1. Resource efficiency indicators: material resource use and ecosystem capital maintenance Jean-Louis Weber Special Adviser Economic-Environmental Accounting European Environment Agency

2. Mapping the issue Material resource use Ecosystem capital maintenance

3. DMC Carbon GDP Fossil energy Sand, gravel Water Biomass/ Carbon Metal Chemicals Landscape Water Biodiversity Atmosphere/ Climate Biomass/ Carbon Sea TEP Land TEP Air TEP Sea Biomass/carbon acccounts (agriculture, forestry, …) CO2 DMC Sand/ gravel DMC Water DMC other Water accounts Conventional DMC Total Ecosystem Potential Total material Input Import-Export Decoupling (1) from material/energy inputs Decoupling (2) from environmental impacts Resource efficiency: Double decoupling

4. DMC Carbon GDP Fossil energy Sand, gravel Water Biomass/ Carbon Metal Chemicals Landscape Water Biodiversity Atmosphere/ Climate Biomass/ Carbon Sea TEP Land TEP Air TEP Sea Biomass/carbon acccounts (agriculture, forestry, …) CO2 DMC Sand/ gravel DMC Water DMC other Water accounts Conventional DMC Total Ecosystem Potential Total material Input Import-Export Decoupling (1) from material/energy inputs Decoupling (2) from environmental impacts Phase 1: TMI/DMC-Carbon & TEP Land

5. Interest and feasibility – First decoupling TMI/DMC carbon: – Conventional DMC sets aside water because of high numbers which could blurr the indicator; as a consequence, sand and gravel (named « non-metallic minerals ») make 50% of conventional DMC in Europe; the remaining materials is made of more than 90% of carbon materials (half-half fossil and biomass). – Carbon materials are part of all the economic flows (as material or energy) when sand and gravel relate to the construction sector – Carbon materials are important elements in international trade when the use of sand and gravel is local  it makes sense to focus on DMC Carbon (and TMI carbon) separately – Broad spectrum indicator, including the construction sector (high energy consumer for cement) – Clear & focussed indicator: entropy of the economic system – Fossil and biological carbon: Main issues: energy, food, tradeoffs…, climate change mitigation Balance economy-ecosystem – Numeraire: tons of carbon or energy units – Supported by existing agriculture, forestry fishery and energy statistics, national accounts, imports and exports statistics… – Supported by IPCC assessments and models – Possible computation of carbon embedded into import and exports

6. Change in Total Ecosystem Potential – Clear and focussed indicator: loss of TEP = ecosystem degradation = future loss of ecosystem services – Main dimensions (quantity and health) integrated via specific balances and multicriteria diagnoses – Land/landscape accounts produced for 1990-2000-2006; nowcasting 2010 of Landscape Ecological Potential under development – Carbon ecosystem accounts (first generation) under production – Water accounts: first accounts for soil water stress, 2000-2010 under production; rivers and aquifers under development – Biodiversity accounts under test – TEP/ Ecosystem Degradation methodology under test – Accounts supported by existing statistics on resource use and consumption (agriculture, forestry, fishery…) – Accounts supported by Earth Observation monitoring programmes and by in situ monitoring Interest and feasibility – Second decoupling

7. Land cover flows 1990-2006 and mean LEP by landscape ecosystem units Land cover flows are measured according to the EEA LEAC methodology based on Corine land cover (J-L Weber and E. Ivanov, 2011)

8. Landscape Ecological Potential change 1990-2006, by ecosystem landscape unit (J-L Weber and E. Ivanov, 2011)

9. Net Ecosystem Carbon Balance by ecosystem landscape units (J-L Weber and E. Ivanov, 2011)

10. Soil water stress: % of days when no water is available for plants One point in Germany One point in Spain Surplus streaming to rivers or infiltrating to groundwater Source: Blaz Kurnik, EEA, 2011 No water available for plants below this point (Wilting point)

11. From specific balances to integrated diagnosis of ecosystem health and TEP Change Preliminary results

12. Intensive broad pattern agriculture areas Agriculture areas with mosaic landscape Dominant landscape types

13. NLEP summarises landscape greenness, natural value and fragmentation by main transport networks. It is produced for 1990-2000 and 2006. Net Landscape Ecosystem Potential by 1km2 standard European grid, 2000 and Change 1990-2000 Agriculture areas with mosaic landscape Improvements of NLEP Degradation of NLEP Intensive broad pattern agriculture areas

14. NECB is the difference between biomass/carbon resources (NPP…) and uses (harvest of timber, crops as well as grazing). NECB is negative where tree clearing has taken place – which will be in general compensated by new vegetation in following years. NECB is very low and sometimes negative in intensive broad pattern agriculture areas – which is a structural deficit reflecting bad resource efficiency. Agriculture areas with mosaic landscape (e.g with hedgerows) have a positive NECB. Net Ecosystem Carbon Balance by 1km2 standard European grid. 2000

15. Intensive broad pattern agriculture areas have bad performance regarding biodiversity (purple cells) because of low NECB (little biomass left available for biodiversity) and use of chemicals. Agriculture areas with mosaic landscape have not the good performance expected regarding biodiversity (because of hedgerows and positive NECB). The cause is likely to be the use of pesticides… Biodiversity index: here proportion of BAD/ALL in Art. 17 Reporting 2008

16. Deadlines and coverage Version 0 (proof of concept) under production/development – Land accounts and NLEP 1990-2000-2006; interpolation and nowcasting (up to 2010) ongoing – Carbon accounts (NECB): 2000 produced, 2000-2010 time serie under production – Water accounts: first accounts of soil water stress 2000, time serie 2010 under production – Biodiversity accounts and index under development, based on exisitng data: EU reporting (Art.17), Species Specialisation Index and Ecotones 1990-2006. – All accounts for EU 27 (and more), assimilated at the level of the standard Inspire 1km² grid to allow reporting by ecosystme landscpae units, river basins and subbasins, NUTS 0, 2, 3… biogeographic regions, coastal zones, mountain areas etc… – TEP/ Ecosystem Degradation: Test in July 2011 Accounts are simplified but capture main traits at the EU scale Version 1 will start this summer