Global resource management : conflict potential and characteristics of a global governance regime
(2007)
The paper reviews the current knowledge on the use of biomass for non-food purposes, critically discusses its environmental sustainability implications, and describes the needs for further research, thus enabling a more balanced policy approach. The life-cylce wide impacts of the use of biomass for energy and material purposes derived from either direct crop harvest or residuals indicate that biomass based substitutes have a different, not always superior environmental performance than comparable fossil based products. Cascading use, i.e. when biomass is used for material products first and the energy content is recovered from the end-of-life products, tends to provide a higher environmental benefit than primary use as fuel. Due to limited global land resources, non-food biomass may only substitute for a certain share of non-renewables. If the demand for non-food biomass, especially fuel crops and its derivates, continues to grow this will inevitably lead to an expansion of global arable land at the expense of natural ecosystems such as savannas and tropical rain forests. Whereas the current aspirations and incentives to increase the use of non-food biomass are intended to counteract climate change and environmental degradation, they are thus bound to a high risk of problem shifting and may even lead to a global deterioration of the environment. Although the "balanced approach" of the European Union's biomass strategy may be deemed a good principle, the concrete targets and implementation measures in the Union and countries like Germany should be revisited. Likewise, countries like Brazil and Indonesia may revisit their strategies to use their natural resources for export or domestic purposes. Further research is needed to optimize the use of biomass within and between regions.
Policies for Sustainable Use and economy-wide Management of natural Resources (SUMR) throughout the production and consumption system are faced with environmental and socio-economic requirements and regulatory constraints. Based on empirical findings of ongoing trends of resource use, decoupling from economic growth, and transregional problem shifting, the paper outlines a potentially sustainable biophysical basis for production and consumption in the EU. It discusses the main challenges for the major resource groups, describing the specific and the common tasks with regard to biomass, fossil fuels, metals, non-metallic minerals. Adopting a medical metaphor, it suggests that policies for SUMR should follow a dual approach reflecting the long-term need for a main cure of the socio-industrial metabolism in form of a "conditioning" towards a more mature, resource efficient, and renewables based constitution on the one hand, and a fine tuning of selected material flows (e.g. for optimized recycling and control of hazardous compounds) on the other hand. Both strategies are deemed complementary and necessary to reduce environmental impacts and increase the utility of material use. Action required is exemplified with regard to the three pillars of SUMR, i.e. improved orientation, information and incentives.
This paper examines the connection between globalisation, with its growth in world trade links, and certain ecological effects especially concerning "North-South" relations. Although world trade in the mid-nineties was significantly uncoupled from growth trends in the world economy, so that since then it has increased nearly three times faster than the global GDP, certain indicators of energy use and CO2 emissions have not developed proportionately to world trade; globalisation evidently does not lead to a situation where pressures on the environment are increasing to the same extent worldwide. This de-linking may, however, result in the kind of shifts that we examine here with reference to the material trade flows of the European Union. It will be shown that, in the course of globalisation, the countries of the EU have increasingly shifted environmental burdens on to the countries of the South, especially in the form of ecological rucksacks of imported raw materials, while at the same time reducing the pressure on their own domestic environment by extracting fewer material resources. Furthermore, goods whose production places intensive pressure on the environment (industrial emissions into the atmosphere and water, heavy metal emissions, etc.) have been increasingly imported from newly industrializing or developing countries. The greater covering of material requirements from foreign resources has served not so much the EU's internal consumption as its own production of export goods; this shows that the EU has an increasing share in the resource requirement of other economies. The paper concludes that it is absolutely necessary to consider the international dimension in any strategy for more productive use of resources in industrial countries. In the long term, the EU's resource use should also be reduced in absolute terms. This will also be necessary in order to reduce the pressure on the environment due to imports and exports.
A policy framework for sustainable resource management (SRM) is required both to guarantee the materials and energy supply of the EU economy and safeguard the natural resource basis in the future. Goals and strategies for sustaining the metabolism of the economy are described. Data are presented on the material throughput and physical growth of the EU's economy, on total material requirements (TMR), its composition, the decoupling from economic growth, and the increased shift to other regions. A first future target Material Flow Balance (t- MFB) of the EU is outlined. Detailed data reveal the "top ten" resource flows. Policy design for SRM should aim at an integrated and balanced approach along the material flow, comprising resource extraction, the product cycle and final waste disposal. Strategies and potential instruments to manage fossil fuels, metals and industrial minerals, construction minerals and excavation are discussed. Possible priorities and examples are given for target setting, focusing on limited expansion of built-up area, reduced use of non-renewables, increased resource productivity, and shift to sustainable cultivation of biomass.