WS3 Fruehmann Indicators

Indicators for SCP - A Guideline for Civil Society Organisations

Presented by:

Johannes Frühmann

Action Town - Research and Action for SCP(CSOContribution2SCP)

Johannes Frühmann Indicators for SCP 2

The outline of the presentation

1. Introduction2. MIPS – Material Input Per Service unit3. HPI – Happy Planet Index

1. Introduction

Johannes Frühmann Indicators for SCP

What is an indicator?/Why measurement is important?

Indicators in SCP• quantify the human demand on natural resources;• show the interrelation between environmental and socio-economic

consequences;• assess, monitor and review progress toward goals and policies;• enable the definition of clear targets;• leading to better decisions and more effective actions;• help people understand what SCP means globally, nationally, locally and for

them as individuals;• help incorporate physical and social science knowledge into decision-making;• communicate ideas, thoughts and values with and to the broader public.

A Definition

a quantitative measure that is capable of showing the status and direction of change

3


Different types/use of indicators

Material• TMR/TMC: Total

Material Requirement/Consumption

• MIPS: Material per Service Unit

• EMC: Environmental Weighted Material Consumption

Area/land• HANPP: Human

Appropriation of Net Primary Production

Others• CO2

• Water

Single topic indicators

• EF: Ecological Footprint• HPI: Happy Planet Index• Environmental space• SPI: Sustainable

Process Index

Combined approaches

• SPI: Sustainability Performance Indicators

• EPI: Environmental Performance Indicators

Indicator sets

4




1. MIPS – Material Input Per Service Unit


Description and objectives of MIPS

6

Material Input per Service Unit (MIPS) is a method for calculating the natural resources used during the life cycle of a product or service and for estimating its environmental impact.

biotic & abiotic resources, water, air and the movement of soil all measured in tons moved in nature

Description

Objectives

• Aid to decision making about material consumption• Aid to the formulation of resource efficiency objectives• A measurement of resource efficiency • An indicator of sustainable production and consumption• Enable stakeholders to evaluate the environmental impact of a product or service along its life cycle

6


Strengths and Weaknesses

7

Strengths Weaknesses

Provides a quantitative indicator of potential environmental impacts

Useful in comparing the environmental implications of products, processes and services

Good target indicator towards resource-conserving production methods

Contributes to higher resource productivity along the entire life cycle of a product or at the level of the overall economy

Companies can use MIPS to identify potentials for product and process innovations

Focus on quantity not quality of materials may not give a qualitative assessment of potential environmental impacts

Requires the collection of large amounts of data for calculation expensive and time-consuming for long life cycles

Lack of appropriate standards to guarantee consistency and comparability of material flow accounts

7


A.C.T.I.O.N. areas for CSOs

8

Assess ways in which MIPS could become a tool for managing and promoting sustainability in policy making as well as in mainstreaming resource efficiency throughout supply chains

Campaign for resource efficiency from cradle to grave

Take part in data collection for MIPS and in life-cycle discussion with quantitative numbers

Involve partner with other CSOs, other stakeholder groups

Orient towards reduced consumption and increased resource efficiency

Network with other CSOs, business and policy makers

8


MIPS Case study

9

A description of the situation: 1.Current awareness of material inputs of the services we consume is not high2.But: the topics sustainability, environment and climate change have gained importance in the economic, public and political debate3.ECR Austria a platform for producers and retailers with the aim of optimizing their value chains in order to satisfy customers’ needs, wants to address “sustainability”.

What inefficiencies there were: 1.Companies were unsure about the hot spots 2.There was no coherent standard to compare the environmental impacts of different products.


MIPS Case study

10

What the CSO did: SERI calculated the MIPS of different products and gave recommendations on how to improve resource efficiency along the supply chains.

The results: 1.The project

raised awareness among companies helped them spot points for improved

resource efficiency2.Several suppliers have expressed interest in improving resource efficiency3.All partners expressed the need to establish an international database

10


MIPS Case study: FIN-MIPS Household

11

FIN-MIPS Project: Finnish association for nature conservation used the MIPS method to calculate the ecological rucksacks of 27 households and gave recommendations on how to improve resource efficiency in households.

Full presentation in a few minutes! Final report (english version) is just published!

11




1. HPI – Happy Planet Index


Description and objectives of HPI

13

life satisfaction * life expectancyThe Happy Planet Index (HPI) = ---------------------------------------------- ecological footprint per capita

Description

Objectives

• Combining wellbeing & environmental performance• Describing a global target for HPI at 83.5 (on a scale from 0 to 100) nations should aspire to• Comparing HPI scores of different countries• Providing a useful communication tool for politics/CSOs etc. at various levels (globally, regionally, locally)

13


A map of the world colour-coded by HPI

Happy Planet Index Report 2006. Highest rank to lowest rank

14


Strengths and Weaknesses

15

Strengths Weaknesses

Considering subjective and objective criteria

Simple methodology

Easy to communicate

Easy to compare between countries

Data for life satisfaction, life expectancy and EF (partially) are available online

Measuring ‘happiness’ is a complex issue

The policy relevance of targeting ‘happiness’ can be debated

The title of the index has led to misunderstandings as being an index to measure pure happiness of nations Data gaps remain, especially related to the EF

15


A.C.T.I.O.N. areas for CSOs

16

Assess wellbeing of citizens and the ecological footprint

Campaign for living a good life within environmental limits

Take part in policy making

Involve – partner with government, local authorities and communities, other CSOs

Orient towards sustainable lifestyles and a sustainable and equitable future overall

Network with researchers, other CSOs, community groups

16


HPI Case study Caerphilly

17

Caerphilly Sustainable Development Strategy

Development of a Caerphilly Sustainability Index inspired by the HPI to calculate how sustainable the UK county borough Caerphilly is. It sets out a vision for a sustainable county borough where residents live longer, healthier, more fulfilled lives whilst consuming less resources.

The aim is to get from a score of currently 42.3 to 62.0 by 2030.


What next? Comments, feedback & ideas welcome

• What kind of SCP indicators are needed by CSOs?• Which ones are the most important indicators? Which ones are

particularly useful?• Do you know good case studies?• Are the Action Areas describing what you do?

18


The End

19

Looking forward to the discussion!

For more information: [email protected]@seri.at

WS3 Fruehmann Indicators

Education

improve resource efficiency

happy planet index

mips case study

weaknesses strengths weaknesses

mips material input

ecological footprint

service unit

material