Switzerland experience with national footprint indicators

Transcription

1 Federal Department of the Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications DETEC Federal Office for the Environment FOEN Economics section Switzerland experience with national footprint indicators EEA Eionet workshop, , Copenhagen Swiss FOEN, Andreas Hauser, Simone Jezler

2 Switzerland: Efficiency leader?... Yes if you define this is in a territorial perspective Score reflects to a large extent Switzerland s high share of the third sector GDP / DMC EEA (2016) «More from less» 2

3 ... But not in a footprint (consumption) perspective Material footprint (RMC) Switzerland: 17 t / capita EU-27: 14 t /capita Greenhouse gas footprint Land use footprint Source: FSO (2016) Source: Tukker et al

4 What do we mean by «footprint perspective»? Territorial perspective («production perspective») Footprint perspective («consumption perspective») Emissions and resource use within a country s territory ~ Transports only to a very limited extent Environmental impacts of imports Emissions / resource use due to transportation Without exported products 4

5 Why adopt a footprint (consumption) perspective? Globalised consumption global responsibility 5

6 Decoupling? Material Footprint (RMC) Efficiency (GDP/RMC) Swiss Material footprint increased by around 9% between 2000 and 2013 despite improved efficiency. 6

7 Raw materials and natural resources Apart from abiotic and biotic raw materials, Switzerland also considers e.g. water, soil, air, climate stability, biodiversity and land as natural resources. Broad understanding of resources / resource efficiency 7

8 Results: Swiss greenhouse gas footprint and biodiversity footprint Greenhouse gas footprint Biodiversity footprint Increasing footprints due to rising impacts abroad. Source: Frischknecht et al. (2014) 8

9 What size if a footprint can be sustained by our planet? Biodiversity footprint Limit value? 9

10 Assessing footprints in the context of planetary boundaries Swiss «share» of global limit value Table: Switzerland s performance, limits and footprints (values: per annum). *For the biodiversity footprint, the biodiversity damage potential was weighted by area. Source: Dao et al (2015) 10

11 What Environmental agencies can do Asses national / Europe s footprints against the context of planetary boundaries (for material footprint: see e.g. Bringezu 2015) Stimulate the debate on the responsibility of countries to reduce their material footprint, greenhouse gas footprint, biodiversity footprint etc. Develop a vision for sustainable critical systems: nutrition, housing, transportation 11

12 A Safe Space for his children! Andreas Hauser and Marlon Hauser Thank you for your attention 12

13 ANNEX 13

14 Time Series 2014: Footprint indicators for Relevant environmental impacts and drivers: Greenhouse gas, Biodiversity impacts of land use Energy use, Air pollution, Water use, Marine eutrophication (nitrogen) Overall environmental impacts (Eco-points, ILCD, Ecological Footprint, Recipe) 14

15 Biodiversity Footprint (land use based) Frischknecht (2013, 2014): Biodiversity Damage Potential (BDP) of land use based on de Baan et al. (2012) und Olson (2001) Upcoming time series: Further development to better account for regional differences in biodiversity impacts: More specific characterisation factors applying regionally differentiated data According to the recommendations of the UNEP- SETAC Life Cycle Initiative (2016, in preparation) Frischknecht (2016) Based on Chaudhary et al. (2015) 15

16 Data used: A Physical flow approach Domestic physical flows Trade & LCA Source: Frischnknecht et al. (2014) following Jungbluth et al. (2011) 16

17 Assessing footprints by applying the Planetary Boundaries Dao et al (2015), further developing on Nykvist et al. (2014) 17

18 Experiences with the approach Easy to implement, easy to communicate Assessment of performance beyond mere numbers Takes account of trend (slow / rapidly deteriorating...) and (data) confidence Clearly unsafe Unsafe Safe Time perspective taken into account: shares over time / population scenarios World-wide assessment (40 regions/countries): 18

19 Clearly unsafe Critical footprints, relevant areas Climate Change Ocean Acidification Biodiversity Loss Nitrogen Losses Relevant areas of consumption Relevant economic sectors Nutrition Housing Mobility Housing Mobility (Nutrition) Construction services, Chemical products, Wholesale and retail trade, Energy sector Nutrition (Housing) Agriculture and food industry Nutrition (incl. animal feed) Agriculture Cross: information technology, financial services, commodity trading Relevant product groups Imported electricity Animal food, coffee, cocoa, buildings, palm oil, etc. Animal foods, hotels, restaurants 19

20 20

21 Why planetary boundaries? Rising populations Rising affluence Still only 1 planet Image: UNEP 21

22 Assessing footprints by applying the Planetary Boundaries Results for Switzerland: Footprints on: Source Dao et al (2015) 22

23 Living well within the Limits? Safe Operating Space Die Umwelt-Bedingungen des Safe Space zu verlassen, birgt Risiko von System-Instabilitäten Growth of emerging economies will increase this stress. 23

24 International Framework Sustainable consumption and production patterns SDG 12.2 By 2030 achieve sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources Growth SDG 8.4 Improve progressively, through 2030, global resource efficiency in consumption and production and endeavour to decouple economic growth from environmental degradation 24

25 Decoupling? Time series for Switzerland show... Increasing recycling rates Relative decoupling of footprints :...But rising overall municipal waste Rising greenhouse gas footprints Rising bioidiversity footprints Rising nitrogen footprint (marine eutrophication) 25