Multi-scale governance of sustainable natural resource use-Challenges and opportunities for monitoring and institutional development at the national and global level

Sustainability (Switzerland)

Volumn 8, Issue 8, 2016, Pages

  Bringezu, Stefan ^a   Potočnik, Janez ^b   Schandl, Heinz ^c   Lu, Yonglong ^d   Ramaswami, Anu ^e   Swilling, Mark ^f   Suh, Sangwon ^g  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KASSEL   (Germany)

^b International Resource Panel   (Slovenia)

^c CSIRO   (Australia)

^d RESEARCH CENTER FOR ECO ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES   (China)

^e UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^f STELLENBOSCH UNIVERSITY   (South Africa)

^g UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Abiotic and biotic resources; Consumption and production; Decoupling; Four Footprints; Natural resource governance; Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Indexed keywords

ABIOTIC FACTOR; BIOTIC FACTOR; CONSUMPTION BEHAVIOR; ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT; GLOBAL ECONOMY; GOVERNANCE APPROACH; INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION; INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING; INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT; NATURAL RESOURCE; POLICY MAKING; PUBLIC SECTOR; RESOURCE USE; SUSTAINABILITY; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT;

EID: 84983748468     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20711050     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/su8080778     Document Type: Review

References (82)

1. UN-United Nations. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015, A/RES/70/1; General Assembly: New York, NY, USA, 2015.
2. Ekins, P.; Hughes, N.; Bringezu, S.; Arden Clarke, C.; Fischer-Kowalski, M.; Graedel, T.; Hajer, M.; Hashimoto, S.; Hatfield-Dodds, S.; Havlik, P.; et al. Resource Efficiency: Potential and Economic Implications. Summary for Policy Makers; A Report of the International Resource Panel; UNEP-United Nations Environmental Programme: Nairobi, Kenya, 2016.
3. Bringezu, S.; Schütz, H.; Pengue, W.; O'Brien, M.; Garcia, F.; Sims, R.; Howarth, R.; Kauppi, L.; Swilling, M.; Herrick, J. Assessing Global Land Use: Balancing Consumption with Sustainable Supply; A Report of the Working Group on Land and Soils of the International Resource Panel; UNEP-United Nations Environmental Programme: Nairobi, Kenya, 2014.
4. Bringezu, S. Possible Target Corridor for Sustainable Use of Global Material Resources. Resources 2015, 4, 25-54.
5. Davis, K.E., Fisher, A., Kingsbury, B., Engle Merry, S. (Eds.) Governance by Indicators. Global Power through Quantification and Rankings; University Press: Oxford, UK, 2012.
6. Cucurachi, S.; Suh, S. A Moonshot for Sustainability Assessment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 9497-9498.
7. Schandl, H.S.; Hatfield-Dodds, T.O.; Wiedmann, A.; Geschke, Y.; Cai, J.; West, J.; Newth, D.; Baynes, T.; Lenzen, M.; Owen, A. Decoupling global environmental pressure and economic growth: Scenarios for energy use, materials use and carbon emissions. J. Clean Prod. 2016.
8. UN-Water. UN World Water Development Report. Water for a Sustainable World. Available online: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002318/231823E.pdf(accessed on 3 August 2016).
9. Electris, C.; Raskin, P.; Rosen, R.; Stutz, J. The Century Ahead: Four Global Scenarios. Technical Documentation; Tellus Institute: Boston, MA, USA, 2009.
10. FAO-Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Good Agricultural Practices. Available online: http://www.fao.org/prods/gap/(accessedon 9 May 2016).
11. Convention on Biological Diversity. A Good Practice Guide. Sustainable Forest Management, Biodiversity and Livelihoods. 2009. Available online: https://www.cbd.int/development/doc/cbd-good-practiceguide-forestry-booklet-web-en.pdf (accessed on 9 May 2016).
12. IFM-Institute of Fisheries Management. Code of Good Practice for Freshwater Fisheries Management. Part 1: Salmon and Brown Trout. 2012. Available online: https://ifm.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/IFM-Final.pdf (accessed on 9 May 2016).
13. ICMM-International Council on Mining & Metals. 10 Principles. Available online: https://www.icmm. com/our-work/sustainable-development-framework/10-principles (accessed on 9 May 2016).
14. ICMM-International Council on Mining & Metals. Good Practice Guidance for Mining and Biodiversity. London, UK, 2006. Available online: https://www.icmm.com/document/13 (accessed on 9 May 2016).
15. FAO-Food and Agriculture Organizations of the United States. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture. Rome, Italy, 2014. Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3720e.pdf(accessed on 9 May 2016).
16. GRI-Global Reporting Initiative. G4 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2013. Available online: https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/GRIG4-Part1-Reporting-Principles-and-Standard-Disclosures.pdf (accessed on 9 May 2016).
17. WBCSD-Word Business Council for Sustainable Development. Business Solutions for a Sustainable World. Available online: http://www.wbcsd.org(accessed on 9 May 2016).
18. WBCSD-Word Business Council for Sustainable Development. More Transparency & Less Risk: Realizing Global Commitments to Eliminate Deforestation from Supply Chains. Available online: http://www.wbcsd.org/spg.aspx (accessed on 9 May 2016).
19. Fischer-Kowalski, M.; Swilling, M.; vonWeizsäcker, E.U.; Ren, Y.; Moriguchi, Y.; Crane, W.; Krausmann, F.; Eisenmenger, N.; Giljum, S.; Hennicke, P.; et al. Decoupling Natural Resource Use and Environmental Impacts from Economic Growth; A Report of theWorking Group on Decoupling to the International Resource Panel; UNEP-United Nations Environmental Programme: Nairobi, Kenya, 2011.
20. Envirothink. Too Many Green Labels equal Confusion for Consumers. 13 February 2014. Available online: https://envirothink.wordpress.com/2014/02/13/too-many-green-labels-equal-confusion-forconsumers/(accessed on 9 May 2016).
21. Horne, R.E. Limits to labels: The role of eco-labels in the assessment of product sustainability and routes to sustainable consumption. IJCS 2009, 33, 175-182.
22. Sustainable Purchasing and Leadership Council. Guidance for Leadership in Sustainable Purchasing v1.0. 2015. Available online: https://www.sustainablepurchasing.org/guidance/(accessed on 9 May 2016).
23. The International EPD® System. Available online: http://www.environdec.com/en/(accessedon 9 May 2016).
24. Klinglmair, M.; Sala, S.; Brandão, M. Assessing resource depletion in LCA: A review of methods and methodological issues. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2014, 19, 580-592.
25. Verein Deutscher Ingenieure. VDI Richtlinie: VDI 4800 Blatt 2 Ressourceneffizienz-Bewertung des Rohstoffaufwands. März 2016. Available online: https://www.vdi.de/richtlinie/entwurf_vdi_4800_blatt_2-ressourceneffizienz_bewertung_des_rohstoffaufwands/(accessed on 9 May 2016).
26. Schlegel, S.; Kaphengst, T.; Cavallieri, S. Options to Develop a Global Standard-Setting Scheme for Products Derived from Natural Resources (NRS); WWF Germany and Ecologic, World Wide Fund for Nature: Frankfurt, Germany, 2008. Available online: http://ecologic.eu/sites/files/publication/2016/201-54_final_report.pdf(accessed on 6 August 2016).
27. Global Water Partnership (GWP); International Network of Basin Organizations (INBO). A Handbook for IntegratedWater Resource Management in Basins. 2009. Available online: http://www.unwater.org/downloads/GWP-INBOHandbookForIWRMinBasins.pdf(accessed on 9 May 2016).
28. Hoekstra, A.Y.; Chapagain, A.K. Globalization of Water: Sharing the Planet's Freshwater Resources; Blackwell Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2008.
29. Swilling, M.; Robinson, B.; Marvin, S.; Hodson, M. City-Level Decoupling: Urban Resource Flows and the Governance of Infrastructure Transitions, A Report of the Working Group on Cities of the International Resource Panel; UNEP-United Nations Environmental Programme: Nairobi, Kenya, 2013.
30. Lee, S.E.; Quinn, A.D.; Rogers, C.D.F. Advancing City Sustainability via Its Systems of Flows: The Urban Metabolism of Birmingham and Its Hinterland. Sustainability 2016, 8, 220.
31. EEA-European Environment Agency. More from Less-Material Resource Efficiency in Europe, 2015 Overview of Policies, Instruments and Targets in 31 Countries, Rotterdam Update JANUARY 2016; EEA: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2016.
32. Bringezu, S. On the mechanism and effects of innovation: Search for safety and independence of resource constraints expands the safe operating range. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 116, 387-400.
33. Bahn-Walkowiak, B.; Steger, S. Resource Targets in Europe and Worldwide: An Overview. Resources 2015, 4, 597-620.
34. Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty. Available online: http://www.ats.aq/index_e.htm(accessed on 9 May 2016).
35. Convention on Biological Diversity. Available online: https://www.cbd.int/(accessed on 9 May 2016).
36. EC-European Commission. The Raw Materials Initiative-Meeting Our Critical Needs for Growth and Jobs in Europe, COM (2008)699; EC: Brussels, Belgium, 2008.
37. EC-European Commission. A resource-efficient Europe-Flagship initiative under the Europe 2020 Strategy; EC: Brussels, Belgium, 2011.
38. EC-European Commission. Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe; EC: Brussels, Belgium, 2011.
39. West, J.; Schandl, H. Material use and material efficiency in Latin America and the Caribbean. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 94, 19-27.
40. Schandl, H.; West, J.; Baynes, T.; Hosking, K.; Reinhardt, W.; Geschke, A.; Lenzen, M. Indicators for a Resource Efficient and Green Asia and the Pacific-Measuring Progress of Sustainable Consumption and Production, Green Economy and Resource Efficiency Policies in the Asia-Pacific Region; UNEP-United Nations Environmental Programme: Nairobi, Kenya, 2015.
41. NDRC-National Development and Reform Commission. 13th Chinese National Economic and Social Development Plan; NDRC: Beijing, China, 2016. (In Chinese)
42. UN-United Nations. The EU-UN Partnership on Land, Natural Resources and Conflict Prevention. Available online: http://www.un.org/en/land-natural-resources-conflict/(accessedon 9 May 2016).
43. GPF-Global Policy Forum. The Dark Side of Natural Resources. Available online: https://www. globalpolicy.org/the-dark-side-of-natural-resources-st.html (accessed on 9 May 2016).
44. Bringezu, S.; Moriguchi, Y. Material Flow Analysis. In Handbook of Industrial Ecology; Ayres, R.U., Ayres, L., Eds.; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2002; pp. 79-90.
45. Fischer-Kowalski, M.; Krausmann, F.; Giljum, S.; Lutter, S.; Mayer, A.; Bringezu, S.; Moriguchi, Y.; Schütz, H.; Schandl, H.; Weisz, H. Methodology and indicators of economy-wide material flow accounting: State of the art and reliability across sources. J. Ind. Ecol. 2011, 15, 855-876.
46. Loske, R.; Bleischwitz, R.; Sachs, W.; Linz, M.; Behrensmeier, R.; Bierter, W.; Böge, S.; Bringezu, S.; Burdick, B.; Fischedick, M.; et al. Zukunftsfähiges Deutschland; Birkenhäuser Verlag: Basel, Switzerland; Boston, MA, USA; Berlin, Germany, 1996.
47. Adriaanse, A.; Bringezu, S.; Hammond, A.; Moriguchi, Y.; Rodenburg, E.; Rogich, D.; Schütz, H. Resource Flows: The Material Basis of Industrial Economies; World Resources Institute, Wuppertal Institute, Netherlands Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning, Environment, National Institute for Environmental Studies, Eds.;World Resources Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 1997.
48. Matthews, E.; Amann, C.; Fischer-Kowalski, M.; Hüttler, W.; Kleijn, R.; Moriguchi, Y.; Ottke, C.; Rodenburg, E.; Rogich, D.; Schandl, H.; et al. The Weight of Nations-Material Outflows from Industrial Economies;World Resources Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2000.
49. Eurostat. Economy-Wide Material Flow Accounts and Derived Indicators. A Methodological Guide; European Statistical Office: Luxembourg City, Luxembourg, 2001.
50. Eurostat. Economy-Wide Material Flow Accounts and Derived Indicators. Compilation Guide 2013; European Statistical Office: Luxembourg City, Luxembourg, 2013.
51. OECD. Measuring Material Flows and Resource Productivity. Volume I. The OECD Guide; Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development: Paris, France, 2008.
52. Schandl, H.; Fischer-Kowalski, M.; West, J.; Giljum, S.; Dittrich, M.; Eisenmenger, N.; Geschke, A.; Lieber, M.; Wieland, H.P.; Schaffartzik, A.; et al. Global Material Flows and Resource Productivity; A Report of the Working Group on Decoupling of the International Resource Panel; UNEP-United Nations Environmental Programme: Nairobi, Kenya, 2016.
53. EEA-European Environment Agency. Environmental Indicators: Typology and Overview; Technical Report, No. 25; EEA: Copenhagen, Denmark, 1999.
54. Bringezu, S.; Schütz, H.; Moll, S. Rationale for and Interpretation of Economy-Wide Materials Flow Analysis and Derived Indicators. J. Indust. Ecol. 2003, 7, 43-67.
55. Steinmann, Z.J.N.; Schipper, A.M.; Hauck, M.; Huijbregts, M.A.J. How many environmental impact indicators are needed in the evaluation of product life cycles. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016.
56. Baynes, T.; Lenzen, M.; Steinberger, J.K.; Bai, X. Comparison of household consumption and regional production approaches to assess urban energy use and implications for policy. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 7298-7309.
57. Hillman, T.; Ramaswami, A. Greenhouse Gas Emission Footprints and Energy Use Metrics for Eight US Cities. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 1902-1910.
58. Chavez, A.; Ramaswami, A. Articulating a trans-boundary infrastructure supply chain greenhouse gas emission footprint for cities: Mathematical relationships and policy relevance. Energy Policy 2013, 54, 376-384.
59. Cohen, E.; Ramaswami, A. Water Footprint of Urban Energy Systems: Conceptual Development and Case Study of Denver, CO. J. Ind. Ecol. 2013, 18, 26-39.
60. Lin, J.; Hu, Y.; Cui, S.; Kang, J.; Ramaswami, A. Tracking urban carbon footprints from production and consumption perspectives. Environ. Res. Lett. 2015, 10, 54001-54012.
61. Galli, A.;Wiedmann, T.; Ercin, E.; Knoblauch, D.; Ewing, B.; Giljum, S. Integrating Ecological, Carbon and Water footprint into a "Footprint Family" of indicators: Definition and role in tracking human pressure on the planet. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 16, 100-112.
62. Dittrich, M.; Giljum, S.; Lutter, S.; Polzin, C. Green Economies around the World? Implications of Resource Use for Development and the Environment; SERI: Vienna, Austria, 2012.
63. Tukker, A.; Dietzenbacher, E. Global Multiregional Input-Output Frameworks: An Introduction and Outlook. Econ. Syst. Res. 2013, 25, 1-19.
64. Wiedmann, T.O.; Schandl, H.; Lenzen, M.; Moran, D.; Suh, S.; West, J.; Kanemoto, K. The material footprint of nations. PNAS 2015, 112, 6271-6276.
65. EEA-European Environment Agency. Environmental Pressures from European Consumption and Production; A Study in Integrated Environmental and Economic Analysis, EEA Technical Report No 2/2013; EEA: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2013.
66. O'Brien, M.; Schütz, H.; Bringezu, S. The land footprint of the EU bioeconomy: Monitoring tools, gaps and needs. Land Use Policy 2015, 47, 235-246.
67. DESTATIS-German Statistical Office, on Behalf of Environment Agency; Umweltbundesamt. Nachhaltiger Konsum: Entwicklung eines Deutschen Indikatorensatzes als Beitrag zu Einer Thematischen Erweiterung der Deutschen Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie; UBA: Dessau-Roßlau, Germany, 2014.
68. UNEP-United Nations Environmental Programme. Policy Coherence of the Sustainable Development Goals; A Natural Resource Perspective, an International Resource Panel Report; UNEP: Nairobi, Kenya, 2015.
69. Alcamo, J.; Henrichs, T. Critical regions: A model-based estimation of world water resources sensitive to global changes. Aquat. Sci. 2002, 64, 352-362.
70. McGlade, J.; Werner, B.; Young, M.; Matlock, M.; Jefferies, D.; Sonnemann, G.; Aldaya, M.; Pfister, S.; Berger, M.; Farell, C.; et al. Measuring Water Use in a Green Economy, A Report of the Working Group on Water Efficiency to the International Resource Panel; UNEP-United Nations Environmental Programme: Nairobi, Kenya, 2012.
71. Hoekstra, A.Y.; Chapagain, A.K.; Aldaya, M.M.; Mekonnen, M.M. The Water Footprint Assessment Manual-Setting the Global Standard; Earthscan: London, UK; Washington, DC, USA, 2012.
72. Hoekstra, A.Y.; Mekonnen, M.M. The water footprint of humanity. PNAS 2012, 109, 3232-3237.
73. Pfister, S.; Köhler, A.; Hellweg, S. Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Freshwater Consumption in LCA. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 4098-4104.
74. Alcamo, J.; Doll, P.; Henrichs, T.; Kaspar, F.; Lehner, B.; Rosch, T.; Siebert, S. Development and testing of the WaterGAP 2 global model of water use and availability. Hydrol. Sci. J. 2003, 48, 317-337.
75. UNEP-United Nations Environmental Programme. GEO5-Global Environmental Outlook 5; UNEP: Nairobi, Kenya, 2012.
76. OECD. Material Resources, Productivity and the Environment. OECD Green Growth Studies; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2015.
77. Green Growth Knowledge Platform. Available online: http://www.greengrowthknowledge.org/(accessedon 10 May 2016).
78. Giljum, S.; Hinterberger, F.; Biermann, B.;Wallbaum, H.; Bleischwitz, R.; Bringezu, S.; Liedtke, C.; Ritthoff, M.; Schütz, H. Towards an International Data Base on Resource Intensity; Aachen Foundation Kathy Beys: Aachen, Germany, 2009. Available online: http://www.aachener-stiftung.de/uploads/media/idares_final.pdf(accessed on 10 May 2016).
79. Eurostat's Environmental Data Centre on Natural Resources. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/environmental-data-centre-on-natural-resources(accessed on 10 May 2016).
80. UNEP-United Nations Environment Programme. Green Economy. Available online: http://web.unep.org/greeneconomy/(accessedon 10 May 2016).
81. OECD. Towards Green Growth. Available online: http://www.oecd.org/env/towards-green-growth-9789264111318-en.htm(accessed on 10 May 2016).
82. Global Solution Networks. Available online: http://gsnetworks.org/(accessedon 10 May 2016).