Identifying priority areas for European resource policies: a MRIO-based material footprint assessment

Abstract

In the context of the transformation toward a "green economy, " issues related to natural resource use have rapidly increased in importance in European and international policy debates. The large number of studies applying economy-wide material flow analysis so far mostly produced aggregated national indicators, making the results difficult to connect to policies, which are often designed for single sectors or consumption areas. This paper provides a detailed assessment of the composition of EU's material footprint in its global context, aiming at identifying the main product groups contributing to overall material consumption and specifying the geographical sources for the raw materials required to satisfy EU's final demand. Based on multi-regional input-output (MRIO) modeling, we apply production layer decomposition to assess supply chains and their structural changes from 1995 to 2011. The global MRIO database used in this study is EXIOBASE 3, which disaggregates 200 products and 163 industries, of which 33 represent material extraction sectors. By that means, we increase the level of detail to a degree where policies can more easily connect to. We find that the generally growing material footprint of the EU was characterized by a dramatic shift regarding the origin of raw materials, with the share of materials extracted within the EU territory falling from 68 % in 1995 to 35 % in 2011. In 2011, raw materials extracted in China to produce exports to the EU already contributed an equal share to EU's material footprint as material extraction within the EU itself. Import dependency is most critical for the material group of metal ores, with only 13 % of all metals required as inputs to EU final demand stemming from within the EU. Regarding product composition, construction was confirmed as the most important sector contributing to the material footprint, followed by the group of manufacturing products based on biomass. Materials embodied in service sector activities together contributed a quarter to the total material footprint in 2011, making services an important, but currently disregarded area for European resource policies. We also find that supply chain structures became more complex over time, with a growing part located outside the EU territory.

EXIOBASE 3: Developing a Time Series of Detailed Environmentally Extended Multi‐Regional Input‐Output Tables

“…), and the geographical focus on the EU and major economies make EXIOBASE 3 highly suitable for policy analysis of developed economic regions (Giljum et al. ). Within this setting, EXIOBASE 3 provides the level of detail necessary for a macro‐level policy screening of consumption‐oriented policies in regard to carbon emission savings (Wood et al.…”

“…The newly available time series of EE MRIO tables in EXIOBASE 3 provides researchers and policy makers with a unique tool to identify priority sectors and consumption areas (see Giljum et al. ; Wood et al. ) and to assess the outcome of policies set in place to reduce environmental impacts, increase resource efficiency, and ultimately decouple the economic activity from the environmental impacts it leads to.…”

Structural production layer decomposition: a new method to measure differences between MRIO databases for footprint assessments

“…PLD is an aggregated form of SPA (compare Giljum et al, 2016;Lenzen and Crawford, 2009;Llop and Ponce-Alifonso, 2015;Wiedmann et al, 2009). In contrast to SPA, PLD does not calculate the emissions of single paths but aggregates all greenhouse gases released at discrete supply chain layers.…”

The Distribution of Material Footprints in Germany

“…Designing the corresponding policies necessitates data on the amount of biomass, minerals, and fossil fuels used to produce commodities for final consumption and hinges on evidence on how households' material footprints react to incentives, in particular prices. While existing literature provides estimates for countries' material footprints (Muñoz et al, 2009;Schoer et al, 2012;Arto et al, 2012;Bruckner et al, 2012;Wiebe et al, 2012;Kovanda and Weinzettel, 2013;Schaffartzik et al, 2014;Wiedmann et al, 2014;Giljum et al, 2015;Wiedmann et al, 2015;Ivanova et al, 2015;Wenzlik et al, 2015;Giljum et al, 2016) 2 , evidence on the heterogeneity of households' MF within a country is scarce and, furthermore, either focused on exotic materials such as neodymium (Shigetomi et al, 2015(Shigetomi et al, , 2016 or based on very small samples (Kotakorpi et al, 2008;Lettenmeier et al, 2012). 3 This study makes two contributions to a better understanding of households' material footprints.…”