City Limits London.Pdf

City Limits

A resource flow and ecological footprint analysis of Greater London

Project Partners

Chartered Institution of Wastes
The Institution of Civil Engineers

w w w .ice.org.u k

IWM (EB)

Management Environmental Body

IWM (EB) is a registered environm ental body that sponsors original research, developm ent, education and inform ation dissem ination projects in furtherance of professional and sustainable waste m anagem ent practices.
(ICE) is the pre-em inent engineering institution in the world. It has 78,000 m em bers and provides a voice for civil engineering, professional developm ent and prom oting best practice in the industry. In 2000, ICE and CIWM agreed to instigate and co-ordinate a program m e of activities funded by landfill tax credits, of which City Lim its form s part.

Biffaward

w w w .biffaw ard .org

The Chartered Institution of Wastes Management

w w w .ciw m .co.u k

In 1997 Biffa Waste Services agreed to donate
The Chartered Institution of Wastes landfill tax credits to the
Managem ent (CIWM) is the pre-em inent
Royal Society for Nature Conservation (RSNC) to adm inister under

the fund nam e Biffaward. To date, Biffaward has distributed m ore than £44m m illion to 554 projects throughout the UK. body in the UK engaged in waste m anagem ent issues. It represents over 4,000 professional waste m anagers and aim s to protect and enhance the environm ent through developing scientific, technical and m anagem ent standards. City Lim its is a natural follow-on to CIWM's Millenium Com petition and its interest in im proving the quality of data available for strategic decision-m aking in the m anagem ent of London's wastes.

Greater

Best Foot Forward Ltd

w w w .bestfootforw ard .com

London Authority

w w w .lon d on .gov .u k

Best Foot Forward Lim ited (BFF) is a sustainability consultancy based in Oxford. BFF have developed the
The Mayor and the London Assem bly constitute a strategic citywide governm ent for London, and is the statutory authority for the Greater London region. Responsibilities include the police, transport, fire and em ergency planning, regeneration, planning, sustainability and environm ental issues, cultural affairs and health concerns.
EcoIndex™ m ethodology, based on ecological footprinting, which is used to calculate the environm ental im pact and sustainability of a product, organisation, process or activity. BFF's ecological footprint of the Isle of Wight was voted Overall Winner at the Biffaward Awards 2001.

I

www.citylimitslondon.com
Title page

City Limits

A resource flow and ecological footprint analysis of Greater
London

Com m ission ed by

IWM (EB)

Chartered Institution of Wastes Management
Environmental Body

Prep ared by

Best Foot Forw ard Ltd

w w w . c i t y l i m i t s l o n d o n . c o m

12th September 2002

II

City Limits

Biffaward Programme on Sustainable Resource Use

Th is rep ort form s p art of th e Biffaw ard Program m e on Su stain able Resou rce Use. Th e aim of th is p rogram m e is to p rov id e accessible, w ell-research ed in form ation abou t th e flow s of d ifferen t resou rces th rou gh th e UK econ om y based eith er sin gly , or on a com bin ation of region s, m aterial stream s or in d u stry sectors.

Inform ation about m aterial resource flows through the UK econom y is of fundam ental im portance to the cost- be generated and classified in ways effective m anagem ent of resource flows, especially at the stage when the resources becom e 'waste'.
In order to m axim ise the Program m e’s full potential, data will
In addition to the projects having their own m eans of dissem ination to their own constituencies, their data and inform ation will be gathered together in a com m on form at to facilitate policy m aking at corporate, regional and national levels. that are both consistent with each other, and with the m ethodologies of the other generators of resource flow/ waste m anagem ent data.

Acknowledgments

Steering Group

IWM (EB) w ish to ack n ow led ge th e gen erou s h elp an d su p p ort of th e p roject Steerin g Grou p .

Osw ald A. Dod d s MBE (Chairm an)

IWM (EB)

Fran s Berk h ou t

University of Sussex

An d rew Cru d gin gton

Joh n Fergu son

Chartered Institution of Wastes Managem ent

Herbert Girard et

Schum acher Society

Iv an Good

Project Team

IWM (EB)

Nick y Ch am bers Rich ard Heap
Dav id Good e

Greater London Authority

Peter Jon es
Nicola Jen k in

Biffa Waste Services Ltd

Kev in Lew is
Way n e Laram ee
Craig Sim m on s

Bru n a Tam ai

Environm ental Services Association

Sim on Read

London Waste Action

George Vergou las Pau l V. Vern on (design)
Dav id Streeter

Association of London Governm ent

An d rea Wh ite

Royal Society for Nature Conservation / Biffaward

III

Acknowledgments and Foreword

City Limits

Foreword

Th e p u blication of th is stu d y of Lon d on 's ecological footp rin t is p articu larly tim ely follow in g as it d oes th e Un ited Nation s' Wor ld

Su m m it on En vir on m en t a n d Developm en t in Joh an n esbu rg. It

becam e clear 10 y ears ago at th e Ea r th Su m m it in Rio th at w e can n ot con tin u e to u se global resou rces at cu rren t lev els w ith ou t p u ttin g fu tu re gen eration s an d global ecosy stem s at risk .

Recent estim ates suggest that on a global scale we are now using resources faster than they can be replenished. We are eating into the earth's capital assets, which will inevitably reduce options for future generations.
In m y draft London Plan published in June I set out m y vision for London over the next twenty years. It is based on three interwoven them es of econom ic growth, social inclusivity and fundam ental im provem ents in London's environm ent and use of resources.
This vision underlies all m y strategies. Alongside the London Plan I am producing five environm ental strategies on Air Quality, Biodiversity, Energy, Noise and Municipal Waste Managem ent. These collectively show how London can develop sustainable solutions and this study of
This study of London's footprint is particularly im portant because it is the first such analysis of a m ajor world city. For the first tim e we have an overall picture of London's m etabolism , how resources are used and where action m ight be taken to increase our efficiency and becom e m ore sustainable. The report reinforces the challenges that face us but also provides vital clues to ways in which we can reduce our im pact on the wider world.
London's footprint will be particularly valuable in enabling all of us to find possible solutions.
This vision seeks to achieve the m axim um possible from the forces to which the city is subject and which it can influence. It is a challenging vision involving clear choices, priorities, resources, determ ination and the resolution of conflict. But the alternative - a failure to secure econom ic growth and to m atch it with social
For all these reasons I welcom e the publication of this study and I com m end it to everyone involved in achieving m y vision of m aking London an exem plary, sustainable world city.

inclusion and sustainable use of resources - would have serious long-term consequences for London, and the wider world.

We ca n n ot con tin u e to

Ken Liv in gston e May or of Lon d on

u se globa l r esou r ces a t cu r r en t levels with ou t pu ttin g fu tu r e gen er a tion s a n d globa l ecosystem s a t r isk.

IV

City Limits

Executive Summary

The City Limits project set out to achieve the following objectives:

Chairman’s Statement

The m ain aim of this project was to research and analyse resource use data for London. Resource flow and ecological footprint analyses served to provide inform ation on which to m ake evidence-based policy. The results show that changes are necessary if London is to becom e a sustainable city. Scenario results indicate that a com bination of consum ption reduction and technological innovation can achieve the resource efficiency im provem ents required to realise a sustainable London by 2050.

· To qu an tify an d catalogu e th e en ergy an d m aterials con su m ed by Lon d on an d Lon d on ers, an d w h ere p ossible m ap th e flow s of th ese resou rces.

· To calcu late th e ecological footp rin t of th e citizen s of Lon d on .

Deciding the detail of how we m ight achieve the necessary changes needs to involve society as a whole. This is essentially a political process and the report does not, therefore, m ake specific policy recom m endations. It is hoped however that the findings of this study will assist in the form ation of effective policies and help all of us understand the action needed to achieve ecological sustainability.

· To com p are th e ecological footp rin t of Lon d on ers w ith oth er region s.

Another aim of the project was to assess the availability and quality of data necessary for this type of analysis. While m ore research and better datasets would greatly assist in assessing and m onitoring our progress towards sustainability, the report shows that there is already enough data in the public dom ain to reliably indicate that London lifestyles are not currently sustainble. We therefore hope that this study both stim ulates further data research and inspires future analyses.

· To com p are th e ecological footp rin t of Lon d on ers w ith th e globally av ailable 'earth sh are' to estim ate ecological su stain ability .

· To qu an tify th e ecological su stain ability of a ran ge of im p rov em en t scen arios.

On behalf of IWM (EB) I would like to thank all involved in the project - the funders, the project team and all those who provided data or otherwise helped.

I com m end the report to you and hope that it stim ulates real debate and change.

· To assess th e av ailability an d qu ality of d ata requ ired to carry ou t th is ty p e of an aly sis, an d in certain in stan ces m ak e recom m en d ation s to im p rov e d ata requ irem en ts for

Osw ald A. Dod d s MBE Ch airm an IWM (EB) Sep tem ber 2002

resou rce flow an d ecological footp rin t an aly ses.

V

Chairman’s Statement and Executive Summary

City Limits

The main findings of the project were:

• The population of Greater London in 2000 was 7.4 m illion.
• The ecological footprint of Londoners was
49 m illion global hectares (gha), which was 42 tim es its biocapacity and 293 tim es its geographical area. This is twice the siz e of the UK, and roughly the sam e siz e as Spain.
• Londoners consum ed 154,400 GigaWatt hours (GWh) of energy (or 13,276,000 tonnes of oil equivalent), which produced 41 m illion tonnes of CO_2.
• The ecological footprint per London resident was 6.63 gha. This com pares with the UK average ecological footprint of 6.3 gha, and exceeds the global 'earthshare' of 2.18 gha.
• Londoners consum ed 49 m illion tonnes of m aterials. On a per capita basis, this represents 6.7 tonnes.

• 27.8 m illion tonnes of m aterials were used by the construction sector.
• The ecological footprint of London

tourists was estim ated at 2.4 m illion gha, which equates to an additional 0.32 gha per Londoner.
• 26 m illion tonnes of waste was generated, of which 15 m illion tonnes was generated by the construction and dem olition sector, 7.9 m illion tonnes by the com m ercial and industrial sector and 3.4 m illion tonnes by households.
• The predicted 'earthshare' in 2050 is estim ated at 1.44 gha per capita. For Londoners to be ecologically sustainable by 2050, a 35% reduction by 2020 and an 80% reduction by 2050, of their ecological footprint will be needed.
• 6.9 m illion tonnes of food was consum ed, of which 81% was im ported from outside the UK.

• Ranges of 'business as usual' and
'evolutionary' scenarios were prepared to reflect current practice and existing im provem ent targets.
• Londoners travelled 64 billion passengerkilom etres (pass-km ), of which 69% was by car.

r

• Water consum ption reached
876,000,000,000 litres, of which 28% was leakage.
'Revolutionary' scenarios were prepared to dem onstrate that a com bination of technological and

Food 41%

behavioural changes could achieve interim sustainability targets for 2020.

Materials & waste 44%

Ecological footprint of Londoners, by component, showing actual size and the UK.

Degraded land 0.7%

Water 0.3%

VI

City Limits

Contents

Ecological Footprint Analysis
Results
19

III

Biffaward Program m e

on Sustainable Resouce Use
Acknowledgm ents Foreword
III IV V
Ecological Dem and: The Ecological
19
Footprint
Executive Sum m ary
Direct Energy Footprint

Materials and Waste Footprint Food Footprint
20 20 25 25 26 26 26

1

Con ten ts

35566
List of Tables, Figures & Vignettes Introduction Greater London
Personal Transport Footprint

Water Footprint
Project Context Report Structure

Built Land Footprint Tourism Footprint

Results

Ecological Sustainability
Assessment
27
7

8

Resource Flow Analysis Results

Direct Energy
The Ecological Sustainability of London
27 27 27 28
Ecological Supply: The Biocapacity of London Ecological Supply: The Biocapacity of the World Com parisons with Other Ecological Footprints

10

Material Flows (including Food)

12 13
Food flows Priority waste stream s
14

16 16 16
Waste
London in the World
28 29 31
Transport Water
London and other regions London and other cities

Land Use

Scenario Results

Electricity

32

17

Su m m ary

resou rce flow s

Household Waste
34 36 37 38
Passenger Transport

th rou gh Lon d on in 2000

Transportation of Food Household Water Consum ption

1

Contents

City Limits

Methodology

39 Project Aims

45 Ecological Footprint Analysis

Methodology
39 Data Collection

45 45
What is an Ecological Footprint Analysis?
39

39 39
Methodology

The Living Pla net Report and Footprint of Na tions Accounts

Data Availability and Quality

46

The Com ponent Approach: The EcoIndex™

Methodology
Com m ercial confidentiality and cost
46 46
The Snap Shot Approach

40 Proxy Measures

The Geographical and Responsibility Accounting
Principles

47

The ecological footprint of the Greater London

geographical area

40 The Double Counting Demon

40

Double Counting in the Resource Flow Analysis

47

47 48 49 49
The ecological footprint of Londoners
Adjusting for double counting

40

Double Counting in the Ecological Footprint

Analysis

Aligning the responsibility principle
Ecological Supply: The Biocapacity Analysis

40 Filling the Data Gaps

Com parison of Londoner's Ecological Footprint to
Other Studies

41 Resource Flow Analysis
Methodology

49

Need for a com parative m ethodology

41

Direct Energy Flows

41 41
Derivation of data sets

50 Scenarios Methodology

Proxy m easure used and lim itations

41

Material and Waste Flows (including Food)

41 42 43 43 43 43 43 43
Derivation of m aterial flows datasets
Product codes
Proxy m easures used and their lim itations
Per capita Em ploym ent num bers
51 52
Endnotes
Gross Dom estic Product (GDP)

Waste generation
Appendix 1
Data Providers and Assistance Other Contacted Organisations
Appendix 2
Derivation of waste data

44

Transport

55

57
44 44
Data Availability and

Quality by Com ponent
Proxy m easures used and lim itations

44

Water

Appendix 3

Conversion tables
Abbreviations Glossary
44 44
58

59 60
Proxy m easures used and lim itations

44

Tourism and Day Visitors

References

2

City Limits

List of tables

Results

Resource Flow Analysis Results

78

Table 1:

Energy consum ed in London, by fuel type and CO₂em issions

Table 2:

A sum m ary of m aterial flows through London

9

Table 3a - 3g: A detailed breakdown of resource flows through London, by m aterial category

12 12 13 14 15 16 16 16
Table 4a: Table 4b: Table 5: Table 6: Table 7: Table 8: Table 9: Table 10:
Food flows through London Food consum ed in London, by type Priority waste stream s in London, by type and m anagem ent m ethod Waste generated in London, by sector and type Waste generated in London, by type and m anagem ent m ethod Transport in London, by m ode and CO₂em issions Water consum ed in London, by sector Land area in London, by use

Ecological Footprint Analysis Results

19 20 21 25 26 26
Table 11: Table 12: Table 13: Table 14: Table 15: Table 16:
The ecological footprint of Londoners, by com ponent The direct energy ecological footprint of Londoners, by com ponent The sub-com ponents of the m aterials and waste ecological footprint The food ecological footprint of Londoners, by com ponent The personal transport ecological footprint of Londoners, by m ode The water ecological footprint of Londoners, by sector

Ecological Sustainability Assessment

27 27 30 31
Table 17: Table 18: Table 19: Table 20:
The biocapacity of London The ecological sustainability of Londoners London's personal transport use, by m ode, in com parison to other UK regions London's dom estic gas and grid electricity consum ption, in com parison to other regions

Methodology

Resource Flow Analysis Methodology

42

Table 21:

An exam ple of how NST codes were correlated with ONS ProdCom

codes, using the DTLR's m iscellaneous m anufactures category

Ecological Footprint Analysis Methodology

46 47 47 47 48 48
Table 22: Table 23: Table 24: Table 25: Table 26: Table 27:
An exam ple analysis for the footprint of UK car travel, per pass-km The excluded raw construction m aterial sub-com ponents The excluded industrial energy sub-com ponents The excluded freight transport com ponent The excluded industrial m aterials and waste sub-com ponents London land types, by hectare and yield factors

Scenarios Methodology

50

Table 28:

Per capita ecological footprints and percentage 2020 reduction targets required to achieve

ecological sustainability for Londoners by 2050, with and without a 12% biodiversity allowance