Multi-Scale Governance of Sustainable Natural Resource Use—Challenges and Opportunities for Monitoring and Institutional Development at the National and Global Level
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Different Levels of Resource Management
2.1. Agriculture, Forestry, Fisheries and Mining
2.2. Manufacturing Companies
2.3. Private Households
2.4. Public Procurement
2.5. Product Chain Management
2.6. River Basin Management
2.7. City and Regional Planning
2.8. National Resource Management
2.9. Global Resource Management
2.10. Cross-Level Effects through Markets and Market Signals
3. Global Natural Resource Management by (Supra-)National Governance
3.1. Goals of Resource Policies
- Resource access policies: The goal is to ensure continuous and timely supply of affordable natural resources. Within a country, spatial planning and property rights arrangements, for instance, regulate exploration and mining licenses and often prevail above competing land uses. Supply security is guaranteed through long-term contractual arrangements between countries and businesses, and economic incentives are in place to support supply.
- Resource efficiency policies: The objective is to enhance decoupling of economic growth and natural resource consumption. Often, the underlying objective is to become more independent of imports of natural resources, and to enhance competitiveness by saving costs and by driving innovation. Thus, economic benefits are the key incentive, while the reduced environmental burden is readily accepted as a bonus.
- Sustainable natural resource use policies: The goal would be to use natural resources not only efficiently but also in an internationally fair, secure and environmentally safe manner for the provision of improved living standards and well-being. The objective is to complement resource efficiency measures with additional measures that avoid rebound effects and enable a shift towards resource sufficiency in terms of absolute levels of natural resource consumption.
3.2. Recent Resource Policies emerged from a Comprehensive Systems Perspective
3.2.1. Interaction of Research, Statistics and Policy
3.2.2. Framework of Indicators and Focus on Resource Inputs
3.3. Key Indicators of Natural Resource Use
3.3.1. Materials
3.3.2. Land Use
3.3.3. Water Use
3.4. Information on Resource Use required for Implementing the SDGs
- I
- Goals emphasizing preservation and sustainable use of earth systems 13 (climate), 14 (oceans), 15 (terrestrial ecosystems)
- II
- Goals emphasizing sustainable supply by resource sectors 2 (food, agriculture), 6 (water), 7 (energy)
- III
- Goals emphasizing social and technical improvements of the economy 1 (poverty), 8 (economic growth), 9 (infrastructure, industries), 10 (inequality), 11 (cities), 12 (consumption and production)
- IV
- Goals emphasizing cultural improvements of society 3 (health), 4 (education), 5 (gender), 16 (peace)
4. Needs for Institutional Development
4.1. Monitoring Global Resource Use
4.2. Establishment of an International Database on Global Resource Use
4.3. Development of an International Competence Center on Sustainable Resource Management
4.4. Development of a Global Sustainable Resource Management Program
5. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- 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. [Google Scholar]
- 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. [Google Scholar]
- 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. [Google Scholar]
- Bringezu, S. Possible Target Corridor for Sustainable Use of Global Material Resources. Resources 2015, 4, 25–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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.
- Cucurachi, S.; Suh, S. A Moonshot for Sustainability Assessment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 9497–9498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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).
- Electris, C.; Raskin, P.; Rosen, R.; Stutz, J. The Century Ahead: Four Global Scenarios. Technical Documentation; Tellus Institute: Boston, MA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- FAO—Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Good Agricultural Practices. Available online: http://www.fao.org/prods/gap/ (accessed on 9 May 2016).
- 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-practice-guide-forestry-booklet-web-en.pdf (accessed on 9 May 2016).
- 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).
- 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).
- 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).
- 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).
- 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).
- WBCSD—Word Business Council for Sustainable Development. Business Solutions for a Sustainable World. Available online: http://www.wbcsd.org (accessed on 9 May 2016).
- 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).
- Fischer-Kowalski, M.; Swilling, M.; von Weizsäcker, 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 the Working Group on Decoupling to the International Resource Panel; UNEP—United Nations Environmental Programme: Nairobi, Kenya, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- 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-for-consumers/ (accessed on 9 May 2016).
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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).
- The International EPD® System. Available online: http://www.environdec.com/en/ (accessed on 9 May 2016).
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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).
- 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).
- Global Water Partnership (GWP); International Network of Basin Organizations (INBO). A Handbook for Integrated Water Resource Management in Basins. 2009. Available online: http://www.unwater.org/downloads/GWP-INBOHandbookForIWRMinBasins.pdf (accessed on 9 May 2016).
- Hoekstra, A.Y.; Chapagain, A.K. Globalization of Water: Sharing the Planet’s Freshwater Resources; Blackwell Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- 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. [Google Scholar]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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. [Google Scholar]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bahn-Walkowiak, B.; Steger, S. Resource Targets in Europe and Worldwide: An Overview. Resources 2015, 4, 597–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty. Available online: http://www.ats.aq/index_e.htm (accessed on 9 May 2016).
- Convention on Biological Diversity. Available online: https://www.cbd.int/ (accessed on 9 May 2016).
- EC—European Commission. The Raw Materials Initiative—Meeting Our Critical Needs for Growth and Jobs in Europe, COM (2008)699; EC: Brussels, Belgium, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- EC—European Commission. A resource-efficient Europe—Flagship initiative under the Europe 2020 Strategy; EC: Brussels, Belgium, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- EC—European Commission. Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe; EC: Brussels, Belgium, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- West, J.; Schandl, H. Material use and material efficiency in Latin America and the Caribbean. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 94, 19–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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. [Google Scholar]
- NDRC—National Development and Reform Commission. 13th Chinese National Economic and Social Development Plan; NDRC: Beijing, China, 2016. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- 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/ (accessed on 9 May 2016).
- 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).
- 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. [Google Scholar]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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. [Google Scholar]
- 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. [Google Scholar]
- 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. [Google Scholar]
- Eurostat. Economy-Wide Material Flow Accounts and Derived Indicators. A Methodological Guide; European Statistical Office: Luxembourg City, Luxembourg, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Eurostat. Economy-Wide Material Flow Accounts and Derived Indicators. Compilation Guide 2013; European Statistical Office: Luxembourg City, Luxembourg, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- OECD. Measuring Material Flows and Resource Productivity. Volume I. The OECD Guide; Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development: Paris, France, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- 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. [Google Scholar]
- EEA—European Environment Agency. Environmental Indicators: Typology and Overview; Technical Report, No. 25; EEA: Copenhagen, Denmark, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hillman, T.; Ramaswami, A. Greenhouse Gas Emission Footprints and Energy Use Metrics for Eight US Cities. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 1902–1910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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. [Google Scholar]
- Tukker, A.; Dietzenbacher, E. Global Multiregional Input–Output Frameworks: An Introduction and Outlook. Econ. Syst. Res. 2013, 25, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- 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. [Google Scholar]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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. [Google Scholar]
- 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. [Google Scholar]
- Alcamo, J.; Henrichs, T. Critical regions: A model-based estimation of world water resources sensitive to global changes. Aquat. Sci. 2002, 64, 352–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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. [Google Scholar]
- 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. [Google Scholar]
- Hoekstra, A.Y.; Mekonnen, M.M. The water footprint of humanity. PNAS 2012, 109, 3232–3237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pfister, S.; Köhler, A.; Hellweg, S. Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Freshwater Consumption in LCA. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 4098–4104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UNEP—United Nations Environmental Programme. GEO5—Global Environmental Outlook 5; UNEP: Nairobi, Kenya, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- OECD. Material Resources, Productivity and the Environment. OECD Green Growth Studies; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Green Growth Knowledge Platform. Available online: http://www.greengrowthknowledge.org/ (accessed on 10 May 2016).
- 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).
- 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).
- UNEP—United Nations Environment Programme. Green Economy. Available online: http://web.unep.org/greeneconomy/ (accessed on 10 May 2016).
- OECD. Towards Green Growth. Available online: http://www.oecd.org/env/towards-green-growth-9789264111318-en.htm (accessed on 10 May 2016).
- Global Solution Networks. Available online: http://gsnetworks.org/ (accessed on 10 May 2016).
Territory or National Perspective | Global Supply Chain or International Perspective | |
---|---|---|
Materials | Domestic extraction, use and consumption (DEU, DUE, DMI, DMC) | Primary material resource requirements of production (RMI, TMR) and consumption (“material footprint”: RMC, TMC) |
Land | Artificial land or built-up area | Direct and indirect land use for consumption of biomass-based products focusing on cropland (“cropland footprint”) |
Water | Water withdrawal | Direct and indirect water consumption (e.g., water footprint) |
Air | GHG emissions | Direct and indirect GHG emissions (both carbon and non-carbon emissions) |
SDG | Key Resource Strategy | Challenge—Risk | Information Required (Selection) |
---|---|---|---|
Goal 1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere | Clarify land ownership and property rights in particular for the poor | Property rights and land ownership—if legally established—must be accompanied by responsible use and policies to avoid limitless resource extraction | Land registers and transparency in foreign investments |
Goal 2. End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture | Sustainable intensification of agriculture Minimization of food waste Shift to more healthy diets | Local limits to intensification may lead to expansion of intensively cultivated land and loss of biodiversity | Good agricultural practice for local resource management; Data on biomass flows, including waste; self-supply ratio and physical trade balance; land footprint and reference values for assessing its sustainability |
Goal 3. Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages | Human health relies on a healthy environment | A more sustainable natural resource use tends to result in a healthy environment. However, both may become the privilege of the rich. Therefore, this goal may not be reached in contradiction with Goal 12. | see Goal 12. |
Goal 4. Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all | Better education fosters independence Natural resource use (“brainware instead of hardware”) | Better education is therefore synergistic with more sustainable resource use. It also leads to higher incomes which may increase resource consumption. | Information on resource consumption, including resource footprints, resource productivity, and good practices of sustainable resource management from local to national and global |
Goal 5. Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls | Gender equality tends to foster more sustainable use of natural resources | Gender equality is therefore synergistic with more sustainable resource use | As for Goal 4 |
Goal 6. Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all | Water use efficiency | Resource-intensive infrastructure for water supply and sanitation Overuse of water despite high use efficiency | Information on resource efficient technologies; Water balances for regions; water footprint weighed with water scarcity |
Goal 7. Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all | Energy efficiency Shift to renewable energies | Problem shifting by growing use of certain renewable energies such as those based on plants | Reference values for resource footprints of energy technologies (e.g., RMI per kWh); Resource Footprints at the national level covering energetic and non-energetic material flows, land use, water withdrawal and GHG emissions to detect problem shifts |
Goal 8. Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all | Decoupling of both economic value creation and employment from resource use | Growing resource consumption despite relative decoupling Shifts of resource-intensive industries to resource extracting countries | Monitoring of territorial and global resource use of national economies; including all resource footprints, international comparison of resource productivity and resource consumption per person; reference values for resource footprints, in particular material footprint |
Goal 9. Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation | Resource efficient infrastructure Resource efficient industries | Build-up of infrastructure in DCs and maintenance in ICs in a highly resource-intensive mode; Copying technologies of IC by DCs may multiply problems | Information on resource efficient infrastructure; Information on development and operation of resource efficient industries and companies, incl. sectoral resource footprints of their products |
Goal 10. Reduce inequality within and among countries | Foster resource efficiency in order to allow poorer countries and people to attain well-being and welfare more easily and less burdensome | Resource efficiency increase also leads to enhanced competitiveness of countries and thus may tend to increase inequality. This goal can only be implemented together with Goal 12. | See Goal 12. |
Goal 11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable | Same as for Goals 2, 6, 7, 8, 9 plus resource efficiency in buildings and transport | Cities will always depend on their "hinterland" and trade across cities and regions for resource supply; problem shifting may occur to regions outside or between resources | Information on resource efficiency in the building and transport sector and integrated city planning Information on resource footprints for the city as a whole and for community-wide infrastructure |
Goal 12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns | Same as for goals 2, 6, 7, 8, 9 plus decoupling of well-being and resource use | Growing number of net consuming countries, often far away from the locations where resource extraction and refining poses environmental and social problems | Monitoring all resource footprints, international comparison of resource productivity and consumption per person; reference values for sustainability assessment; Policy programs to foster economy-wide sustainable resource management, incl. aspects listed for goals 2, 6, 7, 8, 9 |
Goal 13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts | Enhance resource efficiency Promote sustainable consumption and production | Higher material and energy efficiency is usually synergistic with mitigation of GHG emissions; but not all mitigation and adaptation measures may be resource efficient | Information on potentials of material and energy efficiency measures for climate protection for infrastructure, production and product technologies; monitoring the Four Footprints for technologies and whole countries |
Goal 14. Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development | Fishing quota and ocean conservation parks Promote sustainable consumption and production | Good ocean management practice and conservation areas may be overridden by growing demand for resource use Specific Goal 14 strategies will only work when Goal 12 strategies are effectively implemented | Good practice of management of ocean resources. See Goal 12: providing data on overall resource use, including from oceans |
Goal 15. Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, halt and reverse land degradation, and halt biodiversity loss | Proper local to regional land management Conservation areas Promote sustainable consumption and production | Good land management practice and conservation areas may be overridden by growing demand for resource use Specific Goal 15 strategies will only work when Goal 12 strategies are effectively implemented | Good local resource management practices Data on land potential, including both biomass production and biodiversity Monitoring different types of land use at global, national and regional levels See goal 12: providing data on overall resource use including from agriculture and forestry |
Goal 16. Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels | Good policy practice | The goal tends to be synergistic with sustainable resource use Overuse of natural resources tends to induce or worsen conflicts Progress towards Goal 12 might help to mitigate conflict pressure about resources | Transparency on resource use across levels |
© 2016 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Bringezu, S.; Potočnik, J.; Schandl, H.; Lu, Y.; Ramaswami, A.; Swilling, M.; Suh, S. Multi-Scale Governance of Sustainable Natural Resource Use—Challenges and Opportunities for Monitoring and Institutional Development at the National and Global Level. Sustainability 2016, 8, 778. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8080778
Bringezu S, Potočnik J, Schandl H, Lu Y, Ramaswami A, Swilling M, Suh S. Multi-Scale Governance of Sustainable Natural Resource Use—Challenges and Opportunities for Monitoring and Institutional Development at the National and Global Level. Sustainability. 2016; 8(8):778. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8080778
Chicago/Turabian StyleBringezu, Stefan, Janez Potočnik, Heinz Schandl, Yonglong Lu, Anu Ramaswami, Mark Swilling, and Sangwon Suh. 2016. "Multi-Scale Governance of Sustainable Natural Resource Use—Challenges and Opportunities for Monitoring and Institutional Development at the National and Global Level" Sustainability 8, no. 8: 778. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8080778