Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (5) (remove)
Document Type
- Peer-Reviewed Article (3)
- Report (2)
Language
- English (5)
Division
- Kreislaufwirtschaft (5) (remove)
A policy mix for resource efficiency in the EU : key instruments, challenges and research needs
(2019)
Against the background of an often wasteful use of natural resources, the European Union has made resource efficiency a top policy priority. Policy formulation is, however, at a very early stage in many Member States, with often vague notions of what resource efficiency means, characterised by fragmented instruments and overlapping competencies. This paper develops a conceptual framework for defining, assessing and developing resource efficiency policy mixes. It argues that a mix of policies and instruments is best suited to overcoming the complex challenges of the 21st Century. Such a mix addresses multiple resource domains at a strategic, high level and contains interacting instruments targeting multiple actors, levels of governance and sectors and life-cycle stages of resource use. This paper looks at criteria for effective resource efficiency policy instruments, presents both an indicative policy mix across 9 policy domains and case studies (on environmental harmful subsidies, supply chain efficiency in food systems and product-service systems) and identifies key challenges to overcome trade-offs in instrument design, maximise synergies, reduce conflicts, promote coherence, coordinate activities and move from theory to practice. Research needs are discussed regarding who shall devise, implement, and coordinate such a policy mix, considering negotiating power, timing and complexity.
Assessing global resource use : a systems approach to resource efficiency and pollution reduction
(2017)
The growing demand for timber, in particular for renewable energy, increases pressures on global forests and requires a robust monitoring system to ensure sustainability. This article takes a first step toward more systemic monitoring by asking how the global use of forests by EU consumers can be accounted for. Specifically, this article builds on and develops the method of global land use accounting to account for the EU-27's consumption of primary timber between 2002 and 2011 in terms of both volume and forest area. It assesses international trade flows for around 100 commodities and converts them into a volume of primary raw timber based on conversion values. Results reveal that both imports and exports increased over the assessed time period, with primary EU-27 timber estimated to be around 1 m3/cap in 2011. Gaps, uncertainty and a lack of harmonization regarding especially trade data and conversion values are key challenges to further improving the robustness of the method and reliability of results. Future research may focus on improving the method to address in particular recycled and recovered flows as well as the question of whether area or volume is the most appropriate metric for further development of a forest footprint indicator.
The contribution of the EU bioeconomy to sustainable development depends on how it is implemented. A high innovation potential is accompanied by considerable risks, in particular regarding the exacerbation of global land use conflicts. This article argues that a systemic monitoring system capable of connecting human-environment interactions and multiple scales of analysis in a dynamic way is needed to ensure that the EU bioeconomy transition meets overarching goals, like the Sustainable Development Goals. The monitoring should be centered around a dashboard of key indicators and targets covering environmental, economic, and social aspects of the bioeconomy. With a focus on the land dimension, this article examines the strengths and weakness of different economic, environmental and integrated models and methods for monitoring and forecasting the development of the EU bioeconomy. The state of research on key indicators and targets, as well as research needs to integrate these aspects into existing modeling approaches, are assessed. The article concludes with key criteria for a systemic bioeconomy monitoring system.