evera

ges

Machin

ery

equ

ipm

ent

Moto

r ve

hic

les

En

erg

y s

upp

ly

Wate

r su

pply

Constr

uction

Tra

nsport

X O O X O O O X XX X O

Agricultu

re

Fo

restr

y

Basic

meta

ls

Che

mic

als

and

che

mic

al pro

d-

ucts

Fo

od p

roducts

and b

evera

ges

Machin

ery

equ

ipm

ent

Moto

r ve

hic

les

En

erg

y s

upp

ly

Wate

r su

pply

Constr

uction

Tra

nsport

O O O X X O O X X X O

100

Table 31: Relevance assessment of ‘transport and communication’

Level 1 – Demography

Impacts of the ageing society on the consumption of resource intensive goods, which

may be of relevance for water, are difficult to assess with sufficient plausibility.

Level 2 – Population settlement

Rapidly increasing urbanization is one of the most distinctive changes seen over the

previous and current century. Flexible and innovative solutions are needed to cope with

sudden and substantial changes in the spatial pattern of water demand for people and

their associated economic activities. There is an increasing need for innovative water

supply methods and technologies, while water re-use options have to be further devel-

oped and implemented. The number of households will increase throughout Europe,

while the average household size is diminishing (EEA 2005a). Smaller households

tend to be less efficient, requiring more resources per capita than larger households,

including water resources (EEA 2004a).

Europe’s rural population is declining, and this long observed trend is expected to con-

tinue (EEA 2004a).

Table 32: Relevance assessment of ‘population settlement’


Europe has the highest overall population density of all the continents. The most heav-

ily populated area includes a belt originating in England and continuing eastward

through Belgium and the Netherlands, Germany, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Po-

land, and into the European part of Russia. Northern Italy also has a high population

density. The average annual growth rate for the European population during the 1980s

Agricultu

re

Fo

restr

y

Basic

meta

ls

Che

mic

als

and

che

mic

al pro

d-

ucts

Fo

od p

roducts

and b

evera

ges

Machin

ery

equ

ipm

ent

Moto

r ve

hic

les

En

erg

y s

upp

ly

Wate

r su

pply

Constr

uction

Tra

nsport

X ? X ? X ? X X ? X X

Agricultu

re

Fo

restr

y

Basic

meta

ls

Che

mic

als

and

che

mic

al pro

d-

ucts

Fo

od p

roducts

and b

evera

ges

Machin

ery

equ

ipm

ent

Moto

r ve

hic

les

En

erg

y s

upp

ly

Wate

r su

pply

Constr

uction

Tra

nsport

XX O O O O O O XX XX O O



101

was only about 0.3%; by comparison, in the same period, the population of Asia grew

by about 1.8% per year and that of North America by about 0.9% annually. At the same

time, wide variations in growth rate occurred from country to country in Europe. The

overall slow rate of population increase in the latter half of the 20th century has been

the result primarily of a low birth rate (IPCC 1997). Many rural and under-developed

areas lack significant infrastructure such as water and wastewater services. People are

self supporting and have small scale agricultural activities, while industrial activity is

mostly absent (WISE 2005).

Changes in population density will therefore have impacts on water and energy supply

and agriculture and the water related issues associated with these activities.

Table 33: Relevance assessment of ‘population density’


Level 2 – Climate change

According to the IPCC report (1997), the climate change challenge is not just about

long term changes in average precipitation, but also about increased frequency and

severity of extreme events such as droughts and floods. There is a need for appropri-

ate, timely and readily understandable mitigation, warning and management methods

and measures to minimize short and long-term damages. Adaptive solutions will be

required which will significantly reduce the social and economic impacts.

Climate change will especially affect activities such as water and energy supply, agri-

culture and forestry with regard to water related problems. It may lead to regional

shortages in the supply of certain food or drink products, and it will affect construction

and transport activities related to water use.

Table 34: Relevance assessment of ‘climate change’

Agricultu

re

Fo

restr

y

Basic

meta

ls

Che

mic

als

and

che

mic

al pro

d-

ucts

Fo

od p

roducts

and b

evera

ges

Machin

ery

equ

ipm

ent

Moto

r ve

hic

les

En

erg

y s

upp

ly

Wate

r su

pply

Constr

uction

Tra

nsport

XX O O O O O O X XX O O

Agricultu

re

Fo

restr

y

Basic

meta

ls

Che

mic

als

and

che

mic

al pro

d-

ucts

Fo

od p

roducts

and b

evera

ges

Machin

ery

equ

ipm

ent

Moto

r ve

hic

les

En

erg

y s

upp

ly

Wate

r su

pply

Constr

uction

Tra

nsport

XX XX O 0 X O O XX XX X X

102


The general trend in Europe is that groundwater consumption is increasing in southern

Europe, while the situation is unchanged or has improved in northern Europe. How-

ever, the lack of accurate estimates of sizes of groundwater resources is making the

prognosis uncertain (EEA 2005a).

In most parts of southern and eastern Europe much of the drinking water is derived

from blue, surface water. Due to surface water pollution and the increasing occurrence

of droughts, these areas will face increasingly events of water shortage. In particular,

the shortage of good quality drinking water in some areas of Europe is likely to in-

crease.

The depletion of appropriate water resources will probably affect all activities with re-

gard to their performance of water use, especially the agriculture and food industry.

The evidence of the deterioration of the marine environment continues to accumulate,

pointing to potentially irreversible changes – as illustrated by the poor state of certain

fish stocks in Europe or the effects of eutrophication on the marine ecology of the Baltic

Sea. The current deterioration of the marine environment jeopardises the generation of

wealth and employment opportunities derived from Europe’s oceans and seas, e.g.

fisheries and tourism (WISE 2005), and will probably affect many coastal areas.

Table 35: Relevance assessment of ‘resource depletion’

Level 2 – Natural catastrophes

Natural catastrophes can create or worsen water problems in a number of activities,

but most specifically in sectors relying on the harvest of natural goods (e.g. agriculture

and forestry, and indirectly the food and beverage industry). Sectors that need large

volumes of water (e.g. cooling water in thermal electricity generation) under certain

natural or man-made conditions (e.g. river flow for transport, dam for hydroelectricity,

river flow and temperature for cooling water) are likely to participate in the aggravation

of water problems in case of natural catastrophes.

The fate of water problems driven (at least partly) by natural catastrophes is also

closely related to that of climate change, which may induce increasingly frequent and

severe extreme events such as droughts, floods and storms.

Agricultu

re

Fo

restr

y

Basic

meta

ls

Che

mic

als

and

che

mic

al pro

d-

ucts

Fo

od p

roducts

and b

evera

ges

Machin

ery

equ

ipm

ent

Moto

r ve

hic

les

En

erg

y s

upp

ly

Wate

r su

pply

Constr

uction

Tra

nsport

XX X X X XX X X X X X X



103

Table 36: Relevance assessment of ‘natural catastrophes’

Summary

In a single matrix, Table 37 presents an overview of the results of the analysis con-

ducted above. Three major activities drive water consumption in Europe: agriculture

(irrigation, pollution), industrial production (process and cooling water) and household

consumption (potable water). These drivers are all likely to increase. The situation will

also change differently within Europe with climate change.

The major threats of the water sources of Europe, including both surface as well as

ground water, are non-point source contamination, over-consumption and irrigation,

and changes in water regimes due to climate change. The adoption of the EU’s Water

Framework Directive is a progress in the right direction, but needs to be firmly imple-

mented throughout Europe, so as to ensure water accessibility and water quality for

future generations.

Agricultu

re

Fo

restr

y

Basic

meta

ls

Che

mic

als

and

che

mic

al pro

d-

ucts

Fo

od p

roducts

and b

evera

ges

Machin

ery

equ

ipm

ent

Moto

r ve

hic

les

En

erg

y s

upp

ly

Wate

r su

pply

Constr

uction

Tra

nsport

XX XX O O X O X XX ? O X

104

Table 37: Analysis of underlying drivers for water and water use

6.4. Delineation of driving forces in the topic field of landscape, biodiversity

and soils

Given the commonality of the three themes landscape, biodiversity and soils, there is

considerable cross-linkage between them and they are most usefully summarised in a

single matrix. Table 55 (at the end of this section) presents the initial results of the

analysis of underlying drivers for these three areas.



105

Clearly the impacts of economic growth, global trade and investment patterns are likely

to be a key driver of change, since they fundamentally influence the way in which land

cover is transformed over time, and the way land resources are allocated between dif-

ferent activity sectors in the economy. They will also be important in determining the

way land is assigned to such uses as housing, leisure and transport. The loss of agri-

cultural land through development generally, and the expansion of land management

related to activities unrelated to food production (e.g. bio-fuels and tourism) are also

likely to be key future drivers of change in rural areas.

Changes in production patterns are also likely to be key cross-cutting drivers, acting,

through innovation, in the form of new crops and new types of production systems, and

more generally through reductions in the intensity of use of traditional inputs, such as

energy, fertiliser and water. In part changes in consumption patterns are driven by new

consumer preferences. Already we have seen the importance of local food production

systems in rural areas, where locality is used to establish a market niche. While

changes in population and population density are unlikely to be significant directly in

transforming landscape, biodiversity and soils, the effects of an aging society may be-

come significant in that it could potentially transform the way land is managed and

owned, and ultimately used.

The pressures arising from social and economic change will clearly take place against

a backdrop of more natural environmental changes, most obviously related to human

impacts on climate. The consequences of such changes are difficult to assess because

while they may be significant in biophysical terms, many of the impacts are likely to

arise as more indirect consequences triggered through changes to consumption and

production patterns. The need to balance human use of water, for example, with the

flows necessary to sustain good ecological conditions in rivers will involve the resolu-

tion of a number of trade-offs by society.

In the account that follows we make the distinction between the ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’

drivers of change, set out in the concept of the “socio-industrial metabolism” that is

used as the basis for the Project. Within the model the more immediate or proximal

pressures are those arising from the various activities associated with internal or en-

dogenous processes generated by the metabolism of the socio-industrial system, and

the external or exogenous forces that may influence the system through their influence

on quality and quantity of activities that affect economic performance. Those exoge-

nous forces (the “underlying factors”) can in turn have a direct or indirect influence on

the activities and the pressures and consequent impacts induced by them. In each

case we attempt to identify appropriate state and pressure indicators.


Development of the service sector within Europe is leading to new patterns of eco-

nomic activity in both rural and urban areas, as businesses are able to decentralise

with the development of a more knowledge-based economy. As a result, there is in-

creased opportunity to redevelop and restore landscapes that have been impacted by

past economic activity, and reduce the secondary impacts of industrial activity on bio-

diversity and soils through the types of resource extraction and polluting activities as-

106

sociated with both primary activities and manufacturing. The attempt to decouple eco-

nomic growth from its impacts on the environment generally will mean that the intensity

of impacts of all activity areas on landscape, biodiversity and soils may reduce. By con-

trast, changing patterns of global trade and investment may nevertheless transform

many of the activity areas by, for example, influencing locational decisions with knock-

on effects for the wider environment. As a result, within Europe the major impacts are

likely to be observed in the construction, transport, water and energy activity sectors,

along with possible impacts in the chemical and chemical products area. At the same

time, economic growth and related increases of production and consumption volume in

Europe will induce growing material flows for raw material supply and thus impact also

regions outside of Europe by extractive industries and basic manufacturing, associated

also with growing pollution and final waste disposal.

For each of the level 2 factors described above, appropriate level 3 indicators would

consist of spatially disaggregated measures of economic growth and investment to say

NUTS-x level, differentiated by activity sector, together with measures of output and

value by sector. Land cover change accounts linked to the activity sectors through land

use information would also be valuable.


It has been argued by the European Commission that current approaches to spatial

planning need to be improved because, as the 1999 European Spatial Development

Perspective (ESDP) emphasised, present patterns of development across Europe are

highly concentrated. One aim of the ESDP is to set up mechanisms creating and

strengthening urban-rural relationships, promoting the polycentric development of the

EU territory and preserving regional identities (natural, cultural heritage) (see section

5.2.1). These mechanisms should stir the EU development towards many well-spread

prosperous areas presenting a preserved diversity in the face of globalisation and al-

lowing a parity access to infrastructure and knowledge.

These new patterns of economic development will impact on the resources associated

with landscape, biodiversity and soils mainly as a result of the spatial reorganisation

that they imply. Thus as prosperity increases in those countries that have recently

joined the EU there will be greater pressure on the environment locally, through the

consumption of land for new building (and the consequential indirect effects on biodi-

versity and soils). In those areas, which have traditionally been more prosperous, there

will be the need to redevelop and renew infrastructure, and the opportunity to reduce

the current level of impact by better design.

Besides the direct and strong indirect effects of economic growth on agriculture, energy

supply, water supply, construction and transport which become manifest in the EU,

there are also impacts on land use, soil and biodiversity through indirect impacts of

growing demand of European production in other parts of the world. This relates to

forest products (e.g. wood chips for energy supply), basic metals (e.g. iron and copper

ore concentrates), chemical products (e.g. mineral fertilizer), machinery equipment and

motor vehicles (which require metals that cause impacts in mining and refining).



107

Table 38: Relevance assessment to economic growth


The trade liberalisation-globalisation agenda will lead to an increase of the importance

of foreign trade in relation to domestic production and consumption. It is likely to sig-

nificantly impact upon the resources associated with landscape, biodiversity and soils,

mainly through its effects on production subsidies to agriculture and therefore the ways

in which land and the wider landscape is managed. Other impacts relate to the increas-

ing share of imported feed and growing export of agricultural products which vary ac-

cording to the specialisation of European regions. Energy supply via biofuels may have

a significant impact on global landscapes and would be facilitated significantly through

liberalized foreign trade. The transport sector as such is directly linked to the increase

of globalised activities. Metal manufacturing is increasingly relying on foreign resource

supply which has an impact in the form of expanded mining in other regions, while

mines within Europe are gradually closed due to the depletion of resources.

Apart from those effects, there are also indirect impacts such as growing imports and

exports of forestry products, which for the EU´s demand are still to a significant share

stemming from illegal logging, which changes landscapes in tropical countries. Chemi-

cal products, machinery equipment and automobiles are products, which are increas-

ingly exported from Europe and thus require indirect raw material resources that are

sourced from other parts of the world, either by mining or agriculture and forestry, and

thus have a more indirect impacts on landscape, soils and biodiversity.

Table 39: Relevance assessment to globalisation

Agricultu

re

Fo

restr

y

Basic

meta

ls

Che

mic

als

and

che

mic

al pro

d-

ucts

Fo

od p

roducts

and b

evera

ges

Machin

ery

equ

ipm

ent

Moto

r ve

hic

les

En

erg

y s

upp

ly

Wate

r su

pply

Constr

uction

Tra

nsport

XX X X X X X X XX XX XX XX

Agricultu

re

Fo

restr

y

Basic

meta

ls

Che

mic

als

and

che

mic

al pro

d-

ucts

Fo

od p

roducts

and b

evera

ges

Machin

ery

equ

ipm

ent

Moto

r ve

hic

les

En

erg

y s

upp

ly

Wate

r su

pply

Constr

uction

Tra

nsport

XX X XX X XX X X XX O O XX

108


The impacts of changing investment patterns on landscape, biodiversity and soils are

difficult to trace, although to some extent they must reflect the pressures described

above in relation to economic growth and globalisation.

Investment patterns in agriculture go hand in hand with the level of intensification. An

indicator to represent the evolution of the level of intensification could regard the con-

version of certain types of agricultural land to other types of agricultural land cover.

This is indeed a major factor that has to be considered in order to understand the envi-

ronmental, economic and social problems associated with landscape. At the aggre-

gated level the overall trends show a loss of farmed land (to urban and forest). But

there are marked regional and local differences, notably with the conversion of mar-

ginal land to agriculture in some parts of Europe (see section 6.2).

A specific Level 3 indicator that could be used to look at the balance between the proc-

esses of agricultural intensification and extensification in Europe is the exchange of

land between arable and pasture. This is, in fact, one of the land cover indicators sug-

gested by the IRENA (Delbaere 2003) initiative (IRENA 24b).

In addition, also investments into other activities may have a significant impact on

landscape, soil and biodiversity. This relates to forestry (European forests have ex-

panded during recent years), and especially to construction, where enormous invest-

ments are undertaken year by year that lead to a steady expansion of the built-up area

and a conversion of natural and semi-natural land. Investments into the transport sec-

tor again go hand in hand with the development of infrastructure. The investments into

the energy sector are also important as they impact either mineral (e.g. coal) or bio-

mass based resources and infrastructures, which also require land.

More indirect effects are associated with investments into basic metals, chemical prod-

ucts, machinery and vehicles. Depending on the type of infrastructure the impact of

investments into water supply may differ significantly also from region to region.

While market forces are likely to be significant, the influence of the regulatory environ-

ment on investment patterns should not be underestimated. The demand for higher

levels of environmental performance across all activity sectors within Europe may

mean that potentially damaging activities are ‘exported’ to the developing world, or

shifted to where regulatory standards are less costly to achieve. Once again this may

result in a degree of spatial reorganisation within Europe, with the resulting impacts on

landscape, biodiversity and soils.

The evolution of a more comprehensive and effective regulatory environment that is

likely to reshape investment patterns, can be seen in relation to the various Directives

concerned with biodiversity, water and soils that have now been implemented within

the EU, and other policies and measures promoted by the EU for rural development

and landscape conservation. This includes the Environmental Impact Assessment

(EIA) Directive (CEC - Commission of the European Communities 2003a), the recent

introduction of Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA), the Water Framework

Directive (WFD), the EU’s Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection (TSSP), the EU Habi-

tats Directive (CEC – Commission of the European Communities 1992) and the devel-



109

opment of agro-environmental measures following the reform of the Common Agricul-

tural Policy8 (see section 6.3).

Table 40: Relevance assessment to investment patterns

Level 1– Production patterns

The potential effects of innovation on production patterns of the key sectors are difficult

to assess. Innovations in the agriculture and forestry sector – e.g. on hectare productiv-

ity and type of crop and cultivation scheme - may have the highest direct impact on

landscape, soil and biodiversity. Nevertheless, innovation in all other key sectors de-

manding biomass or mineral resources must be expected to have relevant indirect ef-

fects as well. For instance, innovations in the transport sector could significantly

change the demand for infrastructures and resulting built-up area. Even the production

of motor vehicles, although relative distant from the primary sector, may have a pro-

found impact through changed product design on primary resource requirements such

as metals which in the end impact landscapes and soil.


Changing patterns of energy demand and distribution are likely to be key drivers of

future landscape changes as a result of:

• the need to reduce emissions and ensure more secure energy supplies, which

will further encourage the growth of energy crops on land previously used for

food production; and,

• the expansion of structures associated with the exploitation of renewable en-

ergy resources such as wind and water.

The expansion of energy crops, along with the more widespread cultivation of other

industrial crops, will clearly be driven by the rate and pattern of innovation in different

economic sectors. However, the impact in the problem area related to landscape, bio-

diversity and soils is most likely to be seen through the effect on agricultural land use

and the intensity of agricultural production, and forestry. The potential demand for bio-

fuels, and the extent to which it can be met from within Europe, is a potentially impor-

tant issue, since at a global scale there are concerns that the impacts of higher crop

prices will lead to lower food security in the developing world and the expansion of ag-

8 http://europa.eu/pol/agr/index_en.htm

Agricultu

re

Fo

restr

y

Basic

meta

ls

Che

mic

als

and

che

mic

al pro

d-

ucts

Fo

od p

roducts

and b

evera

ges

Machin

ery

equ

ipm

ent

Moto

r ve

hic

les

En

erg

y s

upp

ly

Wate

r su

pply

Constr

uction

Tra

nsport

XX XX X X X X X XX X XX XX

110

riculture into marginal areas. The loss of tropical rainforest and the carbon released by

such destruction, for example, could offset carbon savings achieved through reduced

fossil fuel consumption. It has been argued that policies promoting the greater use of

biofuels in Europe should await the arrival of ‘second generation’ technologies that

would allow biofuel to be produced from any plant material. Such technologies would

also have a smaller carbon footprint because the amount of energy-intensive fertilisers

and fungicides will remain the same despite an increase in the output of useable mate-

rial. The potential conflict between the need for food and the need for fuel is fundamen-

tally dependent on the pace and pattern of innovation.

Although the impacts of innovation in the production of food and fibre are most likely to

be seen in the effect that they will have on land use patterns, indirect effects are also

likely to be seen through the knock-on effects of changes in land management for bio-

diversity and soils. Since these are at present largely unknown, the impacts of innova-

tion are possibly best measured by Level 3 indicators related to specific land use

change, the mix of agricultural outputs disaggregated spatially, and the levels of R&D

investment made in sectors related to biofuel and industrial crop production.

Table 41: Relevance assessment to innovation


The decline of many of the heavy industries that have dominated Europe’s more urban-

ised landscapes has left a legacy of industrial dereliction and contamination. In order to

address the social, economic and environmental problems associated with such areas,

recent policy has emphasised the need to reclaim and reuse these areas. As a result

policies to promote ‘brownfield development’ have been widely encouraged. Reuse of

previously developed land is also particularly important to prevent or mitigate the

sprawl of urban development on to agricultural or semi-natural land.

The reuse of previously developed land, perhaps represents ‘recycling’ in its widest

sense, and in terms of sustainable development, new design and building technologies

will have to take account of potential after use of sites and materials once the original

purpose of the structure has disappeared. At present it is clear, however, that brown-

field development is transforming land use patterns in and around our cities. Such de-

velopments reflect the shift from manufacturing towards a more service-based econ-

omy, and will help ensure that the environmental burden of past activities is reduced.

Agricultu

re

Fo

restr

y

Basic

meta

ls

Che

mic

als

and

che

mic

al pro

d-

ucts

Fo

od p

roducts

and b

evera

ges

Machin

ery

equ

ipm

ent

Moto

r ve

hic

les

En

erg

y s

upp

ly

Wate

r su

pply

Constr

uction

Tra

nsport

XX XX X X X X X XX X XX XX



111

The development of recycling technologies more specifically is likely to transform and

use patterns and associated environmental pressures on landscape, biodiversity and

soils.

The Landfill Directive (CEC – Commission of the European Communities 1992), for

example, sets progressive targets for member states to reduce the quantity of biode-

gradable municipal waste that goes to landfill, in order to reduce emissions of green-

house gases and promote recycling initiatives. The main environmental threat from

biowaste that goes to landfill is the production of methane, which accounted for some

3% of total greenhouse gas emissions in the EU-15 in 1995. Since about 90% of the

enlarged EU is rural, biowaste management is inextricably linked to agricultural and

soil management policies, and the EU’s Rural Development Strategy. One potential

option is composting. Actions that need to be taken at the EU level to promote com-

posting include the definition of quality standards for compost, so that markets for

compost can develop. Composting initiatives have a clear link to the EU’s thematic

strategy for soils, which has recognised the need to address the problem of carbon

depletion in soil and how to avoid and remedy it. There is clearly a potential of using

compost as a means to increase the carbon content of soil. With regard to the energy

content of organic waste, the composting option, however, does not allow recovery.

Thus, anaerobic treatment (fermentation) to produce biogas and recycle the nutrients

with the remaining sludge back to the fields seems to provide an even more sustain-

able systemic use of organic waste in the future.

The progressive implementation of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive

91/271/EEC in all Member States is increasing the quantities of sewage sludge requir-

ing disposal. From an annual production of some 5.5 million tonnes of dry matter in

1992, by the end of 2005 this was nearly 9 million tonnes. This was the result of the

rise in the number of households connected to sewers and the increase in the level of

treatment promoted by the EU and member states. The Sewage Sludge Directive

86/278/EEC seeks to encourage the use of sewage sludge in agriculture and to regu-

late its use in such a way as to prevent harmful effects on soil, vegetation, animals and

man. Thus it prohibits the use of untreated sludge on agricultural land unless it is in-

jected or incorporated into the soil. The use of agricultural land for the disposal of sew-

age sludge, does, however, represent an important additional use of such land. Sludge

is rich in nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous, and contains valuable organic

matter that is useful when soils are depleted or subject to erosion. The organic matter

and nutrients are the two main elements that make the spreading of this kind of waste

on land as a fertiliser or an organic soil improver suitable.

In the context of recycling, therefore, appropriate L3 indicators would be the amount of

development or redevelopment on brownfield land, and the volumes or areas of agri-

cultural (or forest land) used for biowaste or sludge disposal.

In addition, recycling of materials and products may be regarded to have a potentially

significant indirect effect on landscape and soil especially for metals where the recy-

cling strategy is key for sustaining the supply-use chain. Indirect impacts may also be

considered for forestry products (e.g. recycling of paper), chemical products (e.g. recy-

cling of plastics), food products (e.g. fermentation of organic household waste to pro-

duce biogas), machines and motor vehicles (e.g. through recycling of the main compo-

112

nents such as metals), energy supply (e.g. cascading use of (bio)materials in order to

recover energy content and contribute to energy supply), waster supply (e.g. reuse of

grey water), construction (e.g. recycling of construction and demolishing waste). In-

creased recycling will reduce the requirements for primary biomass, minerals or water

resources and thus have an impact on the areas used to provide these resources.

Table 42: Relevance assessment to recycling

Level 2: Composition of material input

The composition of crops9 has a significant impact on the aspects of landscape, soil

and biodiversity. For instance, maize cropping differs significantly from extensive grass

land cultivation in many respects, and logging in European forests affects biodiversity

less than logging in tropical forests. Basic metals may differ with regard to their eco-

logical rucksack and thus the impacts by mining and refining. Some chemical products

may be either used in a rather closed circuit or under controlled conditions, but others

such as fertilizers are used in an open dispersive manner. Food products may have a

profoundly different impact on land use requirements depending on whether the food is

plant or animal based. Energy supply may rely on land intensive lignite mining, or on

photovoltaics integrated to roofs and surfaces of buildings. Water supply may be based

on surface or near surface underground water bodies or on fossil water. Construction

may rely on mineral or biomass based materials, which differ significantly regarding

land use requirements.

Table 43: Relevance assessment to composition of material input

9 Material input used of the agriculture and forestry sector are defined (a) as harvested biomass

in economy-wide MFA, and (b) as fertilizer and water etc. in process oriented analyses; both aspects are interrelated, e.g. a high production of biomass in the form of maize requires high amounts of fertilizer and water.

Agricultu

re

Fo

restr

y

Basic

meta

ls

Che

mic

als

and

che

mic

al pro

d-

ucts

Fo

od p

roducts

and b

evera

ges

Machin

ery

equ

ipm

ent

Moto

r ve

hic

les

En

erg

y s

upp

ly

Wate

r su

pply

Constr

uction

Tra

nsport

XX X XX X X X X O X X O

Agricultu

re

Fo

restr

y

Basic

meta

ls

Che

mic

als

and

che

mic

al pro

d-

ucts

Fo

od p

roducts

and b

evera

ges

Machin

ery

equ

ipm

ent

Moto

r ve

hic

les

En

erg

y s

upp

ly

Wate

r su

pply

Constr

uction

Tra

nsport

XX XX XX XX XX X X XX X X O



113

Level 2: Material intensity

Material intensity may be considered with regard to the variation of direct material in-

put, as well as direct and indirect primary material requirements related to (a) the land

used for production, which indicates the land use intensity and pressures to local con-

ditions of landscapes, soil and biodiversity; and (b) to the economic output of the sec-

tors (in physical terms – which provides a mass input per mass output relation; in func-

tional terms like material input per service unit; or in monetary terms, which provides a

measure of the inverse resource productivity). A variation of the latter may influence

the impacts on landscapes, soils and biodiversity at least indirectly.

In agriculture and forestry, the impacts on landscape, soil and biodiversity grow with

the amount of harvest per hectare. Indirect profound impacts are represented by soil

erosion (which is a constituent element of material intensity analysis). The cradle-to-

product material intensity of food products critically determines the impacts via agricul-

ture. The material intensity of construction – in the current phase of physical growth of

the technosphere – directly determines the amount of additional houses and infrastruc-

tures being built and thus the loss of semi- or natural land. The material intensity of all

other production sectors has at least an indirect effect on the resource requirements of

minerals and biomass and the associated land use for mining, manufacturing, storage

and final disposal.

Table 44: Relevance assessment to material intensity

XX XX X X XX x x X x XX X


Level 2 – Food and Drink

The development of consumerism and consumer values is likely to shape the structure

of production systems and their ‘spatial foot-print’, through concerns over food security,

price and food quality. The impact that this may have on landscape, biodiversity and

soils can be seen in the growth of ‘local products’ and its role in the rural economy.

As the European Landscape Convention pointed out, future prosperity will also depend

on the preservation of regional and local identities. Preserved landscape or regional

food labelling can actually be an important resource in times of increasing pressures of

globalization on economies. Local food production systems may also be encouraged

by the desire of consumers to reduce ‘food miles’.

Consumption patterns and their effect on land use and local productions systems are

also likely to be affected by the policies adopted by the major food distributors, and

Agricultu

re

Fo

restr

y

Basic

meta

ls

Che

mic

als

and

che

mic

al pro

d-

ucts

Fo

od p

roducts

and b

evera

ges

Machin

ery

equ

ipm

ent

Moto

r ve

hic

les

En

erg

y s

upp

ly

Wate

r su

pply

Constr

uction

Tra

nsport

114

changing public attitudes to food quality, food security and price. Appropriate L3 indica-

tors are difficult to construct in this area, given the difficulty of acquiring data, however,

one should attempt to look at the value or mix of local or regionally specific produce, or

value of food products produced by specific farming systems (e.g. organic vs. conven-

tional agriculture).

The demand for food and drink products has also indirect effects on the demand for

chemicals (used in food production and agriculture), energy supply (because food in-

dustry is rather energy intensive), water supply (for direct consumption and predomi-

nantly for food processing and energy supply), and transport (throughout the produc-

tion-consumption chain).

In order to measure the global land use associated with domestic consumption, the

global land use for the consumption of agricultural goods (which constitutes a main part

of net global land use), both intra and beyond EU, can be used (Bringezu and Steger

2005).

Table 45: Relevance assessment to food and drink

Level 2 – Housing

Urban expansion or urban sprawl is widely recognised as an important issue in many

European countries. The EEA has shown that between 1990 and 2000, for example,

urban areas and associated infrastructure increased by more than 800,000 ha in

Europe as a whole (i.e. EU23), or roughly 5.3%. While the actual area of increase is

small compared to the total stock of land available, analysis shows that urban growth is

highly concentrated, occurring in places where expansion had already occurred in the

previous two decades. Urban sprawl is particularly evident in many of Europe’s coastal

areas and has had considerable implications for the Mediterranean, which is one of the

34 global hotspots for biodiversity. At present rates of change there would be a dou-

bling of the urban area in Europe in the next century (EEA 2006a).

Although the economic and social consequences of urban expansion are advanta-

geous, rapid development places pressures on environment through the modifications

to patterns of consumption of energy and material resources, the production of waste,

and the indirect impacts of the expansion of artificial surfaces wider environmental re-

sources systems (e.g. through increased risks of flooding). In terms of impacts on

wider resource systems, urbanisation impacts on the ‘water environment’ through in-

creases in surface sealing which alters the rate at which water is discharged from

Agricultu

re

Fo

restr

y

Basic

meta

ls

Che

mic

als

and

che

mic

al pro

d-

ucts

Fo

od p

roducts

and b

evera

ges

Machin

ery

equ

ipm

ent

Moto

r ve

hic

les

En

erg

y s

upp

ly

Wate

r su

pply

Constr

uction

Tra

nsport

XX O O X XX O O X X O X



115

catchments, by increasing pollution loads as a result of expansion of transport infra-

structures, changing local microclimates, and by fragmenting semi-natural habitats.

Appropriate L3 indicators in this area would be spatially disaggregated rates of urban

sprawl (or more precisely: built-up area comprising land covered by buildings and in-

frastructures), and the proportion of new built-up area associated with residential use.

Table 46: Relevance assessment to housing

Level 2 – Leisure

The rise of individualism and leisure lifestyles is impacting on the structure of rural

communities through the growth of tourism, recreation-based economies, part-time

farming and the ownership of ‘second homes’. These pressures are likely to transform

land use patterns in many locations, with a consequent impact on landscape, biodiver-

sity and soils.

For example, the expansion of holiday let and second homes in many Mediterranean

areas (e.g. Algarve) has transformed the traditional agricultural landscapes in many

areas, leading both to the loss of traditional land management skills, and the expansion

of service-based industries in rural areas (e.g. golf courses). The withdrawal of farming

in some areas has led to significant landscape change through reduced management

inputs. Development pressure has also impacted upon, and may ultimately be limited

by, the availability of natural resources such as water.

Table 47: Relevance assessment to leisure11

10

note: transport and mobility related to leisure is covered under transport

Agricultu

re

Fo

restr

y

Basic

meta

ls

Che

mic

als

and

che

mic

al pro

d-

ucts

Fo

od p

roducts

and b

evera

ges

Machin

ery

equ

ipm

ent

Moto

r ve

hic

les

En

erg

y s

upp

ly

Wate

r su

pply

Constr

uction

Tra

nsport

X X X O O O O XX X XX X

Agricultu

re

Fo

restr

y

Basic

meta

ls

Che

mic

als

and

che

mic

al pro

d-

ucts

Fo

od p

roducts

and b

evera

ges

Machin

ery

equ

ipm

ent

Moto

r ve

hic

les

10

En

erg

y s

upp

ly

Wate

r su

pply

Constr

uction

Tra

nsport

XX X O O O O O O X X X

116

Level 2 – Transport and Communication

Energy consumption in the transport sector (and the associated emission of green-

house gases) is increasing steadily within the EU because transport volumes are grow-

ing faster than the energy efficiency of different means of transport (EEA 2006d). The

increase in greenhouse gas emissions from transport now threatens European pro-

gress towards its Kyoto targets. Therefore, additional policy initiatives and instruments

are needed, which may impact on travel patterns and behaviors, with secondary im-

pacts on land use.

In addition to the goals outlined above under economic growth, the European Spatial

Development Perspective (ESDP) aims to ensure that the development of transport

infrastructures, does not have adverse impacts on the environment generally and the

integrity of the Natura2000 ecological network either at national or local scales. The

development of transport routes has been one of the major factors that have led to the

fragmentation of habitats in Europe, and the loss of ecological integrity through the

impacts of diffuse pollution. The transport sector is a major source of nitrogen. The

eutrophication of habitats and soils as a result of N-deposition is a major driver of

change in biodiversity and soils in Europe.

Table 48: Relevance assessment to transport and communication

Level 1 – Demography

Level 2 – Ageing society

As we look to the future, key economic and social drivers that are likely to impact on

land use and landscapes will also include the effects of demographic change and spe-

cifically the increasing numbers of older people, which is likely to cause changes in

consumption and activity patterns associated with populations in different areas. Al-

though the process of land abandonment observed in many areas of Europe already

reflects such pressures, the consequences of ageing is likely to be ones that will affect

the structure and cohesion of rural communities more generally, as people age and

their social needs and capacities change. Elder people will also require adjustment of

homes, buildings and infrastructures according to their limited capabilities.

Agricultu

re

Fo

restr

y

Basic

meta

ls

Che

mic

als

and

che

mic

al pro

d-

ucts

Fo

od p

roducts

and b

evera

ges

Machin

ery

equ

ipm

ent

Moto

r ve

hic

les

En

erg

y s

upp

ly

Wate

r su

pply

Constr

uction

Tra

nsport

X X O O O O X XX X XX XX



117

Table 49: Relevance assessment to the ‘ageing society’

Level 2 – Settlement Patterns

Changing settlement patterns will impact on landscape and indirectly on biodiversity of

soils mainly through interactions in the agricultural and construction sectors. Patterns

of migration and the development of more multi-cultural societies are also likely to af-

fect the balance between urban and rural communities with consequential change in

patterns of land use. There have, for example, been major changes in the structure of

land ownership and management in countries that have recently joined the EU result-

ing from external investment in more intensive modes of agricultural production. Im-

pacts are, however, difficult to disentangle from those related to changes in population

density (see below).

Table 50: Relevance assessment to settlement patterns


Although population growth in Europe is generally low, internal migration and shifts in

the balance of population between rural and urban areas is likely to be significant in the

future, and will impact upon landscape through changes in land use and land man-

agement. In some parts of Europe, inner city regeneration and the construction of more

compact urban forms is likely to increase population densities of some city areas. By

contrast, increased mobility (and IT supported home working) is likely to encourage

more dispersed settlement patterns across wider city hinterlands.

Agricultu

re

Fo

restr

y

Basic

meta

ls

Che

mic

als

and

che

mic

al pro

d-

ucts

Fo

od p

roducts

and b

evera

ges

Machin

ery

equ

ipm

ent

Moto

r ve

hic

les

En

erg

y s

upp

ly

Wate

r su

pply

Constr

uction

Tra

nsport

X O O O O O O O O X X

Agricultu

re

Fo

restr

y

Basic

meta

ls

Che

mic

als

and

che

mic

al pro

d-

ucts

Fo

od p

roducts

and b

evera

ges

Machin

ery

equ

ipm

ent

Moto

r ve

hic

les

En

erg

y s

upp

ly

Wate

r su

pply

Constr

uction

Tra

nsport

X O O O O O X O O X X

118

Table 51: Relevance assessment to population density


Level 2 – Climate change and Natural Catastrophes

The impacts of all the economic and social drivers noted above on landscape, biodi-

versity and soils, will, it seems certain, occur against a backdrop of important changes

in the wider biophysical environment.

As we look to the future, climate change, for example, is likely to be an important driver

of land use and landscape change by virtue of its impacts on patterns of agricultural

and forestry production, the development of semi-natural habitats and sea level rise.

The possibility of more extreme weather events leading to more intense periods of

flooding or drought are also likely to impact locally on planning polices and strategies.

The impacts of climate change on the management of land to ensure the maintenance

of both water quantity and quality is also likely to emerge as a key issue affecting future

land use and landscape change. A particularly important issue is likely to be the impact

of climate change on water availability. In recent years, for example, agricultural pros-

perity in many Mediterranean regions has depended on the expansion of irrigated agri-

culture (e.g. southern Spain and Greece). The extent to which such patterns of activity

can be sustained in the future, and the consequences of decline for the wider land-

scape, cannot be underestimated. However, as the IPCC (IPCC 2007a) Report has

shown, in other areas of Europe, society will have to cope with increased water vol-

umes and the higher flood risk. Given the juxtaposition of flood risk areas and major

centres of population, the planning and land management implications are consider-

able. The possibility of land use changes resulting from managed coastal retreat must

also be considered.

Climate is clearly an important factor that determines patterns of biodiversity at Euro-

pean scales. However, the IPCC (IPCC 2007b) notes that the reaction of European

ecosystems to global change is difficult to predict because there are a number of inter-

actions and feedback loops between increasing temperatures, decreasing availability

of soil water, and increasing carbon dioxide concentrations. Nevertheless, it can be

argued that most of Europe’s natural ecosystems are generally fragmented, disturbed

and confined to poor soils, a set of characteristics that makes them potentially more

sensitive to climate change. Changing climate patterns will have a profound effect on

biodiversity, by affecting patterns of distribution, migration and reproduction for a wide

range of species. Change per se for ‘biodiversity’ is not perhaps a significant issue,

providing ecological systems have the time and space to adjust. Over geological time,

Agricultu

re

Fo

restr

y

Basic

meta

ls

Che

mic

als

and

che

mic

al pro

d-

ucts

Fo

od p

roducts

and b

evera

ges

Machin

ery

equ

ipm

ent

Moto

r ve

hic

les

En

erg

y s

upp

ly

Wate

r su

pply

Constr

uction

Tra

nsport

X O O O O O X X X X X



119

climate has in fact, rarely been stable. The problems that contemporary climate change

poses mainly arise from the speed at which it is occurring and the fact that the frag-

mented structure of many European landscapes may prevent species migration and re-

establishment to take place. The IPCC reports (IPCC 2007b) that the survival of some

species and forest types may be endangered by the projected movement of climate

zones at rates faster than migration speeds. High elevation ecosystems and species

are particularly vulnerable. The challenge of creating an ‘appropriate space’ within

which nature can readjust poses a considerable challenge for those concerned with

land use planning and the conservation of biodiversity.

If we turn to agro-ecosystems, clearly climate change and associated extreme weather

events are most likely to impact on the agricultural and forestry sectors. The IPCC Re-

gional Assessment for Europe also suggests that likely trends in Europe will be that:

• Risks of frost would be reduced in a warmer climate, allowing winter cereals

and other winter crops to expand to areas such as southern Fennoscandia and

western Russia.

• Potential yields of winter crops are expected to increase, especially in central

and southern Europe, assuming no other factor is limiting.

• Increasing spring temperatures would extend suitable zones for most summer

crops.

• Summer crop yield increases are possible in central and eastern Europe,

though decreases are possible in western Europe.

• Decreases in precipitation in southern Europe would reduce crop yields and

make irrigation an even larger competitor to domestic and industrial water use.

• Forest productivity is expected to decline and the frequency of peatland fires to

increase.

Table 52: Relevance assessment to climate change

Level 2 – Natural Catastrophes

The most relevant catastrophes, such as heavy flooding and storm events, seem to

result also from climate change. The IPCC reports that nearly all European regions are

anticipated to be adversely affected by climate change and it can be suggested that

this will interact with all of the economic sectors considered here to impact on land-

scape, biodiversity and soils. Overall, climate change is expected to increase regional

differences in Europe’s natural resources and assets, and expose them to higher vul-

Agricultu

re

Fo

restr

y

Basic

meta

ls

Che

mic

als

and

che

mic

al pro

d-

ucts

Fo

od p

roducts

and b

evera

ges

Machin

ery

equ

ipm

ent

Moto

r ve

hic

les

En

erg

y s

upp

ly

Wate

r su

pply

Constr

uction

Tra

nsport

XX XX O O O O O X XX O O

120

nerability through increased risk of inland flash floods, and more frequent coastal flood-

ing and increased erosion (due to storminess and sea level rise).

Table 53: Relevance assessment to natural catastrophes


Resource depletion in agriculture may arise from unsustainably intensive farming, e.g.

with high losses of soil due to erosion, which may force agriculture to move to other

areas (e.g. abandoning highly erodible land in the Mediterranean), and may impact

also regional security of food supply. Depletion of biodiversity in forests may result in

higher losses in the course of storm events. Continuous depletion of European coal

reserves leads to growing volumes of unused extraction and thus a relative increase of

landscape change per unit of energy produced. A similar tendency can also be ob-

served for metal mining where steady depletion of resources leads to the extraction of

gradually declining ore grades, which results in higher amounts of mining waste. Local

and regional depletion of mineral resources, e.g. for gravel, leads to changes in mineral

supply for construction and higher transport distances (if modes of construction do not

adapt by increased resource efficiency).

Also water resources are depleted, again triggered by climate change. Up to 95 per

cent of Alpine glacier mass could disappear by 2100 (IPCC 2007a), with subsequent

consequences for the water flow regime—affecting, for example, summer water supply,

shipping and hydropower, and biodiversity patterns in river systems. In addition, in

some areas, winter tourism would be negatively affected thereby impacting on rural

land use patterns in mountainous areas.

For each of the level 2 factors described above, appropriate level 3 indicators would

consist of spatially disaggregated measures of land use change and agricultural and

forest productivity, and the economic impact of natural events on different activity sec-

tors.

Agricultu

re

Fo

restr

y

Basic

meta

ls

Che

mic

als

and

che

mic

al pro

d-

ucts

Fo

od p

roducts

and b

evera

ges

Machin

ery

equ

ipm

ent

Moto

r ve

hic

les

En

erg

y s

upp

ly

Wate

r su

pply

Constr

uction

Tra

nsport

XX XX O O XX O O XX XX XX XX



121

Table 54: Relevance assessment to resource depletion

Summary

The results of the analysis conducted above, is summarized in a single matrix (Table

55) and investment, together with changes in consumption and production patterns are

likely to be key socio-economic drivers of change in relation to the three themes (land-

scape, soil and biodiversity), because they fundamentally influence the way in which

land cover is transformed and managed over time, and the way land resources are

allocated between different activity sectors in the economy. Their influence needs to be

considered, however, against a backdrop of drivers more related to the natural envi-

ronment. The influence of climate change is likely to be particularly important although

the consequences are difficult to predict. While the effects of climate change will be

significant in biophysical terms, a range of indirect consequences may also be trig-

gered through the effect that changes in climate will have for global and national pat-

terns of production and consumption.

Agricultu

re

Fo

restr

y

Basic

meta

ls

Che

mic

als

and

che

mic

al pro

d-

ucts

Fo

od p

roducts

and b

evera

ges

Machin

ery

equ

ipm

ent

Moto

r ve

hic

les

En

erg

y s

upp

ly

Wate

r su

pply

Constr

uction

Tra

nsport

X X X O X O O XX XX XX X

122

Table 55: Analysis of underlying drivers for landscapes, biodiversity and soils



123

6.5. Determination of cross-cutting driving forces

In the preceding sections, the relevance of the influence of a number of underlying fac-

tors on each of the three environmental themes has been assessed in the context of

eleven economic activities. Table 56 compiles the results of the relevance study. As

before, ‘XX’ means that a Level 2 underlying factor has been classified as very rele-

vant, having a direct effect on the pressures and the resulting impacts due to a given

activity on a given environmental topic. A single ‘X’ means that the underlying factor is

perceived as relevant in that it shows an indirect link (e.g. via the process-chain) be-

tween one underlying factor and the pressures related to a given activity. Table 56

gives an overview of the L1-L2-L3 classification of underlying factors used in the pre-

ceding sections. This framework and most particularly the Level 3 indicators are in-

tended to serve as building blocks for the subsequent work packages of the FORES-

CENE project, especially for the scenario building parts and as modelling parameters.

The forthcoming work packages will use Table 57 as a basis to further refine the under-

lying factors and to make them operational, according to the further needs and findings

from the Project. Some interesting results, however, already emerge from this analysis:

some of the L3 indicators, for example, are exactly the same for each of the topic ar-

eas. This is certainly the case for some of the GDP-indicators (for L2 ‘economic

growth’), or the physical trade balance (for L2 ‘globalisation’). In some other cases, the

indicators only differ by the focus on different flows and stocks (e.g. input of sensitive

materials and input of underground water for the L2 ‘composition of material input’, in

the case of resource use and water, respectively). The indicators can also focus on

different scales, e.g. indicators measuring investment or urban sprawl at an aggregate

level can be used for resource and water use, as well as for landscape, biodiversity

and soils, if spatially differentiated.

The main aim of WP1 was to identify cross cutting driving forces for the three environ-

mental fields. The analysis is fundamental no only for the work in WP1 but also lies at

the core of the whole project. Table 56 provides the results of the relevance analysis

based on experts’ views, published data, literature and other sources. To increase the

readability and facilitate the interpretation of these results, a systematic ‘scoring’

method was conducted.

In order to assess the importance of the activities and underlying factors the number of

‘X’s were counted for each couple ‘activity’— ‘underlying factor’. Bonus points are

given if the couple ‘underlying factor’—‘activity’ received at least one ‘X’ per environ-

mental theme each. The corresponding intersection is then coloured in red. The maxi-

mum score is seven, i.e. three times ‘XX’ and a bonus point for the cross-cutting char-

acter.

The scores of the ‘underlying factor’— ‘activity’ couples are then added row and col-

umn wise. In the former case, the result gives an insight into the overall relevance of a

given underlying factor regarding all activities and environmental themes. In the latter

case, the result reflects the overall importance of a given activity regarding all underly-

ing factors and environmental themes. The maximum score which a column (i.e. an

activity) can reach is 119. The maximum score which can be obtained for a row (i.e. for

124

an underlying factor) is 77. The activities and underlying factors listed in Table 58 are

coloured differently (from white to darker shades of pink), depending on their scores,

with thresholds for results lower than 40% of the maximum possible score, between

40% and 50%, between 50% and 60%, and over 60%.

The colour codes of Table 58 were designed to ease the interpretation of the results of

the relevance analysis. As the table clearly shows, energy supply, agriculture, water

supply and construction appear to be the activities most susceptible to cause pres-

sures and impacts on the three environmental themes. Transport, forestry, chemicals,

basic metals, and food products are also activities potentially important to consider,

though to a lesser extent.

Regarding the underlying factors, the L1 categories ‘production patterns’ and ‘eco-

nomic development’ obviously achieve the highest scores, as can be seen in Table 58.

In the former group, ‘material intensity’, ‘composition of material input’, ‘innovation’ and

‘recycling’ seem powerful underlying factors. They all have a strong, direct and cross-

cutting influence on the three environmental topics within most considered activities.

‘Globalisation’, ‘economic growth’ and ‘investment patterns’ present similar results for

the latter group. These underlying factors, however, only seem to have cross-cutting

environmental effects within a more limited number of activities. This observation

should be reviewed and refined later in the project, as one reason behind this could be

that the character of certain underlying factors is too general, making them difficult to

assess (e.g. ‘economic growth’).

‘Natural system’ and ‘consumption patterns’ follow ‘production patterns’ and ‘economic

development’ in the ranking. ‘Depletion of resources’, ‘climate change’ for the former

group, and ‘food and drink’ and ‘transport and communication’ for the latter seem to be

the most relevant L2 underlying factors. One should, however, think beyond the abso-

lute scoring result and remember that an indirect link between an underlying factor and

an environmental problem was translated by only one ‘X’ in the relevance analysis.

‘Natural system’ and ‘consumption patterns’ are therefore probably important indirect

drivers which should not be neglected, especially in the context of agriculture, con-

struction, energy and water supply, and transport. Within these activities, the afore-

mentioned underlying factors, indeed, seem to have a fair amount of cross-cutting driv-

ing influence.



125

Table 56: Analysis of underlying drivers for the three environmental topics (resource use and

waste, water and water use, and landscape, biodiversity and soils)

126

Table 57: Underlying factors (Level 1 to 3) used for the relevance analysis

Resource use and waste Water and water use Landscape, biodiversity and soils

TMR per GDP, DMI per GDP water use per GDP spatially disaggregated measures of economic growth

physical volume of exchanges if possible including

hidden flows

spatially disaggregated measures of investment

Innovation

indicators related to specific land use change, the mix of

agricultural outputs disaggregated spatially, and the

levels of R&D investment made in sectors related to

biofuel and industrial crop production

rate of secondary production recycling of blue water (including grey water) (re)development on brownfield land

recycling rate volumes or areas of agricultural (or forest land) used for

biowaste or sludge disposal

products' lifetime, position in the life cycle of a

production-consumption system

share secondary materials water input

input of sensitive materials (hazardous, precious…)deep ground water and (near) surface water

input

Material intensity

material intensity, measured as material input per

economic output (in physical, functional or economic

terms)

water intensity

Food & drink

value or mix of local or regionally specific produce, value

of food products produced by specific farming systems

(e.g. organic vs. conventional agriculture).

Housingspatially disaggregated rates of urban sprawl, proportion

of new built-up area associated with residential use

Leisure

Transport & communication

Ageing society

Population settlements

Population density

spatially disaggregated measures of land use change

and agricultural and forest productivity

Depletion of resources ratio unused over used extraction, ore gradeestimates of sizes of groundwater resources,

level of water table, fish stocks

spatially disaggregated measures of land use change

and agricultural and forest productivity

Natural catastrophes

Natural System

Demography

Economic growth

Globalisation

Investment patterns

Recycling

Composition of material input

Climate change

average vacation time, distances travelled per cap, growth of tourism, part-time farming, ownership of ‘second homes’, level of income

L3 - Indicators

Economic development

Production patterns

Consumption patterns

L1 - Underlying factors L2 - Underlying factors

detailed composition per activity sector

monetary trade balance (MTB): insight into the equity of trade between two partners.

investment in fixed or human capital, gross fixed capital formation, expenditure on education, percentage of enterprises providing CVT (Continuing Vocational

Training) courses, percentage of people benefiting from lifelong learning

car ownership, energy use and emissions from transport, average electronic equipment rate, level of income

average population age, life expectancy, share of population over 65

shares of rural and urban populations, number of households, size of households, land ownership, multicultural society, patterns of migrations

population density

type, frequency, intensity of natural catatrophes, economic impact of natural events on different activity sectors

GDP, GDP / cap, GDP growth rate

life expectancy, literacy rate, level of health care

imports and exports of agricultual products, of mining products

physical trade balance (PTB) to look at burden shifting issues

precipitations level, frequency of extreme weather episodes (drought periods, flooding events…), economic impact of natural events on different activity sectors

expenditure on research and development, e.g. GERD (Gross domestic Expenditure on R&D

share of renewables, biomass

demand for animal and plant based food

the average size of households, level of income

127

Table 58: Results of the scoring method used to determine the cross-cutting drivers and the

most relevant activities and underlying factors

128

7 . C o n c l u s i o n s

The purpose of FORESCENE’s work package one was, first, to delineate the three

environmental themes ‘resource use and waste’, ‘water and water use’, and ‘land-

scape, biodiversity and soils’. The second aim of WP 1 was to determine cross-cutting

drivers influencing together the three environmental issues. Figure 36 offers an over-

view of the work structure in WP 1.

The results have shown that the activities ‘energy supply’, ‘agriculture’, ‘water supply’

and ‘construction’ seem to be the biggest contributors to environmental pressures

across the three themes. ‘Transport’, ‘forestry’, ‘chemicals’, ‘basic metals’, and ‘food

products’ are also activities or product groups that should be further considered,

though to a lesser extent. This all gives insight into some parameters (here activities) to

include in future integrated sustainable scenarios.

The underlying factors under the headline ‘production patterns’ present the highest

potential for cross-cutting actions against the three environmental fields. Almost all ac-

tivity fields are also sensitive to ‘production patterns’. Given its high overall score the

underlying factor ‘material intensity’ should be regarded as a core element for future

integrated sustainability scenarios.

Regarding the ‘economic development’, the underlying factor ‘investment patterns’

seems the most appropriate, even though parameters like ‘globalisation’ and ‘economic

growth’ achieved a higher score. The global economy and its growth have indeed their

own momentum, other parameters adjust their values to the variations of such factors.

Investment, on the other hand, can be controlled, regulated and taxed. For these rea-

sons these parameters should thus be integrated in future ISSs frameworks.

The ‘consumption patterns’ and the ‘natural system’ scored less than the two afore-

mentioned categories because the link of these two underlying factors with the envi-

ronmental problems is rather indirect. Furthermore the latter is very difficult to influ-

ence. E.g. geo-engineering which aims at controlling the climate has not yet convinced

that the cost/benefit balance would be in its favour. The tremendous issue of problem

shifting would also arise. ‘Consumption patterns’, however, could be addressed in

ISSs, even though the potential cross-cutting benefits would be tricky to reach due to

the multiple links with other parameters.

The suggested cross-cutting underlying factors shall be closer considered in the next

work packages of FORESCENE. WP 2 will actually establish the essentials for ISSs

building. This will be done independently from the results of WP 1. But from WP 3 on-

wards, use will be made of the results of WP 1. The actual scenario building and the

possible modelling perspectives will require a deeper description and delimitation of the

cross-cutting drivers. A reliable and operational parameterization of these underlying

factors will also be needed.



129

Figure 36: General overview of the rationale and the work structure behind the results of WP

1 (determination of cross-cutting drivers of the pressures and impacts on three environ-mental topics)

130

8 . R e f e r e n c e s

Ayres, R.U. and Simonis, U. (Eds.) (1994) Industrial Metabolism: Restructuring for Sustain-able Development. United Nations University Press, Tokyo

Ayres, R.U. and Ayres, L.W. (Eds.) (2002) Handbook of Industrial Ecology. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham

Brandt, J. and Vejre H. (Eds.) (2004) Multifunctional Landscapes. Theory, Values and History. WIT Press, Southampton and Boston. p. 276.

Bringezu, S. (2000) Ressourcennutzung in Wirtschaftsräumen. Springer, Ber-lin/Heidelberg/New York

Bringezu, S. (2002) Towards Sustainable Resource Management in the European Union. Wuppertal Institut for Climate, Environment, Energy, Wuppertal

Bringezu, S. (2006) Interpretation and use of material flow and resource productivitiy

indicators. Background paper for the OECD workshop on material flow and resource productivity indicators - interpretation and use, 16-17 May 2006, Rome. ENV/EPOC/SE(2006)2

Bringezu, S. and Schütz, H. (2001) Material use indicators for the European Union, 1980-

1997. Economy-wide material flow accounts and balances and derived indicators of resource use. Eurostat Working Papers 2/2001/B/2, 29 June 2001, p. 111.

Bringezu, S., Schütz, H., Steger, S. and Baudisch, J. (2004) International comparison of

resource use and ist relation to economic growth – The development of total material requirement, direct material inputs and hidden flows and the structure of TMR. Eco-logical Economics, 51 (2004), pp. 97-124.

Bringezu, S., Schütz, H. and Moll, S. (2003). Rationale for and Interpretation of Economy-wide Material Flow Analysis and Derived Indicators. Journal of Industrial Ecology 7 (2), pp. 43-64.

Bringezu, S. and Steger, S. (2005) Biofuels and Competition for Global Land Use. Confer-ence documentation of conference series “Kyoto+ Lab” of the Heinrich-Böll-Foundation and the European Climate Forum. Global Issues Papers 20. pp. 64-79.

CEC – Commission of the European Communities (1979) Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2

April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds. Official Journal of the European Communi-ties L 103 25.4.1979, Brussels

CEC – Commission of the European Communities (1992) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21

May 1992 on the landfill of waste. Official Journal of the European Communities L 182 16.07.1999, Brussels

CEC – Commission of the European Communities (1992) Council Directive 1999/31/EC of

26 April 1999 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. Offici-al Journal of the European Communities L 206 22.7.1992, Brussels

CEC – Commission of the European Communities (2000) Directive 2000/60/EC of the

european parliament and of the council of 23 October 2000 - establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, Official Journal of the European Communities L 327/1 22.12.2000, Brussels

CEC – Commission of the European Communities (2000) Presidency Conclusions. Lisbon

European council 23 and 24 March 2000. European Communities, Brussels



131

CEC – Commission of the European Communities (2001) Directive 2001/42/EC of the European parliament and of the council on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment. European Union, Brussels

CEC – Commission of the European Communities (2002) Decision No 166/2002/EC of the European parliament and of the council of 22 July 2002. Laying down the sixth com-

munity environment action programme. Official Journal of the European Communities. L 242/1, Brussels

CEC – Commission of the European Communities (2003a) EIA Directive – Consolidated.

Directive 85/337/EEC as amended by 97/11/EC and 2003/35/EC European Communi-ties, Brussels

CEC – Commission of the European Communities (2003b) Towards a Thematic Strategy on

the Sustainable Use of Natural Resources. COM(2003) 572 final, Brussels

CEC – Commission of the European Communities (2004a) Facing the challenge. The Lisbon

strategy for growth and employment. Office for official publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg

CEC – Commission of the European Communities (2004b) Protecting the Environment and

Economic Growth: trade-off or growth enhancing structural adjustment European Commission. In: Commission of the European Communities (2004) The EU Economy:

2004 Review, ECFIN (2004) REP 50455-EN, Brussels

CEC – Commission of the European Communities (2005a) Communication from the commission to the council, the European parliament, the European economic and so-

cial committee and the committee of the regions. Taking sustainable use of resource

forward: A thematic strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste COM(2005) 666 final, Brussels

CEC – Commission of the European Communities (2005b) Common implementation strategy

for the water framework directive. Environmental objectives under the water framework

directive. Policy summary and background document. European Communities, Brus-sels

CEC – Commission of the European Communities (2005c) Thematic Strategy on sustainable

use of natural resources. COM(2005) 670 final, Brussels

CEC – Commission of the European Communities (2005b) Integrated Guidelines for Growth and Jobs (2005-2008). COM(2005) 141 final, Brussels

CEC – Commission of the European Communities (2006a) Halting the Loss of Biodiversity

By 2010 — and Beyond. Sustaining ecosystem services for human well–being. COM(2006) 216 final, Brussels

CEC – Commission of the European Communities (2006b) Thematic Strategy for Soil

Protection. Impact Assessment of the thematic strategy on soil protection COM(2006) 231 final, Brussels

Delbaere, B. (Ed.) (2003) Environmental risk assessment for European agriculture: Interim

Report May 2003. European Centre for Nature Conservation, Tilburg

EEA (2003) Europe’s environment: the third assessment. Office for official publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg

EEA (2004a) Signals 2004. A European Environment Agency Update on selected issues.

Office for official publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg

EEA (2004b) Indicator Fact Sheet (WEU16) Urban wastewater treatment. EEA, Copenhagen

EEA (2005a) Sustainable use and management of natural resources. Office for official publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg

132

EEA (2005b) The European environment. State and outlook 2005. Office for official publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg

EEA (2005c) Source apportionment of nitrogen and phosphorus inputs into the aquatic

environment. Office for official publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg

EEA (2005d) European environment outlook. Office for official publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg

EEA (2006a) Land and Ecosystem Accounts for Europe, 1990-2000. Towards integrated land and ecosystem accounting. Office for official publications of the European Com-munities, Luxembourg

EEA (2006b) Priority issues in the Mediterranean environment. Office for official publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg

EEA (2006c) Integration of environment into EU agriculture policy — the IRENA indicator-

based assessment report. Office for official publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg

EEA (2006d) Transport and environment: facing a dilemma. TERM 2005: indicators tracking

transport and environment in the European Union. Office for official publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg

European Topic Centre on Resource and Waste Management (ETC/RWM), (2004) Waste

and Material Flows 2004. Current situation for Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia.

European Topic Centre on Resource and Waste Management, Copenhagen

EuroStat – Statistical Office of the European Communities (Ed.) (2001a). Economy-wide

material flow accounts and derived indicators. A methodological guide (Edition 2000). Office for official publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg

EuroStat – Statistical Office of the European Communities (Ed.) (2001b) Material use indicators for the European Union 1980-1997. Economy-wide material flow accounts

and balances and derived indicators of resource use (2/2001/B/2) (Edition 2001). Of-fice for official publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg

EuroStat – Statistical Office of the European Communities and IFF (2002) Data Set B. IFF, Wien

EuroStat – Statistical Office of the European Communities (Ed.) (2004) Innovation in Europe.

Results for the EU, Iceland and Norway. Office for official Publications of the European Communities. Luxembourg

EuroStat – Statistical Office of the European Communities (2005) Europe in figures -

Eurostat yearbook 2005. Office for official publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg

Falkenmark, M. (2004) Towards Integrated Catchment Management: Opening the Paradigm

Locks between Hydrology, Ecology and Policy-making. International Journal of Water Resources Development 20(3), pp. 275-282.

Falkenmark, M. and Lindh, G.(1993) Water and Economic Development. In: Gleick, P. H. (Ed.) Water in Crisis. A Guide to the World's Fresh Water Resources. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 80 – 91.

Fischer – Kowalski, M. (1998) Society’s Metabolism. The intellectual history of materials flow

analysis, Part I, 1860 – 1970 Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Yale Univer-sity

Fischer – Kowalski, M. and Hüttler, W. (1999) Society’s Metabolism. The intellectual history

of materials flow analysis, Part II, 1970 – 1998 Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Yale University



133

Helming, K. and H. Wiggering (Eds.) (2003) Sustainable Development of Multifunctional

Landscapes. Springer, Berlin

Hoffmann K. (2004) Untersuchung möglicher Einflussfaktoren auf den direkten Materialinput

mehrerer Volkswirtschaften - Eine Analyse mit Zeit- und Querschnittsdimensionen – Diplomarbeit , Universität Dortmund

IPCC (1997) IPCC Special report on the regional impacts of climate change

- An assessment of vulnerability. IPCC

IPCC (2007a) Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change. Summary for Policymak-

ers. IPCC

IPCC (2007b) Climate Change 2007: Climate Change Impacts, Adaption and Vulnerabilty. IPCC

Jamieson, D.G. and Fedra, K. (1996) The ‘WaterWare’ decision-support system for river-

basin planning. 1. Conceptual design. Journal of Hydrology 177(3-4) pp. 163-175.

Kraemer, R., Landgrebe-Trinkunaite, R., Dräger, T., Görlach, B., Kranz, N. and Verbücheln, M. (2004) EU Soil Protection Policy: Current Status and the Way Forward. Back-

ground Paper to the Dutch Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment

(VROM)Thematic Assistance to the Conference “Vital Soil: the next step towards a European Soil Strategy” 18-19 November 2004 in the Netherlands. Ecologic Institut for International and European Environmental Policy, Berlin

Letcher, K. and Guipponi, P. (2005) Policies and tools for sustainable water management in the European Union. Environmental modelling and software. 20(2) pp. 93-98.

Mar, B.W. (1998). System requirement for water resource systems. Systems Engineering 1(1) pp. 14-30.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington

Moll, S., Bringezu, S. and Schütz, H. (2003) Zero Study: Resource Use in European

Countries. An estimate of materials and waste streams in the Community, including imports ans exports using the instrument of material flow analysis. European Topic Centre on Resource and Waste Management, Copenhagen

Moll, S., Acosta, J. and Schütz, H. (2005) Iron and Steel – A Material System Analysis. Pilot

study examining the material flows related to the production and consumption of steek in the European Union. European Topic Centre on Resource and Waste Management, Copenhagen

Moll, S., Bringezu, S. and Schütz, H. (2005) Resource Use in European Countries. An estimate of material and waste streams in the Community, including imports and ex-

ports using the instrument of material flow analysis. Wuppertal Institut for Climate, En-vironment, Energy, Wuppertal

Moll, S., Vrgoc, M., Watson, D., Femia, A., Pedersen – Gravgard, O. and Villanueva, A. (2006) Environment Input-Output Analyses based on NAMEA data. A comparative

European study on environmental pressures arising from consumption and production

pattern. European Topic Centre on Resource and Waste Management, Copenhagen

Müller, D. B. (2006) Stock dynamics for forecasting material flows – Case study for housing

in The Netherlands. Ecological Economics, 59(1), pp. 142-156.

OECD – Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (1999) The price of water, trends in OECD countries, OECD, Paris

OECD – Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2005) Material flows

and related indicators. Inventory of country activities. OECD, Paris

134

Puschmann, O., Reid, S.J., Fjellstad, W.J., Hofsten, J. and Dramstad, W.E. (2004) Statistical

Description of Norwegian Agricultural Landscape Regions (in Norwegian). Norwegian Institute of Land Inventory (NIJOS), Ås

Raskin, P., Swart, R.J. and Robinson, J. (2004) Navigation the Sustainability Transition: The Future of Scenarios. In: F. Biermann et al. (Eds.): Proceedings of the 2002 Berlin Con-ference on the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change. Amsterdam, Ber-lin, Potsdam and Oldenbourg, pp. 53-66.

Rocholl, M., Giljum, S., Behrens, A. and Schlegelmilch, K. (2006) Factor X and the EU: How

to make Europe the most resource and energy efficient Economy in the World. A re-

view of policies and legislative initiatives within the European Union which could con-tribute to increase the energy and resource efficiency. Aachen Foundation, Aachen

Roth, E. (2001) Water pricing in the EU. A review. EEB, Brussels

Schütz, H., Moll, S. and Bringezu, S. (2004) Globalisation and the Shifting Environmental

Burden. Material Trade Flows of the EU. Wuppertal Institut for Climate, Environment, Energy, Wuppertal

Skovgaard, M., Moll, S., Moller Andersen, F. and Larsen, H. (2005) Outlook for waste and

material flows. Baseline and alternative scenarios. European Topic Centre on Re-source and Waste Management, Copenhagen

United Nations, European Commission, International Monetary Fund, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and World Bank (2003) Integrated Environ-mental and Economic Accounting 2003. United Nations, New York

Van der Voet, E., van Oers, L., Moll, S., Schütz, H., Bringezu, S., de Bruyn, S., Sevenster, M. and Warringa, G. (2005) Policy review on decoupling: Development of indicators to

assess decoupling of economic development and environmental pressure in the EU-25 and AC-3 countries. Institute of environmental sciences (CML) Leiden University, Lei-den

WISE (2005) WISE Newsletter, The bulletin of the Water Information system for Europe. Issue 2, December 2005. European Commission, Brussels



135

9 . A n n e x

ANNEX

Indicators derived from economy-wide MFA

Total Material Requirement (TMR), Total Material Consumption (TMC)

TMR (Total Material Requirement) measures the physical basis of an economy in

terms of primary materials. TMR measurements for the EU have been published by the

European Environment Agency (EEA). The ratio between GDP TMR is an important

indicator to measure progress towards higher resource productivity.

TMR accounts for the domestic resource extraction and the resource extraction asso-

ciated with the supply of imports (all primary materials except water and air). TMR

comprises raw materials which are further processed and which have an economic

value, as well as so-called ‘hidden flows’ (“indirect flows” or “ecological rucksacks”).

Hidden flows (HF) refer to materials which are extracted or otherwise moved by eco-

nomic activities but which are not used in domestic production or consumption (mining

waste such as overburden, erosion in agriculture etc.). These flows are not further

processed and have no economic value, but impact on the environment. Especially in

the vicinity of extraction sites they can cause considerable damage (e.g. landscape

changes, hydrological impacts, eco-toxic effects). Furthermore, hidden flows consist of

primary resource requirements of imported goods. These are accounted for from ‘cra-

dle-to-border’ (comprising upstream unused and used extraction). Thus, ecological

rucksacks measure the environmental impact which the EU causes in other countries

by importing resource-intensive goods. The TMR indicator has already been used for

EEA reporting (EEA 2005b). Indicating the resource base for production, TMR may

also be used to measure resource productivity of an economy (GDP/TMR).

TMC (Total Material Consumption) is defined as the total (life-cycle-wide) material use

associated with domestic consumption activities. Like TMR the TMC includes ecologi-

cal rucksacks of imported goods but exports and their ecological rucksacks are sub-

stracted. The subtraction of exports allows addition of TMC of different countries, be-

cause the substraction of exports avoids double counting of exchanged ecological

rucksacks. Thus TMC equals TMR minus exports and their associated indirect flows.

EUROSTAT has included TMC as a “best-needed” headline indicator in the set of indi-

cators for the renewed Sustainable Development Strategy of the EU (Eurostat 2005).

DMI (Direct Material Input) measures the input of materials into the domestic economy

which are of economic value and which are processed and used in production and

consumption activities. DMI comprises domestic extraction used (DEU) like fossil fuels,

minerals and biomass. In addition it accounts for imports in physical terms (ton-

nes). Direct Material Input (DMI) indicates material use for total production (including

export production. Therefore, DMI can be used to measure material productivity of an

economy.

DMC (Domestic Material Consumption) is defined as the total amount of materials di-

rectly used in an economy for final consumption. This excludes indirect flows (hidden

flows or ecological rucksacks) and exports. Thus, DMC equals domestic used extrac-

136

tion (DUE) plus imports minus exports or simply DMI minus exports. DMC is defined in

the same way as other key physical indicators such as gross inland energy consump-

tion11.

Indicator Formula Subject

Total Material Requirement

(TMR)

DMI + indirect flows Domestic and imported re-

sources including their eco-

logical rucksacks, which are

required for domestic produc-

tion and consumption.

Total Material Consumption

(TMC)

TMR – (exports + indirect

flows of exports)

Domestic and imported re-

sources including their eco-

logical rucksacks, which are

required for domestic con-

sumption only (excluding ex-

ports).

Domestic Material Input (DMI) domestic material used +

imports

Domestic and imported re-

sources without ecological

rucksacks, which are used for

domestic production and con-

sumption.

Domestic Material Consump-

tion (DMC)

DMI - exports Domestic and imported re-

sources without ecological

rucksacks, which are used for

domestic consumption only

(excluding exports).

11 http://ivm5.ivm.vu.nl/sat/chapdb.php?id=10 - ftn3

http://ivm5.ivm.vu.nl/sat/chapdb.php?id=10 - 3.



137

project no.: 022793 forescene development of a

Documents

review of objectives

determination of cross

commission services

european commission

resource use

forescene development

framework programme

date of project