Resource dimensions of SDG 12

Currently SDG 12 comprises 11 illustrative targets (Box 3.2) that combine generic institutional and informational goals with goals related to resource use. These indicators currently howe-ver lack specificity, with the exception of goal 12.3 (half global per capita food waste by 2030) as noted by the first scientific re-view of the SDGs (ICSU and ISSC, 2015). Waste minimization,

“environmentally sound management of chemical and wastes”, or “rationalization [of] inefficient fossil-fuel subsidies” are fur-ther examples of resource-related goals referred to under SDG 12. Here, we adopt a pragmatic approach of assessing various scenarios available in the literature in terms of their illustration of and implications for SDG 12. The appropriate resource flows

Figure 3.5. Panel a (top). Indicators of per capita material wellbeing for the Global South in 2020 and 2050 in comparison to minima formulated by decent stan-dards of living and per capita values in the Global North. 2050 values are shown for the low energy demand (LED) scenario (Grubler et al., 2018) where high levels of material wellbeing are achieved with the lowest energy and resource consumption levels reported in the scenario literature for 2050. Panel b (bottom). Indicators of per capita resource inputs to meet activity demands (panel a) for the Global South in 2020 and 2050 in comparison with per capita values in the Global North 2020 and 2050. Graphic courtesy of Narasimha Rao and Arnulf Grubler.

to be considered for SDG 12 are those that a) provide a direct service benefits to consumers (e.g., food, or drinking water), are b) key in current models of service provision (e.g., energy, ma-terials for housing, vehicles, appliances, etc.), or c) that while not “consumed” per se by end users are nonetheless strongly influenced by consumption choices in “upstream” sectors, i.e., land resources needed to provide food, fiber, energy, and mate-rials. By looking at a resource matrix, including water, energy, land, and materials2 it is possible to describe the interactions and interlinkages of responsible consumption and production.

Given the dominance of climate change mitigation scenarios in the literature available to date, one could also include GHG emissions in this resource assessment matrix (Figure 3.6). Sce-narios addressing the elements in the matrix all illustrate the resource implications of integrated systems of production and use combining both the “upstream” resource implications of changing consumption preferences, as well as the “downstream”

implication of changed production and end-use service provi-sion patterns that are at the core of SDG 12.

To date there exists not a single scenario illustrating an integ-rated SDG 12 pathway to 2050 (which TWI2050 is aiming to provide, see Section 3.1.3). Therefore, a selection of scenarios that pertain to SDG 12 are briefly reviewed here and assessed in terms of their SDG 12 resource matrix implications below (Fi-gure 3.6). The review and assessment is necessarily incomplete, reflecting the time and resource constraints of this assessment as well as the limitations of the available scenario literature that has a very strong climate mitigation focus (and a supply-side mitigation options bias in general), and often lacks specificity in reporting consumption patterns (e.g., service levels for housing floor space or mobility) or resource impacts beyond GHGs and energy, with land, and in some instances also materials resource implications reported. Five illustrative scenarios (or clusters of scenario studies) have been identified of particular relevance to SDG 12:

Circular Economy in Europe 2030

This study (Ellen MacArthur Foundation et al., 2015) is a comprehensive assessment of the concept of the circular economy as well as short-term (2030) options for its implementation in Europe, mostly from a business perspective. It mainly assesses the circular economy in terms of economic variables, but provides quantitative scenario and options quantifications for food, mobility, and housing (materials). A valuable specificity of the study is the quantification of takeback (rebound) effects potentially arising from lowered service provision costs in a circular economy.

International Resource Panel, Efficiency plus Climate Mitigation Scenario

This scenario study (Ekins et al., 2017; Hatfield-Dodds et al., 2017)has a focus on material use, embracing an Industrial Ecology perspective and integrating consumption and production perspectives of materials use. Of particular relevance for SDG 12 is the scenario combining high levels of

2 This resource matrix was first proposed at IIASA as a method for non-monetary assessment of the resource implications of energy strategies .

materials efficiency with climate mitigation for which selected end-use consumption for a range of raw materials and energy are reported.

IMAGE Model Scenario and Sensitivity Analysis of End-use Options

Using the IMAGE Integrated Assessment model, a series of studies has explored the implications of reaching a number of SDGs drawing on alternative strategies that include also consumption/behavioral strategies. van Vuuren et al. (2015a) explored the implications of reaching a number (8) of SDG-related indicators. Their “consumption-based” strategy, albeit far from implying drastic changes, suggests that comparable SDG benefits can be achieved via a consumption-based approach, compared to more conventional technology-based strategies. Two studies (Bijl et al., 2017; Stehfest et al., 2009) explored in particular the impact of changing food demand, including also scenarios of dietary shifts and waste reduction that yield significant reductions in global crop demands and corresponding land requirements and agricultural emissions.

In van den Berg et al. (2016) an explicit scenario of resource efficiency coupled with climate policies was explored. This scenario is comparable to the scenario presented in Ekins et al. (2017) (see discussion above). The model was also used to look into the relationships between energy, land and water – and the options to reduce pressures on these resources via both increasing efficiency and lifestyle change (van Vuuren et al., 2017). Lastly, a recent model sensitivity analysis (van Vuuren et al., 2018) also includes consumption and demand-side options to explore the potential of reaching an ambitious 1.5˚C climate target without negative emission technologies. The scenario of

“lifestyle changes” explored however only assumes marginal changes and as a result its impact is rather small (substituting all negative emission technologies of the baseline 1.5˚C scenario requires to draw on all scenario sensitivity analysis options, including supply-side measures, lifestyle changes, as well as a lower population projection).

IEA ETP B2DS Scenario

The “Beyond 2 Degrees” scenario of the International Energy Agency’s Energy Technology Perspectives illustrates the energy and materials resource implications of a scenario significantly below the 2˚C climate target (1.7˚C) and also provides consumption activity level details of the scenario quantification of relevance for SDG 12.

LED (Low Energy Demand) Scenario

This recent scenario exercise (Grubler et al., 2018), using the set of IAMs of IIASA (MESSAGE, GLOBIOM, GAINS), embraces an end-use perspective of reaching an ambitious 1.5⁰C climate target, with no temperature/emissions overshoot and without relying on negative emissions technologies (CCS, BECCS). Its specifics include an explicit representation of the concept of Decent Standards of Living as well as a rich scenario narrative

Figure 3.6. Resource impact matrix for water, energy, land, materials and GHGs (industrial sources of CO2) for selected scenarios illustrating SDG 12 at the global level. (Regional indicators are currently not reported comprehensively in the published scenario literature). Note in particular that ceteris paribus the lower the re-source impacts of a scenario, the higher its SDG 12 benefit. Scenarios pictured: LED = Low Energy Demand scenario (Grubler et al., 2018) in case of water withdra-wal LED is represented by the “integrated SDG” scenario (Parkinson et al. 2018, based on Grubler, et al. 2018), ETP B2DS = IEA’s Energy Technology Perspectives, Beyond 2°C Scenario (IEA ), Efficiency Plus = Efficiency Plus scenario of the International Resource Panel (Ekins et al., 2017; Hatfield-Dodds et al., 2017), which is a combination of their Resource Efficiency and Ambitious Climate scenarios, RECP = Global resource efficiency and climate policy scenario of IMAGE (van den Berg et al., 2016), LiStCh = Life Style Change scenario of IMAGE (van Vuuren et al., 2018). Panel a) Scenario data for water are currently mostly unavailable.

Panel b) Direct equivalence method has been used to transform available primary energy scenario data to desired final energy metric (using implied efficiencies in the LED scenario for 2050). Panel c/1) LED: total forest area includes managed, natural and harvested area; Efficiency Plus scenario is based on Ekins et al. (2017) Fig. 108 that reports a range of literature values incl. IPCC AR5; RECP scenario: includes exploited forest and plantation forest as reported in van den Berg et al., 2016, Fig.4.; LiStCh scenario: includes all forests as reported in van Vuuren et al, 2018, Fig 3.a. Panel c/2) LED: agricultural land includes total cropland, pasture, and harvested area; Efficiency Plus is based on Ekins et al., 2017, Fig. 105, which uses data from various sources by adapting UNEP (2012); RECP scenario: includes grassland, bioenergy crops, and arable land as reported van den Berg et al., 2016, Fig.4.; LiStCh scenario: includes energy drop, pasture and crop land as reported in van Vuuren et al., 2018, Fig 3.a. Panel d) Materials included in the different scenarios: LED: steel, aluminum, cement, paper, petrochemicals, other, feedstock; ETP:

cement, high value chemicals, ammonia, methanol, crude steel, paper, aluminum; Efficiency Plus: biomass, fossil fuels, metal ores, non-metallic minerals. Graphic courtesy of Arnulf Grubler and Benigna Boza-Kiss.

in which new trends in ICT convergence, digitalization, and sharing economy concepts translate into step changes in materials and energy efficiency from an end-use perspective leading to rapid decarbonization at end-use that in turn drives upstream decarbonization.