The Use of Environmental Information in Decision Making Charlotte Lagerberg Fogelberg 1 & Fredrik Fogelberg 2 1 Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden 2 Hedmark University College, Norway Jurmala, May

15 Swedish Environmental Quality Objectives Reduced climate impact Clean air Natural acidification only A non-toxic environment A protective ozone layer A safe radiation environment Zero eutrophication Flourishing lakes and streams

15 Swedish Environmental Quality Objectives Good-quality groundwater A balanced marine environment, flourishing coastal areas and archipelagos Thriving wetlands Sustainable forests A varied agricultural landscape A magnificent mountain landscape A good built environment

Environmental Policy of the Swedish Government »The overall aim is to hand over to the next generation a society in which the major environmental problems have been solved.« The Swedish Parliament (Riksdagen) 1999

Divided Responsibility 15 national quality objectives Central authorities Regional authorities Local authorities regional objectives local objectives interim targets for each

Political frameworks 1992 UN conference in Rio de Janeiro Agenda 21 + conventions on climate and biodiversity Promote the inclusion of social aspects and environmental costs into the prices of goods and services Develop programmes to promote increased awareness in areas such as education, public information, consumer information, advertising and media Develop and introduce efficient tools for consumer information on issues relating to human health and safety Promote public procurement that develops and distributes environmentally sound goods and services 2002 UN conference in Johannesburg measures to

Sustainable consumption of foodstuffs, housing and transport Swedish governmental investigation Final conclusions and suggestions by end of May 2005

Some opinions of the governmental investigator Consider our values, attitudes and habits in favour of a smarter and more caring lifestyle Policy must be used more forcefully to  speed up development of greener technology  change price relations in favour of greater social consumption Economic growthLife satisfaction Material welfare Economic welfare

Public procurement of foods Swedish Environmental Management Council Governmental assignment Public procurement is governed by law diskriminering) – how the demands for quotation are expressed is essential for lawful choice Easy-to-use instrument for purchasing organisations caring about environmental issues All types of simple ”non-composed” foods Food services Suggestions ready 2005, implementation 2006

E-info ”Designing and evaluating the impacts of environmental information in food service institutions and the food wholesale sector” Funding from the Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research Investigate the behaviour of food purchasing managers in general and in particular regarding their use of environmental information Environmental profiles of foods Scenarios

Vegetables and meats Carrot Tomato Apple Beans and peas Broccoli Onion Chicken Beef

Parameters for the environmental profiles Resource use: water + plant nutrients + chemicals + packaging materials Fuel use: electricity + gaseous fuels + diesel + petrol Land use for primary production

Different origin Carrot Tomato Onion Beef Sweden Netherlands Italy Sweden Denmark Netherlands Spain Denmark Poland (Hungary) Sweden Brazil Ireland Poland

Storage on farm or packing house Fresh carrot, Carrot production, Inputs such as water, electricity, diesel, soap, chemicals, crop protection agents, fertilizers, lime Discarded carrots Animal feed Washing and packing, incl all processes in the packing house Storage at wholesaler Handling at food service institutions Discarded carrots Animal feed Discarded carrots ?

Beef, grazing system

Complex supply chain BBB A CCCCC DDDD E Primary producers, Spain2 EE Primary producers, Spain1 Primary producers, The Netherlands Primary producers, Sweden EE E Many purchasing managers involved

What you see depends on how you look. Herman Verhagen (Change 52) Profiles depend on method

Testing purchaser’s decision Three environmental aspects were used  energy use  greenhouse gas emissions  toxic substances Price Values of env parameters ± 90% of mean Price ± 7% of mean Apples and minced meat

Testing purchaser’s decision I prefer A and B equally I prefer A I prefer B Product alternative A: Energy use: 92.3 MJ/kg Greenhouse gas emissions: 26.6 kg CO 2 -eqv/kg Toxic substances: 0.2 g/kg Land use: 33.3 m 2 /kg Price: SEK/kg Product alternative B: Energy use: 4.9 MJ/kg Greenhouse gas emissions: 1.4 kg CO 2 -eqv/kg Toxic substances: 3.2 g/kg Land use: 33.3 m 2 /kg Price: SEK/kg

Testing purchaser’s decision again I prefer A and B equally I prefer A I prefer B Product alternative A: Energy use: 92.3 MJ/kg (-) Greenhouse gas emissions: 26.6 kg CO 2 -eqv/kg (-) Toxic substances: 0.2 g/kg (+) Land use: 33.3 m 2 /kg Price: SEK/kg Product alternative B: Energy use: 4.9 MJ/kg (+) Greenhouse gas emissions: 1.4 kg CO 2 -eqv/kg (+) Toxic substances: 3.2 g/kg (-) Land use: 33.3 m 2 /kg Price: SEK/kg

Preliminary results Price by far dominated the preferences ”Toxic substances” was the dominating environmental parameter Environmental parameters had greater impact on choice when labelled with + and – Different environmental parameters significant for different products

Final project seminar November 15, 2005 Thank you for your attention!