International Trade in Resources a Biophysical Assessment Acknowledgements

wwwww.wun.uenpe.opr.gorg UnitedUnited Nations Nations Environment Environment Programme Programme P.O. P.O.Box 30552Box 30552 Nairobi, Nairobi, 00100 00100 Kenya Kenya Tel: Tel:(254 (25420) 7621234 20) 7621234 Fax: Fax: (254 (25420) 7623927 20) 7623927 E-mail:E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] web:web: www.unep.org www.unep.org

International Trade in Resources A biophysical assessment Acknowledgements

This report has been produced for the UNEP-hosted International Resource Panel (IRP). It is the result of the efforts of several expert members of the IRP as well as external expertise. We thank the key authors of the report: Marina Fischer-Kowalski, Monika Dittrich, and Nina Eisenmenger. We would also like to thank the following for their valuable contributions: Paul Ekins, Julian Fulton, Thomas Kastner, Karin Hosking, Heinz Schandl, Jim West, and Thomas O. Wiedmann.

We would also like to thank those that provided their valuable time in carrying out the external peer review of the report: Vangelis Vitalis, Heike Baumueller, Jan Weinzettel, Dabo Guan, Kuishuang Feng, and Chen Hin Keong. Special thanks to Julia Kolar of Institute for Social Ecology at University of Klagenfurt in Austria for essential support in data verification.

We would also like to extend our thanks to International Resource Panel member Edgar G. Hertwich, who acted as Peer Review Coordinator for this report.

The UNEP Secretariat Team provided essential support, especially Shaoyi Li, Madhuvantthe, Christina Bodouroglou and Abraham Pedroza.

UNEP would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses this publication as a source. No use of this publication may be made for resale or for any other commercial purpose whatsoever without prior permission in writing from the United Nations Environment Programme.

Disclaimer The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the United Nations Environment Programme concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Moreover, the views expressed do not necessarily represent the decision or the stated policy of the United Nations Environment Programme, nor does citing of trade names or commercial processes constitute endorsement.

The full report should be referenced as follows: UNEP (2015), International Trade in Resources: A Biophysical Assessment, Report of the International Resource Panel.

Design & Layout: Marie Moncet at Sourible; Printing: CLD, UNESCO, France Cover photos ©: Sludge G, flickr; Sajid Pervaiz Fazal, flickr; Vicky johnson, freeimages; Derell Licht, flickr; Han Jun Zeng, flickr.

ISBN (Full Report): 978-92-807-3486-7 www.unep.org United Nations Environment Programme P.O. Box 30552 Nairobi, 00100 Kenya Tel: (254 20) 7621234 Fax: (254 20) 7623927 E-mail: [email protected] web: www.unep.org

Summary for Policy Makers International Trade in Resources

A biophysical assessment

Produced by the International Resource Panel

This document highlights key findings from the report, and should be read in conjunction with the full report. References to research and reviews on which this report is based are listed in the full report. The full report can be downloaded at www.unep.org/resourcepanel/publications. International TradeInternational inResources: A biophysicalassessment

2 Preface of upstream resource requirements; as well as the implications of trade for global resource efficiency. efficiency. resource global for of trade implications the as well as requirements; resource of upstream composition and magnitude the dependency; of trade distribution and to degree the relating of questions to aseries answers to provide so, seek they doing In environment. and trade between inter-relationship complex of the understanding to aid hope authors the topic, the on literature existing the reviewing By of trade. effects ecological the for aproxy as function and commodities, of traded chain production the along used land energy, and water to materials, the refer These trade. international of requirements’’ resource on the ‘‘upstream evidence scientific latest of the synthesis a comprehensive provides It of trade. impacts environmental of the size and location nature, the on knowledge to enhance aim the with Impacts, Environmental on Group IRP’s by the Working prepared was report particular The emissions. and of wastes amount asmaller generates and resources fewer requires production their where countries from to obtained be commodities allows trade not or whether assess to seek report of the authors the viewpoint, economic) an (versus abiophysical from trade examining By of demand. to locations the of supply locations geographical the from resources distributing A biophysical assessment Trade Resources: in International entitled report In this efficiency. resource global for implications its and system trading to world the attention its turns (IRP) Panel Resource UNEP’s International world’s of the resources, management to how improve on knowledge sharing and Tasked building with nations. exporting to low-income importing high-income from activities processing and to extraction related problems environmental shifting by concerns, distributional Trade raises also standpoint. environmental an from worrisome is which consumption and production global raising on has it impact corresponding the However, precisely is it resources. of natural to supply the limits localised overcoming in indispensable is trade Increased prosperous global population. more and of agrowing needs the to meet order in doubled than more of trade volume the six-fold and than more 1980 2010 increased and of trade Between value the resources. for demand increasing rapidly and liberalisation by progressive fuelled decades, past over vastly expanded has trade World , the IRP examines how efficient the current system of world trade is in is trade of world system current the efficient how examines IRP , the Preface New Delhi, India India Delhi, New Dr. Ashok Khosla, environmental objectives. environmental of support in policies trade craft and of trade consequences environmental negative the tackle to help by policy-makers required knowledge provides It scarcity. resource and sustainability environmental for trade of global implications the on light sheds that assessment policy-relevant authoritative, an presents It efficiency. resource and use resource on to discussions the contributes report the whole, the On trade. international through resources of allocation efficient environmentally more apotentially prevent which factors other likely are there that means decades, recent in over-proportionally to rising be shown been have requirements Yet, upstream that fact the inconclusive. remains answer the use, resource global of efficiency the worsens or improves trade international of whether question central the for As pronounced. more much becomes countries developing and countries developed between use resource in difference the as exchange, of unequal patterns accentuates trade in embodied resources upstream for accounting instance, For drawn. be can traded materials, depending on methodology and resource. Nevertheless, some common conclusions of cent per to 40 400 widely, from range land and water materials, of upstream Estimates involved. to difficulties the attention draws report the requirements, resource upstream to estimating regards With producers. resource fewer ever on relies balance its as system, trading global of the vulnerability heightened the highlights study The

International Resource Resource International September 2015 Co-Chairs, Panel (IRP) Panel Ljubljana, Republic of Slovenia Potočnik, Dr. Janez International TradeInternational inResources: A biophysicalassessment 3 Preface International TradeInternational inResources: A biophysicalassessment

4 Foreword burden from high-income and densely populated importing countries to low-income and more sparsely sparsely more and to low-income countries importing populated densely and high-income from burden environmental the shifts Trade typically apparent. more are impacts distributional its use, of resource efficiency global the or worsens improves trade as whether to conclusion definitive no is there Although processes. production and extraction with associated benefits environmental and efficiency resource potential any to offset likely are factors these that concludes It productivity. diminishing with land from population agrowing to feed need the and grades ore metal declining goods, of high-processed trade the in share agreater levels, trade in increase to ageneral due requirements upstream rising of the evidence provides report the decades, three past the over back Looking goods are exported. the once behind left emissions and waste the and of origin country the in consumed resources additional of the account takes it because useful is approach This production. or of extraction point the at used land energy, and water materials, as such requirements upstream on focuses it resources, of natural trade international in the trends examining While understanding. to this contribution asignificant makes assessment Abiophysical Trade Resources: in International flows. trade in surge recent the given particularly trade-offs, minimize and synergies maximize can that policy to shape needed is involved interactions complex of the understanding Abetter ambiguous. more are impacts environmental their but evident, are choice and competition efficiency, cost production, increased as such Benefits domestically. affordable or available not are that resources for demand rising to meet countries permitting prosperity, and growth of economic enabler important an as recognized been long has trade International Foreword technologies and goods. green to access and management resource production, efficient through benefits, environmental and trade both increase can that framework policy asupportive to develop seeking anyone for knowledge essential provides it report, of the scope the beyond is analysis policy explicit while Therefore, allowances for domestic firms. emissions free and subsidies and mechanisms, adjustment border agreements, trade regional or bilateral policies, by clear limited be can environment the on impacts However, damaging such reduce emissions. to commitments legal weak with to countries investments, transferring and from, imports increasing by negated be may country one in emissions gas greenhouse to curb efforts domestic Likewise, pollution. water and degradation land of biodiversity, loss waste, emissions, increasing while assets, natural depletes export for of resources processing and extraction The countries. exporting populated International TradeInternational inResources: A biophysicalassessment UN Under-Secretary-General UNEP Executive Director Executive UNEP Achim Steiner Achim 5 Foreword

References 5. Conclusions5. commodity of traded by type requirements Upstream 4. commodities of traded requirements resource Upstream 3. resources in of trade and dynamics The 2. Introduction 1. Foreword Preface

Fossil Fuels Fuels Fossil Metals Biomass Land Water Materials resources in trade Trends international in flows trade physical versus Monetary messages main and Key findings report of &structure Purpose

International TradeInternational inResources: A biophysicalassessment Content 43 51 39 33 29 28 25 37 15 17 11 5 2 9 7 Content International TradeInternational inResources: A biophysicalassessment

8 Content

Credit: Neil Kremer, flickr to provide insights into the implications of trade of trade into the implications insights to provide aims assessment the perspective, economic) from a biophysical (as opposed to a standard literature on global trade commodity assessed existing of the review acomprehensive Through efficiency,and dematerialization.decoupling on resource sustainable use and resource to discussions information novel adds and trade, of world impacts environmental and use on resource focuses Assessment Biophysical Trade: A International Panel, by the Prepared economy’’ path. a‘‘green and towards to of use resources shift sustainable amore needed Environment (UNEP) Programme in 2007, to the help knowledge share build and by Panel International (IRP)The the Resource was United established Nations Purpose & structure of report of structure & 1. Introduction 1. meeting the rising global demand for natural natural for demand global rising the meeting in role acentral played has trade International density. population and climate geography, include that factors of a confluence to owing globe, the across unequally distributed are resources But land. and water materials, energy, as such resources of natural quality and to availability the linked intrinsically is being well- human that is assessment this for point starting The efficiency. use resource global for 9 Purpose & structure of report International TradeInternational inResources: A biophysicalassessment

10 1. Introduction ore grades or declining productivity of land) which decreasing as (such play at factors be may there because efficiency, resource to global contribute necessarily not does trade that means This trade. of requirements resource upstream to rising points study this in presented evidence Overall, countries. (consumer) to importing burden environmental an attribute and chain production consumption-related resource uses along the the capture therefore can goods of traded requirements resource of upstream Indicators production. or of extraction location the at emissions and wastes as behind’’ ‘‘left but goods of traded process production upstream the in used resources to additional the refer These commodities. of traded land, energy, and water requirements’’, of materials, terms resource in ‘‘upstream so-called the examines study this use, and extraction resource of allocation efficient to amore leads trade world whether determine to order In produced. are emissions and wastes of amounts smaller where places in commodities of production and of resources extraction the for have allow to would trade international efficiency, resource and environmental global improving to contribution of its context the in However countries. within available sufficiently longer no are or inaccessible are that to resources access by enabling century past the in resources } } } } focus on: They chapters. subsequent into four organized is publication this to structure, its respect With report. of this scope the beyond nevertheless is important, whilst destruction), environmental and waste overexploitation, resource limit would examining which trade policies and agreements instance, (for analysis policy Such efficiency. and use resource global hence and flows upstream influence also –will activities trade stimulating or reducing restructuring, at targeted –whether trade In terms of policy implications, any policies on trade. world through processes production and of extraction allocation efficient resource more apotentially prevent } } } } impact of trade on global resource efficiency resource efficiency global on of trade impact findings,Summary includingconclusions on the fuels fossil and metals commodity, differentiating biomass, between of traded by type requirements upstream The land and water energy, of materials, terms in commodities, of traded requirements resource upstream The time over change these how and dependence of trade patterns including resources, with countries supplying in of trade importance The } } } summarized as follows: be can study of this messages central The Key } } } with resources has increased. countries supplying for of trade importance overall the that means this decades, three past the over resources of extracted amount the than faster increased have volumes traded As traded. are 15 cent about per worldwide, used and extracted resources material all Of resource prices. Population (versus density rising century by twenty-first prompted partly global suppliersimportant of materials, middle income countries have become upper- as well as non-OECD and OECD of high-income anumber side, supply the On such as China have major become importers. economies emerging trade, via of resources recipients main to the be continue countries developing countries. While high-income and industrial income high- between exchange’’ of ‘‘unequal patterns long-term in changes seen have decades Recent fewer resource producers. ever on relies balance system: its trading global of the vulnerability the it with and world, the around sharply increasing is commodities vital delivering for market world the on Dependence findings and main messages main and findings } } } } } } impacts than in others. in than impacts environmental fewer generates and resources fewer requires production their where locations countries/ from to obtained be commodities allows it as insofar efficient resource be theory, in could, trade whole, the On trade. by direct given picture the than pronounced more much is countries consumption) countries and lower-income high (and high-income between use resource in the difference trade, in embodied resources such for accounting When method. estimation materials, on resource depending and of traded cent per to 40 400 from ranging estimates with task, however, achallenging is, This of trade. impacts environmental the determining in useful is commodities traded –of land and water of materials, terms – in requirements resource upstream the Estimating time. over undergoes it changes the and trade international of efficiency resource to assess used –are models input-output multi-regional and assessments cycle life analysis, flow material on – based A combination of methodological approaches of trade. patterns income) is structural increasinglyshaping International TradeInternational inResources: A biophysicalassessment 11 Key findings and main messages International TradeInternational inResources: A biophysicalassessment

12 1. Introduction } } requirements of trade. of trade. requirements resource upstream the increase further – which food and demand diminishing land productivity returns upon energy investment (EROEI), higher energy decreasing and grades ore declining (especially, of higher-processed goods), levels trade higher –including mechanisms numerous are However, there practice, in } } valuable insights in this respect. this in insights valuable to provide likely are of trade properties physical the with dealing indicators and methods improving at aimed underway efforts research isefficiency currently inconclusive. Further resource global improves trade international to as whether answer the aconsequence, As

International TradeInternational inResources: A biophysicalassessment

14 1. Introduction

Credit: Land Rover Our Planet, flickr International Trade in Resources: A biophysical assessment 2. The dynamics and

importance of trade in resources

Monetary versus physical trade flows

Recent decades have witnessed a dramatic geographical locations of supply to the locations increase in the global demand for natural of demand, it is therefore critical to distinguish resources, while (economic or environmental) between economic efficiency and resource limits to the supply of a number of resources and environmental efficiency. While the former have become ever more visible. Increasing is measured through monetary indicators, the world trade is an effective means of overcoming latter relies on physical indicators as it relates to local and regional supply shortages to meet the amount of resources and the environmental growing demand. The resulting contribution of impacts linked to trade. This report is concerned trade to boosting production and consumption, with resource efficiency, and therefore focuses on though praised economically, is environmentally physical trade flows.

much more ambiguous – precisely because Monetary versus physical trade flows The key to understanding the difference between of the growth impact. Trade can also lead to a monetary and a physical representation of adverse distributional outcomes, by shifting trade flows lies in understanding the opposing the environmental burden of extraction and trends of weight and value in the life cycle of production of resources to poorer nations. commodities. With each step in the life cycle, the In assessing the efficiency of the current system part of the product’s input that has been used is of world trade in distributing resources from the transformed into wastes and emissions, and the

15 International TradeInternational inResources: A biophysicalassessment

16 2. The dynamics and importance of trade in resources

Figure 1 1. across production,consumptionanddeposition Material use,wastesandvalueaddedalongaproductlifecyclefromextraction, complex however, ahighly occur; is they it where and materials of traded burdens environmental holds greater explanatory power for the assessing terms physical in 1). trade Figure (see Depicting value in increasing lighter, gets while itself product

% of maximum 100

90 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 the EUandworldin2005. ofIndustrial Ecologyforthcoming. Journal Haas, W., Krausmann, F., Wiedenhofer, D., Heinz, M., 2015. Howcircularistheglobaleconomy? An assessmentofmaterialflows, wasteproductionandrecyclingin 0 extraction material

raw equivalent (t) raw material weight (t) current material used raw manufacture waste&em (t) accum. value ($) current distribution retail & consumption (sec.axis) value/weight waste&em (t) current nal times, leading to problems of double counting. of double to problems leading times, several traded been have already may materials and burdens, environmental different in resulting used, were resources which along history a long have may traded of materials kilogram Each task. emission waste/ nal -1 1 5 7 9 1 13 15 3 1 Res.prod.value/weight et al.,2015) material (DE).(seeHaas corresponds tousedraw material equivalent(RME) (stylized facts).Theraw zero afterconsumption tor of1.5,butdrops to value increases byafac- stage tothenext, emissions. From one weight islosttowastes/ further stage,33%of extraction (DE)];ateach (TMR) anddomestic material requirement [difference betweentotal of materialisdiscarded used rawmaterial50% raw materialextractionto Model assumptions: from 1 . around 40 per cent when resources indirectly indirectly resources when cent per 40 around small,seemingly this proportion increases to 15 While tons) is traded. per cent (10 billion 2010), about in tons billion worldwide (65 used and extracted resources material all Of need. they resources the with countries supplying for trade of importance overall rising the demonstrates which degree, to alesser though increased, also has use and extraction resource global 1980 2010 of and 2). amount Figure (see The more than doubling in physical terms, between 2. increasing over six-fold terms, in monetary volumes trade global with decades, recent in significantly grown has trade International commodities. of trade international the in trends of recent analysis informative amore for ground the lays of trade, measurements physical and monetary environmentaland efficiency the respective and resourceand efficiency economic between The preceding discussion, distinguishing Trends

unctad.org/EN/ (accessed1.3.13). UNCTAD, 2013. UNCTADstat [WWWDocument]. URLhttp://unctadstat. in international trade in resources 2 or or the traded good) are included. are good) traded the in included physically not but process, production the in used is, (that trade with associated 3. becomes critical. China), trade in also recently but East, Middle the in countries several in case population (the the to feed suffice not does supply domestic However, if the domestically. supplied mainly is food, as such biomass, contrast, In trade. through reallocated –is production industrial of key ingredients are –which metals and fuels fossil of extracted volume of the half Around 2). 10 (see Figure cent) (about per biomass and cent) 20 per (about by metals cent), followed per 50 (about fuels by fossil up taken is of trade share lion’s to 70 cent). The per amount they terms monetary in (while volumes of trade cent 20 per to only amounting products manufactured with flows, trade physical dominate of processing level low avery at commodities or resources natural of trade, composition material of the terms In

National Academy ofSciences201220362. Kanemoto, K., 2013. The materialfootprintof nations. Proceedingsofthe Wiedmann, T.O., Schandl, H., Lenzen, M., Moran, D., Suh, S., West, J., International TradeInternational inResources: A biophysicalassessment 3 17 Trends in international trade in resources International TradeInternational inResources: A biophysicalassessment

18 2. The dynamics and importance of trade in resources

Figure 2 region with a consistently negative monetary world only the was America North decades, earlier In balanced. fairly is terms economic in rates), trade exchange in changes example, (for reasons economic clear for and general, In exports. its of weight the than greater is imports of its weight the when positive is balance trade a country’s terms, physical In imports. of its value the than higher is exports of its value the when positive is balance trade acountry’s terms, economic In economy. world the in consumers and suppliers of distribution geographical into the insights valuable provide of countries Trade balances Physical tradeaccordingtomaterialcomposition,1980–2010 4.

Dittrich, M., 2012. GlobalMaterialFlowDatabase: Trade, Version 2012. [WWWDocument]. URLhttp://www.materialflows.net/home/ Australia/Oceania. and America Latin Africa, in norm the been have balances trade physical Negative Asia. and America North have so lately and higherimported volumes than it has exported) has is, (that balance trade positive consistently more common. Physically, Europe has had a much are zero from deviations volumes, trade to physical 3). With respect Figures (see zero around balanced regions main other All China). by driven (mainly Asia in balance trade positive by aconsistently mirrored balance, trade other beverages. (mineral) waterand consists largelyof be assigned–it materials couldnot group of“other” proportionally. The ries theyconsistof resource catego- assigned tothe of totaltrade)are (about 20percent ufactured products + exports)/2.Man- sured as(imports Physical trademea-

4 States, Japan and West European countries countries European West and Japan States, United the to imports, respect With materials. of suppliers largest the been have islands Asian South-East the and Australia Canada, as well as countries Asian Central and West Scandinavian, American, them. South imported net countries all of 70 cent per while markets, to world materials supplied 2010,In countries of all cent per 30 6. 5. trade; intra-regional tradebalancesout. are countedasimportsminusexports.Thephysicaltradebalanceofaregion represents onlyinter-regional Please note: Whilemonetarytradebalancesare countedasexportsminusimports,physicaltradebalances Sources: Physical terms:(Dittrich,2012), Trade balancesbycontinentinphysical(left)andmonetary(right)terms,1980–2010

UN, n.d. UNComtrade|International Trade StatisticsDatabase[WWWDocument]. URLhttp://comtrade.un.org/(accessed11.12.14). Ibid 5 monetaryterms:(UN,n.d.) volumes in order to meet growing global demand. global growing to meet order in volumes export their increasing are they decreasing, is exporters of net 4). number the (see Figure While most populous , China economies and India world’s the them among importers, net becoming to exporters net being from roles shifted have countries Several decades. three past the have remained major importers throughout 6 International TradeInternational inResources: A biophysicalassessment

Figure 3 19 Trends in international trade in resources International TradeInternational inResources: A biophysicalassessment

20 2. The dynamics and importance of trade in resources

Figure 4 and metals. In 2008, more than 100 countries 100 countries than more 2008, metals. In and fuels fossil for highest is but categories, material dependency has increased with respect to all Import extraction. resource domestic their than faster imports their increased have 1980, countries most since as world the vital commodities has increased sharply around delivering for market world the on Dependence 7. Source: (Dittrich etal.,2012) Persistence andchangesinnetimportingexportingcountries,1962–2010

Dittrich, M., 2012. GlobalMaterialFlowDatabase: Trade, Version 2012. [WWWDocument]. URLhttp://www.materialflows.net/home/ 7 West Asian countries such as the Seychelles or or Seychelles the as such countries West Asian and islands small 17 countries, mainly in conditions.geographical This is the case higher for countries with unfavourable bio- generally is imports biomass on Dependence requirements. metal of their half than more imported 97 and countries requirements fuel fossil of their half than more imported China) have their changed status from supplier middle income countries (most markedly, power. lower- time, same At the economic and political countries resource-rich affording and attractive more becoming of resources export and extraction with millennium, new the in prices resource by rising driven been part in has change structural This of materials. exporters important become have Africa) South and Brazil upper-middle income countries (such as Russia, and Zealand), New and Canada Australia, as and some high-income OECD countries (such countries) oil-exporting (mainly countries OECD changing. In recent decades,high-income non- to be exchange’’ of appears ‘‘unequal pattern another. to one However, goods this processed of amount valuable) more (but asmaller exported and levels income low with countries from of resources amount alarge imported countries economic development. High-income industrial by countries’ determined largely were patterns trade global century, twentieth the Throughout effect. destabilizing amajor have instance, for could, reasons, political/military to or of sources to depletion due capacity exporters. A reduction in one or more exporter’s fewer ever on to rely comes it as system, trading hand with of increased vulnerability the global rising global interdependency hand-in- goes note, however, Of that is requirements. biomass Kuwait, which more imported than half of their (Krausmann et al., et 2008). (Krausmann traction to gaining be –seems density Instead, another variable – namely, population is waning. influence its that appears it trade, international in occupy countries role the shape to continues income that obvious is it Although 5). Figure (see balances trade physical on high score consistently general countries in 3), and OECD Figure (see continents the of all balance trade physical positive pronounced most the Europe has unchanged. remains trade via of resources recipients main the as countries of high-income role the symmetrical, more somewhat become high-income and developing countries have between relations that show trends these Whilst 5). dramatically (See Figure imports net their increased to and importer, 8. ( such as the exploitation of shale gas). of shale exploitation the as ( such of resources previously accessing inaccessible technological development and the possibility endowment, resource include patterns of trade determinants important Other 1980 2008. and between tripled countries populated densely to sparsely from reallocated volumes material The income. of their irrespective less or more populated countries are supplying materials,

doi:10.1111/j.1530-9290.2008.00065.x and Their Future Trajectories. ofIndustrialEcology12, Journal 637–656. The GlobalSociometabolic Transition: Past and PresentMetabolicProfiles Krausmann, F., Fischer-Kowalski, M., Schandl, H., Eisenmenger, N., 2008. International TradeInternational inResources: A biophysicalassessment 8 Increasingly, sparsely 21 Trends in international trade in resources International TradeInternational inResources: A biophysicalassessment

22 2. The dynamics and importance of trade in resources

Figure 5 Source: (Dittrich, 2012); Countries’ physicaltradebalances(PTB)byincomegroup,1980–2010 11. 10. 9. than everbefore (Leeetal.,2013). The share ofNorth-Northtrade,ontheotherhand,hasshrunk,whileNorthexportsmore totheSouth of South-South trade hasdoubled(inmonetaryterms)and now amounts toaround one-third ofglobaltrade. In part,thisisdueto China acquiringadominantroleofthecentury, inworldtrade.Sincetheturn theshare of high-income,industrialcountriesinworldtradehasgivenwaytomore tradebetweendevelopingcountries.

Lee, B., Preston, F., Kooroshy, J., Bailey, R., Lahn, G., 2013. ResourcesFutures. RoyalInstituteofInternational Affairs, London, UK. World Bank, 2012. Indicators|Data[WWWDocument]. URLhttp://data.worldbank.org/indicator / (accessed1.2.13). Ibid billion tonnes -2,0 -1,5 -1,0 -0,5 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 1980 9 Assignationaccording to(World Bank,2012). 1990 11 2000 2010 10 Overall,theoverwhelming dominance Upper middleincome High income:nonOECD Low income Lower middleincome High income:OECD

International TradeInternational inResources: A biophysicalassessment

24 importance of trade in resources

Credit: Hans Splinter, flickr 1. flows’’): trade ‘‘indirect as known (also trade of international requirements material upstream the to estimating approaches two are There production. or of extraction location the at emissions and wastes as behind” “left but of goods process production upstream the in used materials the for to account efforts research intensive seen has decade past The Materials country. to consumer the burden environmental and use resource to attribute helps – land water and carriers), fossil energy (including materials between distinguishing –while requirements resource upstream these Calculating goods. traded the producing for of origin country the in used However, have been resources borders. additional state have they cross time the at goods the water content or energy mass, current flows thewith power, trade have explanatory they consider limited as statistics trade the of impact internationalIn efficiency, trade assessing on global resource standard

an input-output approach (using requirements of traded 3. Upstream resource commodities 2.

upstream requirements of traded goods) of traded upstream requirements the to calculate order in (LCI) of products inventories from life cycle (using coefficients (LCA) approach assessment a life-cycle domestically) extracted or imported been have they whether and demand, final to acountry’s connected of resources kind and amount the to trace output models (MRIO) extended multi-regional input- environmentally 25 Materials International TradeInternational inResources: A biophysicalassessment

26 3. Upstream resource requirements of traded commodities the order of 40-100 per cent larger positive positive of 40-100 larger order the cent per in have countries High-income considered. are equivalents material raw upon based balances trade when emerge results Similar Figure 6 below. in displayed are 42 for countries models MRIO by two calculated as footprints material Estimated countries. in other demand final with associated amounts significant includes extraction resource their reversed; is picture the economies, of resource-extracting case the smaller. In much is difference the economies, emerging For trade. through use to ‘‘outsourcing’’ an of material leading of trade, quantity physical the than higher significantly are requirements upstream the countries, industrialised that, in show analyses footprint’’ Such ‘‘material flows. direct as than rather requirements) upstream material respective their plus traded of materials sum the is, (that (RME) equivalents’’ ‘‘raw in material measured are flows trade when pronounced more much is countries lower-income and countries income high- between use resource in difference the that is literature in the finding acommon Nevertheless, compare. to difficult findings their renders frames time and definitions system methods, different upon rely they that fact the of trade, requirements upstream calculate that studies existing to reviewing comes it When “hybrid” approaches. combined to form so-called be also can approaches two These (importing) to developing (exporting) regions. developed from activities processing and extraction to related burden environmental the in shift acorresponding in results turn, in This, density). developing countries (mostly of low population by provided materials raw require countries industrialized that reveals requirements material upstream of flows of global analysis the Overall, by Asia. followed imports, indirect and direct highest the with region the is hand, other the America. Europe, on by Latin followed exports, net indirect and direct highest the with region the as appears In terms of distribution, geographical Oceania 2010; 2012). 2010; duringproportionally recent (Dittrich, decades over- rising been have and products, traded of directly weight the times four to about amount trade in embodied materials upstream that show on LCA methods based Findings true. is opposite the countries, income 7). low- For Figure (see by PTB measured when more positive (more than imports exports) than EU27 for significantly RTB is instance, (PTB). For balances trade physical than border) at goods the of to weight the consumption resource upstream add (which (RTB) balances trade material raw 12.

[WWW Document]. URLhttp://www.materialflows.net/home / Dittrich, M., 2012. GlobalMaterial FlowDatabase: Trade, Version 2012. Arbeiten. UniversitätKöln, Köln. Umweltbelastungen indenSüden?Dissertation., Kölner Geographische Dittrich, M., 2010. PhysischeHandelsbilanzen. Verlagert derNorden 12

10 20 30 40 50 60 EU27 physicaltradebalance(PTB)andrawmaterial tradebalance(RTB) 14. 13. Sources: CREEA: Tukker etal.(2014); A comparisonofmaterialfootprintresultsfromEoraandCREEAmodels million tonnes 0

1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 -200 Sciences 201220362. Wiedmann, T.O., Schandl, H., Lenzen, M., Moran, D., Suh, S., West, J., Kanemoto, K., 2013. The materialfootprintofnations.and materialsembodiedintradefinalconsumptioncalculatedwithEXIOBASE2.1. Leiden/Delft/Vienna/Trondheim. ProceedingsoftheNational Academy of Tukker, A., Bulavskaya, T., Giljum, S., deKoning, A., Lutter, S., Simas, M., Stadler, K., Wood, R., 2014. The GlobalResourceFootprint ofNations. Carbon, water, land 200 400 600 800 Australia 0 Austria

PTB Belgium

Brazil 2000 Bulgaria R TB Canada China

PTB Cyprus

2005 CZ

R Denmark TB Estonia Finland PTB

France

2010

13 Germany Eora:Wiedmannetal.(2013)

R Greece TB

Hungary India PTB

Indonesia

2012 Ireland

R Italy TB

Japan Latvia

Biomass (gross ores) Metal ores minerals Non-metallic materials/carriers Fossil energy Lithuania Luxembourg Malta

14 Mexico NL Norway Poland International TradeInternational inResources: A biophysicalassessment 15. (Eurostat, 2014) Source: Portugal

(accessed 11.3.14). environmental_accounts/introduction ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/ Document]. URLhttp://epp.eurostat. Eurostat, 2014. Environmentalaccounts[WWW Romania Russia

Slovakia Slovenia

South Africa

15 South Korea

Spain EORA Sweden

Switzerland

Taiwan CREEA Turkey UK

USA Figure 7 Figure 6 27 Materials International TradeInternational inResources: A biophysicalassessment

28 3. Upstream resource requirements of traded commodities

Figure 8 16. Source: Mekonnen andHoekstra,2011. to tradeinagriculturalandindustrialproductsovertheperiod1996–2005 Virtual waterbalancepercountryanddirectionofgrossvirtualflowsrelated focuses water’’ –typically ‘‘virtual so-called –or use water to upstream relating Research water. and land as such resources other of requirements upstream the to compute order Other studies follow a comparable approach in Water of importance growing the Indeed, results. similar at to tend arrive of trade requirements of energy studies burden, environmental of the magnitude the calculating In

Research ReportSeriesNo. 50, UNESCO-IHE, Delft, theNetherlands. Mekonnen, M.M. andHoekstra, A.Y. (2011) Nationalwaterfootprintaccounts: thegreen, blueandgreywaterfootprintofproductionconsumption, Value of Water 16 Onlythebiggestgross flows(>15Gm3/y)are shown have needed water for their production elsewhere, production their for water needed have that goods by importing saves acountry water much of how calculation the permits trade of global context the within flows water of upstream Analysis also. products energy and industrial on increasingly on agricultural and livestock products, though turn of the millennium. dioxide (CO2) emissions, since the especially carbon and use energy upstream of rising cost environmental an at come has trade international biologically productive land (for example, Rees human consumption levels into demand for to translate seeks which tradition, footprint ecological the in requirements land upstream The latter approach includes analysis of of land. productivity the capture also studies other product, atraded for required of land amount the measure solely that studies to addition In products. forestry and agricultural on focuses typically and scarce comparatively is trade in embodied resources land on Research trade. international in “embodied” be always will resources land that meaning physically, traded be cannot aresource as Land of land. requirements upstream to calculate taken be can approach water, and to asimilar materials addition In Land South from are flows water virtual net largest the flows, water of virtual distribution the regards As global water efficiency. technologies, could theoretically lead to increased climatic conditions, soil and/or quality production foodimporting from regions with more conducive they had produced been domestically. Therefore, if requirement water to estimated an compared be managed at greatly varying intensities (for (for intensities varying greatly at managed be can land that fact the for to account (HANPP) human appropriation of production net primary indicator of the use makes approach Another indifferences consumption patterns and lifestyles. an indicator of (un)sustainability, and flagsup provides resources land to available the footprint productivity. Comparing the calculated ecological produce a given product on land of global average to needed been have would that area the reflecting are expressed in terms of ‘‘global hectares’’, and Wackernagel,and 1994 8). (see Figure Australia and Asia, South-East and South in as well as America, South and North in found are exporters water virtual largest The importers. notable also are Mexico and Korea, South Japan, importers. water virtual net are Africa North and East, Middle the Europe, in countries most particular, In Asia. and to Europe America 17.

Economics Approach toSustainability. IslandPress, Washington. Economy, in: Jannson, M. (Ed.), InvestinginNaturalCapital: The Ecological Capacity.Carrying Measuring theNaturalCapitalRequirementsofHuman Rees, W.E., Wackernagel, M., 1994. EcologicalFootprints and Appropriated International TradeInternational inResources: A biophysicalassessment 17 ). Land requirements requirements ). Land 29 Land International TradeInternational inResources: A biophysicalassessment

30 3. Upstream resource requirements of traded commodities international trade (Kastner et al., et 2012). (Kastner trade international to linked is area cropland of15 global cent per about that shown have of trade impacts use land- investigating studies such from Results productivity. land in changes human-induced and harvest through extracted products of land-based amount the both for example, Haberl et al., et 2007 Haberl example, 19. 18. the producing and exporting countries. countries. exporting and producing the in problems environmental other and degradation land to deforestation, lead also can of food), it case the in (particularly, supply and demand global to balance necessary is products based of land- trade the Although imports. highest the have Europe) and (Asia density population exporters of land, embodied while areas of high main to the tend be Africa) of Sub-Saharan FSU, parts and Oceania, America, South and Regions that are populated sparsely (North land-based products. traded directly than to faster grow tended have of land requirements upstream resources, other

pnas.1117054109 of theNational Academy ofSciences109, 6868–6872. doi:10.1073/ in dietsandtheconsequencesforlandrequirementsfood. Proceedings Kastner, T., Rivas, M.J.I., Koch, W., Nonhebel, S., 2012. Globalchanges 104, 12942–12947. doi:10.1073/pnas.0704243104 terrestrial ecosystems. ProceedingsoftheNational Academy ofSciences productioninearth’smapping thehumanappropriationofnetprimary C., Gingrich, S., Lucht, W., Fischer-Kowalski, M., 2007. Quantifyingand Haberl, H., Erb, K.H., Krausmann, F., Gaube, V., Bondeau, A., Plutzar, 18 ). HANPP accounts accounts ). HANPP 19 As with with As international trade. trade. international through perpetuated are way, inequalities global this In to true. be tends opposite the regions other all in while domestically, employ they than labour) health-damaging and to low-skilled (referring Europe more ‘‘bad so-called import labour’’ al., OECD 2014).20 and America North fact, In et (Simas labour foreign any hardly or shares smaller much import regions world other all while consumption, domestic their satisfying for labour of share domestic the as labour foreign much as and OECD-Europe America aboutNorth import as such regions/countries income high that show industrialised and developing countries. Findings the previously discussed asymmetry between to tend confirm trade) in embodied labour is, Approaches calculating ‘‘labour footprints’’ (that products. traded for required labour upstream the of to use the instance, for extended, be also can However, trade. analyses such to international linked resources of upstream use the on focused has section this in analysis the whole, the On 20.

Sustainability 6, 7514–7540. doi:10.3390/su6117514 The “Bad Labor” Footprint: QuantifyingtheSocialImpactsofGlobalization. Simas, M., Golsteijn, L., Huijbregts, M., Wood, R., Hertwich, E., 2014a.

International TradeInternational inResources: A biophysicalassessment

32 3. Upstream resource requirements of traded commodities

Credit: Jimmy Harris, flickr 21. (FAO, 2012). surface land global total of the cent per 40 almost comprising land agricultural of human land-use, with share largest the by far for accounts production Biomass nutrition. human for is use predominant its and refersBiomass mainly to materials of plant origin, Biomass ¢ ¢ ¢ materials: of traded types main the between differentiating undertaken, flowsis trade of material requirements of upstream examination acloser At point this 4. Upstream requirements requirements Upstream 4.

¢ ¢ ¢ faostat.fao.org/ FAO, 2012. FAOSTAT statisticaldatabase [WWWDocument]. URLhttp:// fossil fuels metals biomass 21 by type of traded by type per capita land availability to those with low land land low with to those availability land capita per high with regions from flows evidence general, in trade, of biomass accounts Indeed, endowment. land capita per in differences regional such for compensating in important be can products biomass in trade Consequently, globe. the across unevenly very distributed are production biomass for potential the and resources Land commodity 33 Biomass International TradeInternational inResources: A biophysicalassessment

34 4. Upstream requirements by type of traded commodity

Figure 9 et al.,et 2011; Source: (Dittrich etal.,2012) Biomass-based commoditytradebetweencountries,bycontinent,2008 al., et Erb 2009; example, (for availability 24. 23. 22.

-800 -600 -400 -200 doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.03.027 to otherresourceuseindicators. EcologicalIndicators23, 222–231. productionanditsrelation embodied humanappropriationofnetprimary S., Krausmann, F., 2012. ofthe Naturalandsocioeconomicdeterminants Haberl, H., Steinberger, J.K., Plutzar, C., Erb, K.-H., Gaube, V., Gingrich, 947–956. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.05.003 and forestchange: A globalanalysis. Global EnvironmentalChange21, Kastner, T., Erb, K.-H., Nonhebel, S., 2011. woodtrade International ecolecon.2009.06.025 consumption. EcologicalEconomics69, 328–334. doi:10.1016/j. Mapping thespatialdisconnectbetweenglobalbiomassproductionand Erb, K.-H., Krausmann, F., Lucht, W., Haberl, H., 2009. EmbodiedHANPP: 200 400 600 800 million tonnes 0 23 Haberl et al., et 2012 Haberl Africa Asia 24 ). ). 22 Kastner Europe production and trade patterns. patterns. trade and production influence also conflicts, and to technology access infrastructure, transportation as such factors, other although density, of population patterns Figure 9). distribution This geographical follows (see Europe and by Africa followed importer, net dominant the by far was Asia Oceania. and America by Latin followed 2008, in biomass of supplier net largest the was America North America Latin America North Oceania

Export Import 26. 25. populated densely and exporters net main the the finding that populatedsparsely regionsare confirm trade biomass in HANPP of embodied Studies intensity. land-use in differences account into takes also it as informative, particularly is indicator HANPP mentioned previously the of land, terms in trade of biomass requirements upstream at the specifically looks one If al., et 2012). (Bruckner included are requirements material upstream if quarter to one- rises fraction this trade; foreign through redistributed are extracted globally materials biomass of 15 all cent around per Overall, biomass products in trade (Regmi, 2001). of higher-processed share to growing the rather due is but ton of products, each per requirements materials upstream of growing aresult much however, trend, so not is biomass. This traded directly than faster grown also have materials of biomass requirements resource

Trade. USDA, Washington D.C. Regmi, A. (Ed.), 2001. ChangingStructureofGlobalFood Consumptionand doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.03.011 between 1995and2005. GlobalEnvironmentalChange22, 568–576. trade–Globalmaterialextractionandconsumptionin international Bruckner, M., Giljum, S., Lutz, C., Wiebe, K.S., 2012. Materialsembodied 25 Upstream Upstream 26 et al.,et 2009 of development status (Haberl et al., et 2009; (Haberl status of development irrespective mostly importers, net main the ones 28. 27. amounts of HANPP. embodied considerable importing were Asia, Western and Africa Northern and Korea and Japan as well as countries, European many whereas products, of land-based suppliers main the were Oceania and Americas the that shows map resources. The land foreign on thus dependency and imports, net HANPP, represent colours red of embodied exports net indicate tones blue consumption of biomass products. While to anation’s linked HANPP embodied the and anation’s on territory occurring HANPP between ratio the levels, 10 national at Figure shows,

ecolecon.2009.06.025 consumption. EcologicalEconomics69, 328–334. doi:10.1016/j. Mapping thespatialdisconnectbetweenglobalbiomassproductionand Erb, K.-H., Krausmann, F., Lucht, W., Haberl, H., 2009. EmbodiedHANPP: Geografisk ofGeography109,Tidsskrift -DanishJournal 119–130. analyze teleconnectionsinthegloballandsystem: Conceptualconsiderations. A., Schaffartzik, A., Martinez-Alier, J., 2009. Usingembodied HANPPto Haberl, H., Erb, K.H., Krausmann, F., Berecz, S., Ludwiczek, N., Musel, 28 ). ). International TradeInternational inResources: A biophysicalassessment 27 Erb Erb 35 Biomass International TradeInternational inResources: A biophysicalassessment

36 4. Upstream requirements by type of traded commodity

Figure 10 range from around 600 to 1,700 km 600 around from range estimates recent trade, agricultural of global requirements water upstream the regards As Mekonnen, 2012 global water withdrawal (Shiklomanov, 2000 of two-thirds as much as for accounts sector of water. agricultural amounts The of significant use the involves also goods In addition to land, the production of biomass 29. Source: (Erb etal.,2009) nation’s consumption Ratio betweenHANPPonanation’sterritoryandembodiedlinkedto 32. 31. 30. and are rising (Dalin et al., et 2012; (Dalin rising are and

Ibid doi:10.1073/pnas.1109936109 Proceedings oftheNational Academy ofSciences109, 3232–3237. Hoekstra, A.Y., Mekonnen, M.M., 2012. The waterfootprintofhumanity. pnas.1203176109 National Academy ofSciences109, 5989–5994. doi:10.1073/ Evolution oftheglobalvirtualwatertradenetwork. Proceedings ofthe Dalin, C., Konar, M., Hanasaki, N., Rinaldo, A., Rodriguez-Iturbe, I., 2012. doi:10.1080/02508060008686794 World Water Resources. Water 25, International 11–32. Shiklomanov, I.A., 2000. Appraisal and Assessment of 32 ). ). 29 31 Hoekstra and and Hoekstra 3 annually, 30 ).

but by overuse. This can lead to biodiversity to biodiversity lead can This by overuse. but exhaustion, or by scarcity threatened directly not classification as a renewable resource, biomass is its Given burden. environmental disproportional a face can countries biomass-exporting However, Africa. North and East Middle the especially regions, of world anumber in nutrition necessary the by supplying security, food products is for indispensable promoting global biomass in trade international whole, the On (for constructing roads and agricultural buildings). rural production sites), and non-metallic minerals and machinery in fertilizers), metals (contained producing and machinery and tractors fuelling (for fuels fossil including trade, biomass in embodied are Moreover, resources other contributing to higher global economic global to higher contributing whilst metals, for demand global meet helps Trade costs. therefore extraction higher potentially and/or sources domestic insufficient with to countries costs extraction (monetary) low and deposits available with countries from metals allocating in trade of international importance the highlights of metals, substitutability limited the alongside globe, the across distribution uneven Their regions. certain in concentrated Geographically, metal deposits are highly of metal. amounts same the to water produce and ore), energy (gross of materials inputs higher even to require and impacts environmental adverse to exacerbate likely is it as of concern, is latter The grades. ore to declining led also has which deposits, of metal depletion and extraction continuing the witnessed have water. decades and past of this, spite In of soil contamination and overexploitation and emissions, of harmful to release settlements, human and of ecosystems displacement from manifold environmental problems, ranging to linked is processing and extraction metal resources, of available depletion such Besides deposits. reduces extraction and materials non-renewable to biomass, metals are contrast In Metals depletion, and contamination water degradation, land capacity, storage of carbon loss loss, efficiency. (Bruckner et al., et 2012;(Bruckner to trade linked indirectly or directly is extraction of metal cent to per 40 60 as much as extraction; to metal rapidly, compared increasing been has trade Metal increasing. is countries exporting and extracting on imposed burden environmental gains,efficiency itappears nevertheless that the economic and evenimportant environmental in result can metals in trade international While health regulations). and infrastructure, energy costs, and environmental technological know-how, wage levels, transport as (such considerations other and by economic to outweighed be likely are these if area), even of the remoteness or costs, energy and water grades, ore as (such factors environmental some on depend costs extraction metal environmental to higher lead also theory in can it damage, environmental inand processed those the incurring least to extracted be metals allows trade Assuming productive capacity. agricultural future in to even areduction and 34. 33.

National Academy ofSciences 201220362. Kanemoto, K., 2013. The materialfootprintofnations. Proceedings ofthe Wiedmann, T.O., Schandl, H., Lenzen, M., Moran, D., Suh, S., West, J., doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.03.011 between 1995and2005. GlobalEnvironmentalChange 22, 568–576. trade–Globalmaterialextractionandconsumptionin international Bruckner, M., Giljum, S., Lutz, C., Wiebe, K.S., 2012. Materialsembodied International TradeInternational inResources: A biophysicalassessment 33 Wiedmann et al., et 2013 Wiedmann efficiency. Indeed, 34 ). ). 37 Metals International TradeInternational inResources: A biophysicalassessment

38 4. Upstream requirements by type of traded commodity

Figure 11 Top 10netsuppliersandimportersofmetalsintheyear2010 is mainly borne by populated sparsely industrial extraction of metal burden environmental The grades. ore in decline average precious metals) as well as the aforementioned and copper as such requirements, upstream high with of metals share (towards ahigher trade metal of the composition physical the in change both a reflects This trade. direct than faster and increasing, are trade metal of the requirements water) and energy (material, resource upstream that the show findings research Importantly, 35. Source: (Dittrich, 2012)

million tonnes Dittrich, M., 2012. GlobalMaterialFlowDatabase: Trade, Version 2012. [WWWDocument]. URLhttp://www.materialflows.net/home/ -600 -400 -200 200 400 600 800 0

Australia

Brazil

India South Africa 35

Indonesia

Russian

Ukraine

Federation

Sweden

Philippines

Kazakhstan

India and South Africa (see Figure 11). Russia, Indonesia, Brazil, Australia, like countries that most. import The main global suppliers are regions the are Europe and China) particular (in Asia capita. per deposits metal known moderate or low with economies emerging or industrialized while the dominant metal are importers mainly activity, extraction high and deposits (known) abundant with countries are exporters metal and developing countries. The dominant

Spain

Turkey

Saudi Arabia

Malaysia

United StatesItaly

Germany

Korea, Rep.

Japan

China affluent societies. The economic and strategic strategic and economic The societies. affluent of modern, requirements important most of the one for of demand centres and of supply sources between mismatches to overcoming fundamental therefore is fuels fossil in trade International into account. taken are (EROEI)) invested energy on return of energy concept related the (and exploitation of ease the and of deposits quality of the issues the when case the especially is This endowment. natural global of the fractions large for accounting countries individual some with consideration, under resources the among uneven most the perhaps is gas) natural and petroleum (coal, fuels of fossil distribution geographical The industrial processes. major most and transport cooling, heating, for energy of fossil use widespread by the caused change, climatic accelerant and environmental cost of rising carbon emissions an at come also has However, transition this societies. industrial modern towards transition a enabling in seminal been has resources availability of abundant and inexpensive energy sector, fuel the to fossil the regard With Fossil Fuels Fuels negative balances (see Figure 12). Figure (see balances negative had have regions world major other all while decades, four past the over States United the and Europe for positive strongly been have balances trade physical fuel Fossil importer. largest the is States United the Russia; and Arabia Saudi by mainly exported is oil Crude Germany. and Japan States, United the are importers main the while exporter, an as leads gas, Russia to natural regard With India. and by Korea followed Japan, is of coal importer largest The Indonesia. and Australia are exporters largest the but China, is producer largest the far By petroleum. and gas natural as concentrated as not geographically is Coal rates. growth highest the with and amounts highest the in both extracted with coal being 1970, rate of 1.9 since annual cent by an per grown has fuels of fossil use and extraction The the past half-century. over conflicts of several course the and outbreak to the contributed have control its and fuels fossil in trade to continued threats Indeed, supplies. energy securing in to colonialism/war alternative practical main the been has it that considers one when evident is fuels fossil in of trade importance International TradeInternational inResources: A biophysicalassessment 39 Fossil Fuels International TradeInternational inResources: A biophysicalassessment

40 4. Upstream requirements by type of traded commodity

Figure 12 Source: CSIRO GlobalMaterialFlowDatabase Largest exportersandimportersofpetroleumin2008,milliontonnes 37. 36. by determined be will sourced, locally or traded internationally are they of whether fuels of fossil requirements upstream the on impact 2011a;36(IEA, 2011b37). possible the Assessing commodities traded the in contained energy the of cent 2per than less being as calculated been has and transport, pipeline and bunkers marine international in used energy the includes This fuels. of traded transport international the for required the energy is locally, sourced were fuel the if incurred be not would that trade fuel fossil to pertaining requirement energy obvious most The locally. sourced were energy the if case, the be otherwise would than to less be thought nonetheless are fuels fossil in trading for required inputs upstream the large, seemingly very While fuels sector. fossil the in trade of international importance the highlighting thereby fuels, of fossil consumption total the with associated RME of the cent per 60 about represents consumption) to satisfy –needed requirements material upstream –including of resources total amount the expresses (which fuels fossil in trade actual the of (RME) equivalent on). material raw so and The pipelines ships, (ports, infrastructure associated of operation and construction the for needed are inputs energy and material substantial trade, fuel of fossil requirements to upstream respect With

IEA, 2011b. EnergybalancesofNon-OECDcountries. IEA, 2011a. EnergybalancesofOECDcountries. catastrophic impacts of climate change. change. of climate impacts catastrophic the avert help and gases greenhouse reduce to order in necessary, be would supply, which energy renewable adecentralised, towards atransition support could energy to renewable fuels fossil from exemptions tax and subsidies in shift apolicy Instead, emissions. CO2 increase and budgets, state drain prices, lower generous fossil fuel subsidies that artificially and of widespread presence the in particularly buoyant, to remain likely is demand Future centres. demand and countries of supplier concentration afurther as well as countries, developing in industrialisation continued and demand by strong driven to traded, be continue will fuels of fossil amounts large ahead, Looking gas. natural so for less but oil, for significant be still would impost cent 2per of the impact The requirements. upstream in increase a net to lead likely very would trade international that meaning coal, as sources energy such for EROEI the reduce rapidly instance, for would, transport in used of energy estimate upper 2per cent the Therefore, unit. per be will requirements energy and material upstream its higher the source, fuel of a EROEI the lower the that assumed generally is It processes. extraction/beneficiation and deposits source of characteristics the specific International TradeInternational inResources: A biophysicalassessment 41 Fossil Fuels International TradeInternational inResources: A biophysicalassessment

42 4. Upstream requirements by type of traded commodity

Credit: DFID - UK Department for International Development, flickr 1. questions. to following the answers provide to seeks it literature, existing of the basis the On 1980 to from 2010. (or extending possible) earlier, where period atime across land, water and carriers), energy fossil (including materials are covered to light shed on the implications of trade for efficiency. global resource The resources attempt an in trade, of international requirements resource upstream and use resource on It focuses assessment”. Trade Abiophysical “International Resources: in entitled Panel Resource by International the produced report the summarizes booklet This 2.

factors determine this distribution? this determine factors What of resources? supply of international locations the are where and demand, and use of centres the are where trade, international in occupy countries do roles Which time? over change it does how and distributed, dependency trade is How resources? with countries supplying for trade is important How 5. Conclusions 5. 4. 3.

global resource use? of to efficiency the of trade the contribution about questions to above the answers the from concluded be can Finally, what time? over change they do how and they, composed they are how are large How commodities? of traded land, water, of materials, and terms in requirements, resource upstream the are What 43 Fossil Fuels International TradeInternational inResources: A biophysicalassessment

44 5. Conclusions many countries shifted towards becoming becoming towards shifted countries many period, same the During metals. and fuels fossil to regard with high particularly is and years, 30 inincreased during the most economies past has imports material on dependence Indeed, countries with requisite resources. supplying for of trade importance growing the and chains of production lengthening both a signifies this extraction, material than faster increased volumes trade Since doubled. than less extraction resource global of 2.5, by afactor rose while terms physical in trade world decades three past the Over of origin). country their left never materials of those part if even exports, of production the in used is, (that trade with indirectly resources for cent to per 40 directly are used and extracted globally resources material of 15 all cent About per of demand. centres to of supply locations from resources moving by scarcity, resource of local constraints the to overcome countries enabling in Trade vital is time? over change trade on dependency does how and resources, with countries insupplying trade is important How Question 1 traded, though this proportion rises rises proportion this though traded, associated destabilizing impact.destabilizing amajor have could this reasons, political/military for or depletion to resource owing disrupted or more exporters were to see their supplies one If exporters. of net number by ashrinking is increasing: growing is demand being met system trading global of the vulnerability the time, same the at but rising, is interdependency turned to becoming net exporters. Thus, global few very whereas of resources, net-importers 38. pronounced when one the assesses upstream more even become countries lower-income and between high-income (and high consumption) patterns trade in differences aforesaid The al., et (Lee 2013). before ever than South to the more exports North the while shrunk, has hand, other the on trade, of North-North share trade; the of global third one to almost amounts and now terms monetary in doubled trade has of South-South share the symmetrical: more become have South the and North between however, century, of the turn relations the Since another. to one and to them goods of processed amount valuable) more (but asmaller exporting and levels, income low with countries from mainly of resources, amount alarge importing witnessed high-income industrial countries century last the concerned, is economy world the in users and of suppliers distribution the as far As distribution? this determine factors What resources? of supply international of locations the are where and demand, and use of centres the are where trade, in international occupy countries do roles Which Question 2

Futures. Royal InstituteofInternational Affairs, London, UK. Lee, B., Preston, F., Kooroshy, J., Bailey, R., Lahn, G., 2013. Resources

38 fossil fuels. in trade the for not though metals, and biomass in trade for case the is This materials. supplying are countries populated sparsely while markets, world on importers net as appear increasingly population density. populated Densely countries variable: way to another giving is this trade, of international distribution the shaping in relevant remains income that apparent is it Although considered. are requirements material upstream if pronounced, so not are importers) major to becoming switching China as such countries emerging and materials, raw exporting again countries industrialized (namely, of some years recent in observed patterns trade direct in changes the Indeed, century. 20th the in prevailed that trade direct of patterns the prolonging thereby economies, income countries to developing and emerging of resource-intensive from processes high- an externalization signify trends Such flows. trade direct than rather of trade requirements resource International TradeInternational inResources: A biophysicalassessment 45 Questions International TradeInternational inResources: A biophysicalassessment

46 5. Conclusions Net Primary Production (HANPP). Production Primary Net of Appropriation so-called Human for accounting –by –indirectly as well as tradition foot-printing the in hectares” “global as addressed been have requirements land Upstream used. commonly is accounts” water term “virtual the requirements, water upstream resources. For of energy use the by caused emissions CO2 as or energy) primary (in used resources as energy either expressed be can requirements Energy approaches. IO (LCA), ‘‘hybrid’’ as well LCA- as assessments (IO), life-cycle models input-output extended environmentally include requirements material upstream to estimate used Methods land. energy, and water materials, for calculated been have requirements resource Upstream of trade. impacts environmental for trade’’, in proxies as serve embodied can they ‘‘resources as known Also emissions. and wastes as behind’’ ‘‘left but goods, traded producing for of origin country the in used resources additional to refer requirements These insights. valuable provide can flows) to physical (as opposed ments require resource upstream on gained information environmental/resource standpoint, efficiency the an from trade of international examination an In trade? international of requirements resource upstream the are What Question 3 - countries the opposite is true. is opposite the countries low-income for while trade, by direct than rather materials raw in measured as balances, trade positive larger of to 50 cent 100 order per the in have countries high-income countries: income low- and high-income between use resource in inequalities accentuate also requirements of upstream analyses earlier, mentioned As extraction. material global rate than a faster at and decades, recent during proportionally over- rising been have trade of international requirements resource upstream that the to confirm seem results research conclusions, general to some draw attempts one If materials. of traded cent per 400 cases, some in and, cent per 40 between range requirements resource method, upstream estimation and drawing of solid results. on resource Depending the and comparisons easy for allow not do that results varying widely at arrive approaches Different goods. of traded requirements upstream of burden the estimate to difficult is it decade, past the in efforts research intensive Despite

multifaceted and harder to evaluate. In theory, theory, to In evaluate. harder and multifaceted however, more much efficiency, are resource environmental/ for of trade consequences The it arguably improves global economic efficiency. higher, be would costs extraction where countries to cost monetary alower at extracted and available are they where countries from resources allocating as seen trade With apparent. more is efficiency economic on of trade impact The global level. at rising resource efficiency a and could support terms) environmental and social in also possibly but terms, economic (in costs lower in results This resource-intensive. least is activity extraction where and quality high in available are resources where to regions activities of extraction allocation allows trade principle, In resources. natural for demand and supply between mismatches overcoming in role avital plays trade International access. for competition increasing resource supplies, escalating and demand of tight situation aglobal in issue important increasingly an is This use. resource of efficiency global the for of trade to implications the relates report the in addressed question A central use? resource of efficiency global the worsen or improve trade international Does Question 4 resource requirements for producing them. If, on them. If, on producing for requirements resource upstream the and products traded between relation quantitative the improve to gradually expected be could trade of international increase the then efficiency, environmental enhanced trade if that argue could One instructive. is commodities of traded requirements resource upstream at the look closer a efficiency, resource global improves trade international whether assessing In guaranteed. from far be efficiency resource greater and costs, external as remain largely would issues resource and environmental Hence, regulations). national and infrastructure transport costs, know-how, energy technological levels, wage as (such factors by other determined to be likely more are latter the costs, extraction in extent to some included be may considerations environmental Whilst into account. taken are use and extraction resource with associated losses and burdens environmental the which in transfers resource about bring will trade international internalised, are costs as external far As efficient. resource- be would it pressure, environmental least the exerted they where produced commodities and to extracted be resources enabled away that in structured were trade if International TradeInternational inResources: A biophysicalassessment 47 Questions International TradeInternational inResources: A biophysicalassessment

48 5. Conclusions } } } } } more conclusive answers may emerge. requirements, of upstream analysis improving at aimed efforts, research current multiple the Given remains indeterminate.environmental efficiency global to greater leads trade of whether to question the answer the whole, the On world trade. in processes production and of extraction allocation resource-efficient more potentially a outweigh well may factors these Hence, of factors. including: to anumber attributed be can This goods. traded of land) energy, and water of materials, terms (in requirements resource upstream to rising points evidence the general, dominate. In mechanisms other products, of traded volume the than faster increase requirements upstream contrary, the } } } } } in arid regions arid in demand food increasing and growth population transport fuelling for increasing consumption of fossil energy carriers fuels fossil for EROEI declining and minerals, and metals for grades ore poorer general in activities trade higher total trade in an increasing share of higher-processed goods energy sources and a green economy pathway. economy agreen and sources energy renewable towards transition needed urgently the spearheading as well as change, climate averting and emissions CO2 reducing fuels, fossil of consumption and extraction discouraging in role a catalytic have could subsidies, fuel fossil of out phasing the as such initiatives policy and regulatory frameworks. In addition, other initiatives voluntary technologies, process in advancements to favourable owing platinum, of mining the from (SO2) emissions dioxide sulfuret harmful in reduction cent per toup 90 to the relates example illustrative An impacts. environmental adverse such mitigate to partly policy for arole is note, there positive amore On changes. ecosystem negative other and cover, degradation of forest to land loss led has Africa Sub-Saharan in areas and America North America, Latin as such regions from of biomass high economic revenue. For instance, the export gaining be not may and processing, primary from emissions and wastes with to have deal countries exporting resources, natural their depleting By resource-extracting and -producing countries. towards burdens of environmental redistribution to a leads trade that However, appear does it

International TradeInternational inResources: A biophysicalassessment

50 References Industrial Ecology, forthcoming. of Journal in 2005. world the and EU in the recycling and production waste flows, of material assessment W., F.,Haas, An Krausmann, D., Wiedenhofer, M., economy? Heinz, 2015. global the is circular How FAO, 2012. http://faostat.fao.org URL Document]. FAOSTAT [WWW database statistical page/portal/environmental_accounts/introduction http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/ URL Document]. [WWW 2014.Eurostat, accounts Environmental doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.06.025 disconnect global between biomass production and consumption. Ecological Economics 69, 328–334. F.,Erb, spatial K.-H., the Krausmann, Mapping HANPP: W., Lucht, H., Embodied 2009. Haberl, www.materialflows.net/home http:// M., Trade, URL 2012. 2012. Document]. Database: Flow Version Dittrich, Material [WWW Global Dissertation., Kölner Geographische Arbeiten. Universität Köln, Köln. Süden? den in Umweltbelastungen Norden der Verlagert M., 2010.Dittrich, Handelsbilanzen. Physische pnas.1203176109 doi:10.1073/ 109, 5989–5994. of Sciences Academy National of the Proceedings network. trade water C., I.,Dalin, 2012. Konar, A., N., virtual Rodriguez-Iturbe, Rinaldo, M., global of the Hanasaki, Evolution CSIRO Global Material Flow Database 576. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.03.011 22, 568– Change Environmental Global 1995 2005. and between consumption and extraction material –Global trade S., M., C.,Bruckner, K.S., international Lutz, Giljum, in 2012. Wiebe, embodied Materials / (accessed 11.3.14). References / International Affairs, London, UK. London, Affairs, International B.,Lee, F., Preston, Kooroshy, J., of Bailey, G., R., Institute Royal 2013. Lahn, Futures. Resources 12, 637–656. doi:10.1111/j.1530-9290.2008.00065.x Ecology Industrial of Journal Future Their Trajectories. and Profiles Metabolic Present Transition: and Past Krausmann, F., Fischer-Kowalski, M., Schandl, H., Eisenmenger, N., 2008. The Global Sociometabolic doi:10.1073/pnas.1117054109 109, 6868–6872. of Sciences Academy National of the Proceedings food. for requirements land for Kastner, T., M.J.I., Rivas, consequences W., Koch, the S., and diets 2012. in Nonhebel, changes Global Global Environmental Change 21, 947–956. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.05.003 Kastner, T., analysis. S., Erb, K.-H., Aglobal 2011. change: Nonhebel, forest and trade wood International 2011b. countries. IEA, of Non-OECD balances Energy 2011a. countries. of OECD IEA, balances Energy 109, 3232–3237. of Sciences Academy doi:10.1073/pnas.1109936109 A.Y.,Hoekstra, National of the M.M., 2012. Mekonnen, Proceedings of humanity. footprint water The ecolind.2012.03.027 23, 222–231. Indicators doi:10.1016/j. Ecological indicators. use resource to other relation its and and determinants socioeconomic of the human embodied appropriation of production net primary H., J.K., Steinberger, Haberl, Plutzar, C., Erb, K.-H., F., V., Gaube, S., Krausmann, Gingrich, 2012. Natural 109, Geography of Journal 119–130.Danish - Tidsskrift Geografisk considerations. system: Conceptual land global the in teleconnections to analyze HANPP Alier, J., embodied Using 2009. A., Martinez- F., H., Erb, K.H.,Haberl, N., A., Krausmann, Schaffartzik, S., Musel, Berecz, Ludwiczek, doi:10.1073/pnas.0704243104 104, 12942–12947. of Sciences Academy National of the Proceedings ecosystems. earth’s terrestrial in production primary of net appropriation human the M., mapping 2007. and Fischer-Kowalski, Quantifying F., H., Erb, K.H.,Haberl, Krausmann, V., Gaube, A., S., Plutzar, C., W., Lucht, Bondeau, Gingrich, International TradeInternational inResources: A biophysicalassessment 51 References International TradeInternational inResources: A biophysicalassessment

52 References (accessed 1.2.13). (accessed http://data.worldbank.org/indicator URL Document]. 2012. Bank, [WWW World |Data Indicators 201220362. of Sciences Academy National of the Proceedings of nations. footprint T.O.,Wiedmann, H., M., D., Lenzen, Moran, Schandl, S., Suh, West, J., K., Kanemoto, 2013. material The http://unctadstat.unctad.org/ENUNCTAD, URL Document]. 2013. UNCTADstat [WWW un.org http://comtrade. URL Document]. [WWW Database Trade Statistics |International n.d.UN, Comtrade UN consumption calculated with EXIOBASE 2.1. Leiden/Delft/Vienna/Trondheim. final and trade in embodied water, materials and Carbon, land of Nations. Footprint Resource Global The Tukker, T., A., Bulavskaya, S., A., Koning, Lutter, de Giljum, S., M., Simas, Stadler, K., Wood, R., 2014. 6, 7514–7540. Sustainability doi:10.3390/su6117514 of Globalization. Impacts Social the Quantifying E., M., 2014. Footprint: L., Wood, M., R., Huijbregts, Hertwich, Simas, Golsteijn, Labor” “Bad The 11–32. doi:10.1080/02508060008686794 25, Water International Water Resources. of World Assessment and Appraisal I.A., 2000. Shiklomanov, D.C. Trade. and Washington USDA, Consumption Food (Ed.), A. of Global Regmi, 2001. Structure Changing Natural Capital: The Ecological Economics Approach to Sustainability. Island Press, Washington. M. (Ed.), Economy, in: in Jannson, Human of the Investing Requirements Capital Natural the Measuring Capacity. Carrying Appropriated W.E., and Rees, M., Footprints 1994. Wackernagel, Ecological Netherlands. Water for Education, Institute UNESCO-IHE consumption. and of production footprint A.Y., M.M., Hoekstra, Mekonnen, water grey and 2011. blue green, the accounts: footprint water National / (accessed 11.12.14). (accessed / / (accessed 1.3.13)./ (accessed /

The availability and accessibility of natural resources is www.unep.org essential for human well-being. Natural resources are unevenly distributed, and the limits to their availability in many parts of the United Nations Environment Programme P.O. Box 30552 Nairobi, 00100 Kenya world are becoming increasingly visible. International trade has Tel: (254 20) 7621234 played an important role in delivering resources from centres of Fax: (254 20) 7623927 E-mail: [email protected] supply to centres of demand. web: www.unep.org In the past few decades global efforts have been channelled to enforce sustainable management strategies for natural Job Number: DTI/1872/PA resources, increase resource and environmental efficiency and thus, overall human well-being. In such a context, what role For more information, contact: does international trade play in increasing resource efficiency, reducing environmental impact and promoting equitable and International Resource Panel Secretariat, inclusive growth? Division of Technology, Industry Through a comprehensive review of updated data and and Economics, existing literature, the latest assessment from the International United Nations Environment Programme, Resource Panel International Trade in Resources: A Biophysical 15 rue de Milan, Assessment examines the rapid growth and pattern changes 75441 Paris Cedex 09, France of resource trade and analyzes the upstream resource Tel: +33 1 44 37 14 50 requirements of traded commodities including materials, land, Fax: +33 1 44 37 14 74 energy and water. The report seeks to shed light on: Email: [email protected] } } the dramatic rise in international trade in recent decades, with Website: www.unep.org/resourcepanel over a six-fold increase in value and more than doubling of its Twitter: @UNEPIRP volume between 1980 and 2010; }} the indirect resources associated with trade, i.e. resources used in the production process but not physically included in the traded goods; }} the increasing dependency on world markets to supply the demand for resources, across all material categories with fossil fuels and metals accounting for the highest share; }} the changes that patterns of trade dependence has experienced with high-income countries remaining main recipients of resources via trade and emerging economies, such as China, becoming major importers; and }} the rapid increase in upstream requirements of traded commodities -in terms of materials, water, land and energy - the estimates of which range widely from 40 up to 400 per cent of traded materials.