The Use of Environmental Information in Decision Making Charlotte Lagerberg Fogelberg 1 & Fredrik...
-
Upload
amie-townsend -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of The Use of Environmental Information in Decision Making Charlotte Lagerberg Fogelberg 1 & Fredrik...
The Use of Environmental Information in Decision Making
Charlotte Lagerberg Fogelberg1 & Fredrik Fogelberg2
1Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden2Hedmark University College, Norway
Jurmala, May 11-14 2005
15 Swedish Environmental Quality Objectives
Reduced climate impact
Clean air
Natural acidification only
A non-toxic environment
A protective ozone layer
A safe radiation environment
Zero eutrophication
Flourishing lakes and streams
15 Swedish Environmental Quality Objectives
Good-quality groundwater
A balanced marine environment, flourishing coastal areas and archipelagos
Thriving wetlands
Sustainable forests
A varied agricultural landscape
A magnificent mountain landscape
A good built environment
Environmental Policy of the Swedish Government
» The overall aim isto hand over to the nextgeneration a societyin which the majorenvironmental problemshave been solved.«
The Swedish Parliament (Riksdagen) 1999
Divided Responsibility
15 national quality objectivesCentral authorities
Regional authorities
Local authorities
regional objectives
local objectives
interim targets for each
Political frameworks
1992 UN conference in Rio de Janeiro
Agenda 21 + conventions on climate and biodiversity
Promote the inclusion of social aspects and environmental costs into the prices of goods and services
Develop programmes to promote increased awareness in areas such as education, public information, consumer information, advertising and media
Develop and introduce efficient tools for consumer information on issues relating to human health and safety
Promote public procurement that develops and distributes environmentally sound goods and services
2002 UN conference in Johannesburg measures to
Sustainable consumption of foodstuffs, housing and transport
Swedish governmental investigation
Final conclusions and suggestions by end of May 2005
Some opinions of the governmental investigator
Consider our values, attitudes and habits in favour of a smarter and more caring lifestyle
Policy must be used more forcefully to speed up development of greener technology
change price relations in favour of greater social consumption
Economic growth Life satisfactionMaterial welfareEconomic welfare
Public procurement of foods
Swedish Environmental Management Council Governmental assignment Public procurement is governed by law
diskriminering) – how the demands for quotation are expressed is essential for lawful choice
Easy-to-use instrument for purchasing organisations caring about environmental issues
All types of simple ”non-composed” foods Food services Suggestions ready 2005, implementation 2006
E-info
”Designing and evaluating the impacts of environmental information in food service institutions and the food wholesale sector”
Funding from the Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research
Investigate the behaviour of food purchasing managers in general and in particular regarding their use of environmental information
Environmental profiles of foods Scenarios
Vegetables and meats
Carrot Tomato Apple Beans and peas Broccoli Onion Chicken Beef
Parameters for the environmental profiles
Resource use: water + plant nutrients + chemicals + packaging materials
Fuel use: electricity + gaseous fuels + diesel + petrol
Land use for primary production
Different origin
Carrot
Tomato
Onion
Beef
Sweden
Netherlands
Italy
Sweden
Denmark
Netherlands
Spain
Denmark
Poland
(Hungary)Sweden
Brazil
Ireland
Poland
Storage on farm or packing house
Fresh carrot
,
Carrot production
,
Inputs such as water, electricity, diesel, soap, chemicals, crop protection agents, fertilizers, lime
Discardedcarrots
Animal feed
Washing and packing, incl all processes in the packing house
Storage at wholesaler
Handling at food service institutions
Discardedcarrots
Animal feed
Discarded carrots
?
Beef, grazing system
Management of grazinglands
Cows grazing
Feedsupplements
Castratedbulls grazing
Slaughtering and cutting, incl all processes of the slaughterhouse
Different parts ready for shipping to different markets
Calf for dairy cowrecruitment
Calf slaughteredfor veal meat
Calf to be raisedfor meat
Storage
By products
Inputs such as water, electricity, diesel, soap, medicines, vaccinations, chemicals for water treatment, cleaning, liming, termite control
Shipping to Sweden
Management of grazinglands
Cows grazing
Feedsupplements
Castratedbulls grazing
Slaughtering and cutting, incl all processes of the slaughterhouse
Different parts ready for shipping to different markets
Calf for dairy cowrecruitment
Calf slaughteredfor veal meat
Calf to be raisedfor meat
Storage
By products
Inputs such as water, electricity, diesel, soap, medicines, vaccinations, chemicals for water treatment, cleaning, liming, termite control
Shipping to Sweden
Complex supply chain
B B B
A
CC C CC
DD DD
E
Primary producers, Spain2
EE
Primary producers, Spain1
Primary producers, The Netherlands
Primary producers, Sweden
EEE
Many purchasing managers involved
What you see depends on how you look.
Herman Verhagen (Change 52)
Profiles depend on method
Testing purchaser’s decision
Three environmental aspects were used energy use greenhouse gas emissions toxic substances
Price Values of env parameters ± 90% of mean Price ± 7% of mean
Apples and minced meat
Testing purchaser’s decision
I prefer A and
B equally
I prefer A
I prefer B
Product alternative A:Energy use: 92.3 MJ/kgGreenhouse gas emissions: 26.6 kg CO2-eqv/kgToxic substances: 0.2 g/kgLand use: 33.3 m2/kgPrice: 40.00 SEK/kg
Product alternative B:Energy use: 4.9 MJ/kgGreenhouse gas emissions: 1.4 kg CO2-eqv/kgToxic substances: 3.2 g/kgLand use: 33.3 m2/kgPrice: 34.80 SEK/kg
Testing purchaser’s decision again
I prefer A and
B equally
I prefer A
I prefer B
Product alternative A:Energy use: 92.3 MJ/kg (-)Greenhouse gas emissions: 26.6 kg CO2-eqv/kg (-)Toxic substances: 0.2 g/kg (+)Land use: 33.3 m2/kgPrice: 40.00 SEK/kg
Product alternative B:Energy use: 4.9 MJ/kg (+)Greenhouse gas emissions: 1.4 kg CO2-eqv/kg (+)Toxic substances: 3.2 g/kg (-)Land use: 33.3 m2/kgPrice: 34.80 SEK/kg
Preliminary results
Price by far dominated the preferences
”Toxic substances” was the dominating environmental parameter
Environmental parameters had greater impact on choice when labelled with + and –
Different environmental parameters significant for different products
Final project seminar November 15, 2005
Thank you for your attention!