Do something for our planet, print this page only if needed. Even a small action can make an enormous difference when millions of people do it!
Briefing
Nature, and the resources it provides, sustains our societies. Resources such as energy, water, food, land, and materials underpin the functioning of the systems of production and consumption (see Figure 1) that support our physiological needs and overall well-being.
Source: EEA.
Since the 1950s, the demand for natural resources associated with a growing human population, economic activity and changing lifestyles has reached an unprecedented high level (Steffen et al., 2011, 2015). This is putting tremendous pressure on the Earth’s life-support systems through climate change, biodiversity loss, changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere, oceans and soil, etc. (IPCC, 2018, 2021; IPBES, 2019; IRP, 2019; UNEP, 2019). Projections suggest that the situation could worsen significantly in future, through a possible doubling of the global demand for materials by 2060 (IRP, 2019).
Managing natural resources wisely is key ‘to ensure that [sustainable development] meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’, as pointed out by the Brundtland Commission in Our common future (UN, 1987). Therefore, natural resources require careful stewardship, protection and conservation so that they are available in sufficient quantities and quality to sustain future generations.
Accordingly, natural resource management and conservation strategies are central to Europe’s environmental sustainability policy framework, which is increasingly shaped by ambitious long-term visions and targets. The European Green Deal explicitly states that it ‘also aims to protect, conserve and enhance the EU’s natural capital, and protect the health and well-being of citizens from environment-related risks and impacts’ (EC, 2019a).
In spite of the clear ambitions, natural resources have historically been governed in separate resource categories, often by adopting a supply chain perspective encompassing production and consumption aspects (Bleischwitz et al., 2018). This approach has clearly been insufficient to deal with the systemic nature of the challenges faced and to ensure adequate management and protection.
The concept of the ‘resource nexus’ was introduced in resource management to account for key interdependencies among resources and their use (Bleischwitz et al., 2018). Since 2011, when it was first introduced (Hoff, 2011), the concept has gained prominence in the international research community and among international organisations operating at the science-policy interface (e.g. FAO, 2014; UNEP, 2017; Adamovic et al., 2019; UNU-Flores, 2021; IPBES, 2021). A cluster of Horizon 2020 projects [1] focusing on nexus issues has also been established.
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations defines the resource nexus as a ‘conceptual approach to better understand and systematically analyse the interactions between the natural environment and human activities, and to work towards a more coordinated management and use of natural resources across sectors and scales’ (FAO, 2014).
While early applications focused on exploring the interlinkages between water, energy and food, further developments embraced other natural resources, including land, materials, waste and ecosystems, and other dimensions such as climate and health. Collating these applications results in a complex web of direct and indirect interactions, which define the ‘nexus’ among the resources. Understanding this network of interactions provides important information, as a given intervention might have different effects across resources — positive or negative — depending on the way they interact. For example, demand for food can be met through various agricultural practices that may require different levels of land, energy, water and other inputs. The same is true for demands on other resources.
In this briefing, a six-node approach is adopted, covering water, energy, food, land, materials and ecosystem services (Figure 1).
The resource nexus can be applied as an integrated approach to policymaking (Hogeboom et al., 2021). Policy interventions associated with one or more natural resources can be less effective, or even counterproductive, if these interactions are not considered. Synergies and trade-offs may be generated across different natural resources and across policy goals, including Sustainable Development Goals (Weitz et al., 2014, 2019; Bleischwitz et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2018). Being aware of these interlinkages is therefore crucial for ensuring policy coherence (Albrecht et al 2018; Adamovic et al., 2019; EEA, 2019).
For this reason, the European Commission’s Environmental Implementation Review (EC, 2019b) proposes adopting a nexus approach for ‘examining issues systematically and in advance’ and supporting sectoral integration across scales. Similar calls have been made in The European environment — state and outlook 2020 (EEA, 2019) and by research projects (MAGIC Consortium, 2020; SIM4NEXUS, 2020).
The European Green Deal aims to 'transform the EU into a fair and prosperous society, with a modern, resource-efficient and competitive economy where there are no net emissions of greenhouse gases in 2050 and where economic growth is decoupled from resource use’ (EC, 2019a). This vision is implemented by a number of strategies, action plans and related legislation aiming to accelerate multiple transitions in a coordinated and systemic fashion. This is illustrated by initiatives such as the Circular Economy Action Plan (CEAP) (EC, 2020a), which aims to tackle environmental, climate and social challenges simultaneously. However, achieving the European Green Deal’s deep and transformative ambitions is likely to require that synergies and trade-offs are analysed systematically in order to ensure policy coherence.
This section uses case studies on organic farming, advanced biofuels and electric vehicles to illustrate the type of knowledge that could be generated by applying the resource nexus approach to specific policy areas at the core of the European Green Deal. A selection of the key synergies and trade-offs identified in each case study is presented Table 1. Figure 2 shows the interlinkages for the organic farming case study. Further information on the case studies can be found in the background report underpinning this briefing.
The European Green Deal aims to increase organic farmland in the EU from 8.5% today to 25% in 2030. In the scientific literature, organic farming is often presented as an opportunity to ease environmental pressures, as the use of synthetic fertilisers is not permitted on organic farmland and the range of antibiotics and chemical pesticides is restricted (EC, 2021a). An overview of the synergies and trade-offs for the case of organic farming is presented in Figure 2.
Several synergies are associated with the increase in organic agriculture. Organically farmed land has on average 30% more biodiversity than conventionally farmed land (EC, 2021a), with advantages for above- and below-ground biodiversity (Tuck et al., 2014; IPBES, 2019). Soil fertility is higher, which can be positive for food production in the long term (Seufert and Ramankutty, 2017), and soil erosion may be reduced and its water-holding capacity increased (EEA 2020a; Seufert and Ramankutty, 2017). Furthermore, organic farming reduces water pollution, as the use of pesticides and antimicrobials is reduced (WWAP 2015; EEA 2020a), which is also beneficial for aquatic biodiversity. Avoiding synthetic nitrogen fertilisers also helps to reduce energy use, as fertiliser production is energy intensive (Kyriakou et al., 2020).
The main trade-off identified is a potential increase in the demand for land in the short term. This is associated with lower yields per hectare, a consequence of not using synthetic fertilisers, herbicides and pesticides, although other ways of managing pests may reduce the scale of the problem. Moreover, more water and energy will be required to farm larger areas, whether in Europe or elsewhere (de Ponti et al., 2012; Seufert and Ramankutty, 2017; EEA 2020a). This could lead to a ‘virtual’ import of land and/or the replacement of natural ecosystems by farmland. However, this trade-off could be mitigated if there were shifts in diet and reductions in food waste (Willet et al., 2019).
In the long term, the demand for additional land is mitigated by increases in soil fertility and consequently gradually increasing agricultural yields. While aimed primarily at reducing pressures on ecosystems and reducing biodiversity loss, organic agriculture also contributes synergistically to achieving other goals, such as providing healthy food and nutrient recycling. The overall effects on energy and water demand and on GHG emissions are unclear and context specific. Although extensive practices reduce energy demand and emissions per hectare, lower yields and longer rearing times (in animal husbandry) are likely to increase emissions per kilograms of food product (Skinner et al. 2014; Smith et al., 2019; Pieper et al., 2020).
Concerns around the sustainability of bioenergy have underlined the importance of anticipating the potential consequences of well-intentioned policies. Past expansion of bioenergy production has led to unintended negative effects such as indirect land use change, deforestation, and diversion of food crops to energy production (Ripa et al., 2021), which resulted in the phasing out of first-generation biofuels within the current EU policy framework. As a response, ‘advanced biofuels, based on the transformation of non-food plants and organic wastes, have been put forward as an alternative’ (Ripa et al., 2021, p.1).
The European Green Deal has put the EU on a path towards climate neutrality by 2050 (EPRS, 2021). As part of that effort, higher shares of renewable energy sources in the overall energy mix have been proposed, alongside measures for the deployment of renewables across all sectors (EC, 2021d). In particular, biofuels are expected to ‘have an important role to play, notably in hard-to-decarbonise transport modes, such as aviation or maritime’ (EC, 2020e). The proposed regulations on sustainable air transport (EC, 2021e) and on low-carbon maritime transport (EC, 2021f) point to a dramatic increase in the use of advanced biofuels by 2050. This raises important questions regarding whether advanced biofuels produced at the scale foreseen in 2050 can avoid the negative consequences seen with first-generation biofuels. For example, a concern is that the demand for biomass could easily exceed sustainable levels of supply, requiring clear priorities to be set for where biomass is to be used (ETC, 2021).
The recast Renewable Energy Directive (RED II; EU, 2018) introduced sustainability and GHG emissions-saving criteria that bioliquids must comply with to count towards the overall target of 14% of renewable energy consumed in transport by 2030, as well as an accounting approach aimed at reducing the risk of indirect land use change. The recent proposal for amending the RED II (EC, 2021g) further strengthens the EU bioenergy sustainability criteria, particularly in relation to forest biomass use and to the cascading principles governing it.
Overall, although the production of lignocellulosic energy crops on marginal land could meet some of the future bioenergy demand, help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and potentially contribute to improve biodiversity on marginal land [2] (ETC, 2021). On the other hand, the deployment of advanced biofuels could have significant impacts on other resources, including water demand and soil loss (Vera et al., 2017), with overall benefits and limitations being largely context specific.
Electric vehicles (EVs) are presented by the European Green Deal and the sustainable and smart mobility strategy (EU, 2018) as a ‘zero-emission’ solution, alongside other alternative drive technologies. EVs are likely to make up the bulk of reduced-emission vehicles in the future because of their high efficiency compared with other alternatives (hydrogen and synthetic fuels). The case study of EVs identifies significant synergies and trade-offs. The main ones are the reduced demand for fossil fuels and GHG emissions [3] and health benefits due to reduced air pollution in urban areas.
Important trade-offs are due to a substantially higher demand for raw materials (minerals and metals) as ‘electric cars, on average, require six times the mineral inputs of a conventional car’ (IEA, 2021, p. 6) mostly due to battery production (BMU, 2021;). The subsequent generation of significant amounts of waste arising from batteries and end-of-life energy infrastructure (EEA, 2018; EEA, 2021a) points to both challenges and opportunities. It creates both technical and logistical challenges but also significant opportunities for recycling metals and other valuable resources back into the production system (EEA, 2021a). Demand for land is also potentially increased to accommodate the renewable energy infrastructure necessary to produce and supply electricity (Orsi, 2021).
EVs are likely to have lower health impacts due to air pollution than combustion vehicles (EEA, 2018; BMU, 2021) because of EVs’ zero exhaust emissions, e.g. nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM). However, EVs still emit PM locally from road, tyre and brake wear, as all motor vehicles do (EEA, 2018). From a life cycle perspective, emissions of particulate matter associated with manufacturing of EVs may be higher than those for internal combustion vehicles, as battery production is associated with high particulate matter emissions (BMU, 2021). However, batteries are often manufactured outside densely populated areas and exposure to pollutants may be significantly lower (BMU, 2021).
While beyond the scope of resource nexus analysis, it is also important to consider that mining of raw materials for EVs is often associated with hazardous working conditions, child labour and negative impacts on miners’ health (Mancini et al., 2020).
|
Case study |
Key policy objective |
Potential synergies across resources (including health and climate considerations) |
Potential trade-offs across resources (including health and climate considerations) |
|
1. Organic farming |
Upscale organic agriculture in Europe (b) |
|
|
|
2. Advanced biofuels |
Decarbonise transport (c) |
|
|
|
3. Electric vehicles (EVs) |
Uptake of EVs as part of the ‘zero-emission’ vehicles target (e) |
|
|
Notes:
(a) See the background report for the full list of potential synergies and trade-offs.
(b) The farm to fork strategy (EC, 2020b) aims for 25% of total farmland to be organically farmed by 2030.
(c) Advanced biofuels (i.e. biofuels produced from feedstocks listed in Annex IX of the Renewable Energy Directive — recast (RED II; EU, 2018)) are required to be at least 0.2% in 2022, at least 1% in 2025 and at least 3.5% in 2030 of final consumption of energy in the transport sector.
(d) Emissions of GHGs due to land use changes vary significantly by the type of biomass and adherence to sustainability criteria. The RED II (EU, 2018) defines a series of sustainability and GHG emission criteria that bioliquids used in transport must comply with.
(e) The sustainable and smart mobility strategy aims to have at least 30 million zero-emission vehicles in operation on EU roads by 2030 (EC, 2020c).
(f) On average, based on the current EU energy mix. The situation can be very different from country to country (see EEA, 2018).
Figure 2. Potential synergies and trade-offs associated with increasing organic farming illustrated for the ‘Food-Land-Ecosystem services’ nexus
Source: EEA.
Several points can be drawn from the three case studies.
Firstly, knowledge gaps were found at various stages of policy development, in particular policy design and impact assessment. For example, the case study on (advanced) biofuels highlighted that the impacts associated with the decarbonisation of marine transport and aviation were not considered together in impact assessment studies. Consequently, the cumulative effects of policy interventions targeting a large-scale expansion of bioenergy has unexplored implications for aspects such as land use, ecosystem services, food production and other resources.
Secondly, adopting a resource nexus lens could support the identification of potential imbalances associated with policy interventions. All three case studies are on policy areas that focus on stimulating change in production practices and technologies, rather than on creating enabling conditions to reduce demand. As illustrated in the organic farming case study, the trade-offs associated with this production practice (e.g. higher land demand) could be countered if dietary change and food waste were effectively addressed. This highlights how crucial demand side management is and supports calls for strengthening related policies.
Thirdly, adopting a nexus approach can help to identify possible winners and losers among those affected by policy interventions. Resource-related implications will affect stakeholders disproportionally (see EEA, 2021b) and might pose serious challenges if appropriate processes and measures are not put in place.
‘All EU actions and policies will have to contribute to the European Green Deal objectives. The challenges are complex and interlinked. The policy response must be bold and comprehensive and seek to maximise benefits for health, quality of life, resilience and competitiveness. It will require intense coordination to exploit the available synergies across all policy areas’ (EC, 2019a).
Policy interventions are powerful drivers of change. At the heart of the European Green Deal lies the unprecedented ambition to reconfigure production and consumption systems such as energy, food, mobility and the built environment towards sustainability. Given their shared reliance on natural resources (see Figure 1) and the scale of the changes envisaged, it is likely that policy interventions might generate both synergies and trade-offs across natural resources. The case studies presented are from areas where coherence should be pursued, but they are far from being the only examples relevant to the European Green Deal.
While the European Green Deal provides a strong strategic foundation to guide and align policy action, current knowledge and governance systems are inadequate to deliver transformational policies commensurate with the sustainability challenges (Oliver et al., 2021). A systemic and systematic analysis of such mechanisms can help to prevent shifting the burden to other resources and geographical areas (EEA, 2019) and costly misdirected investments ‘at a time when public finances are expected to come under increasing stress in coming decades owing to parallel transitions in society’ (EEA, 2020b).
Against this backdrop, the uptake and application of resource nexus thinking to the policy initiatives developed under the European Green Deal could help put the concept of dynamic policy coherence into practice (EC, 2020d). One opportunity would be applying it to the EU policy- and law-making cycle (SIM4NEXUS, 2020): for example during the preparation phase of a new legislative proposal, as part of the roadmap or impact assessment for a new law and policy, or to inform the monitoring and evaluation of existing policies. Including resource nexus-inspired approaches in the European Commission Better Regulation guidelines and toolbox [4] (EC, 2021b,c), could also increase their uptake across impact assessment studies and ensure that the appropriate knowledge base is developed.
Yet, it is important to remember that the resource nexus is just one of the approaches that can help navigate complex transitions towards sustainability. Only by combining multiple framings, perspectives and forms of knowledge with frameworks and tools, such as integrated modelling, foresight studies, and transition governance, can the systemic understanding of challenges and opportunities be strengthened, thus providing a better knowledge base for supporting EU policy coherence.
[2] the use of degraded land for agro-forestry that relies on diverse species could improve biodiversity, yet other options like returning the same land to nature could generate higher environmental benefits (ETC, 2021).
[3]On average, based on the current EU energy mix. The situation can be very different from country to country (see EEA, 2018).
[4] The EU better regulation policy and toolbox set out the principles (and the detailed advice) followed by the European Commission when preparing new proposals and when monitoring and evaluating existing legislation.
Authors:
Lorenzo Benini, Ana Jesus (EEA)
Aaron Best, Susanne Langsdorf (Ecologic Institute)
Inputs, feedbacks, and review:
Jock Martin, Anita Pirc‑Velkavrh, Daniel Montalvo, Frank Wugt Larsen, Almut Reichel, Markus Erhard, Stephane Quefelec, Andrus Meiner (EEA)
Louis Meuleman (EEA Scientific Committee)
Eionet National Focal Points and members of the Eionet Foresight Group, and the EU Environmental Knowledge Community
Adamovic, M., et al., 2019, Position paper on water, energy, food, and ecosystem (WEFE) nexus and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
Albrecht, T. R. et al., 2018, ‘The water-energy-food nexus: a systematic review of methods for nexus assessment’, Environmental Research Letters 13, p. 043002.
Best, A., et al., 2021, Assessment of resource nexus-related challenges and opportunities in the context of the European Green Deal, Ecologic Institute, Berlin, Germany, accessed 28 February 2022.
Bleischwitz, R., et al., 2018, ‘Resource nexus perspectives towards the United Nations sustainable development goals’, Nature Sustainability 1(12), pp. 737-743.
BMU (Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety), 2021, How eco-friendly are electric cars? A holistic view, accessed 6 January 2022.
de Ponti, T., et al., 2012, ‘The crop yield gap between organic and conventional agriculture’, Agricultural Systems 108, pp. 1-9.
EC, 2019a, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions ‘The European Green Deal’ (COM(2019) 640 final of 11 December 2019).
EC, 2019b, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions ‘Environmental Implementation Review 2019: a Europe that protects its citizens and enhances their quality of life’ (COM(2019) 149 final of 4 April 2019).
EC, 2020a, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — A new circular economy action plan for a cleaner and more competitive Europe (COM(2020) 98 final of 11 March 2020).
EC, 2020b, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions ‘A farm to fork strategy for a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system’ (COM(2020)381 final of 20 May 2020).
EC, 2020c, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions ‘Sustainable and smart mobility strategy — putting European transport on track for the future’ (COM(2020) 789 final of 9 December 2020).
EC, 2020d, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council ‘Strategic Foresight Report — Strategic foresight: charting the course towards a more resilient Europe’ (COM(2020)493 final of 9 December 2020).
EC, 2020e, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions ‘Powering a climate-neutral economy: An EU Strategy for Energy System Integration’ (COM(2020) 299 final).
EC, 2021a, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions ‘An action plan for the development of organic production’ (COM(2021) 141 final/2 of 19 April 2021).
EC, 2021b, Commission Staff Working Document ‘Better regulation guidelines’ (SWD(2021) 305 final of 3 November 2021).
EC, 2021c, Better regulation toolbox, European Commission, accessed 8 December 2021.
EC, 2021d, Commission presents Renewable Energy Directive revision, European Commission, accessed 10 September 2021.
EC, 2021e, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on ensuring a level playing field for sustainable air transport (COM(2021) 561 final).
EC, 2021f, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the use of renewable and low-carbon fuels in maritime transport and amending Directive 2009/16/EC (COM(2021) 562 final).
EC, 2021g, Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Directive 98/70/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the promotion of energy from renewable sources, and repealing Council Directive (EU) 2015/652 (COM/2021/557 final).
EEA, 2018, Electric vehicles from life cycle and circular economy perspectives, TERM 2018: Transport and Environment Reporting Mechanism (TERM) report, EEA Report No 13/2018, European Environment Agency.
EEA, 2019, The European environment — state and outlook 2020: knowledge for transition to a sustainable Europe, European Environment Agency, accessed 9 December 2019.
EEA, 2020a, Water and agriculture: towards sustainable solutions, EEA Report No 17/2020, European Environment Agency.
EEA, 2020b, The sustainability transition in Europe in an age of demographic and technological change. An exploration of implications for fiscal and financial strategies, EEA Report No 23/2019, European Environment Agency.
EEA, 2021a, Emerging waste streams: opportunities and challenges of the clean-energy transition from a circular economy perspective, EEA Briefing No. 07/2021, European Environment Agency () accessed 8 December 2021.
EEA, 2021b, ‘Targeted measures can cut carbon emissions and improve social equality’ 29 October, European Environment Agency, accessed 8 December 2021.
EPRS, 2021, Revision of the Renewable Energy Directive: Fit for 55 package, European Parliamentary Research Service, accessed 10 January 2022.
ETC, 2021, Bioresources within a net-zero emissions economy: making a sustainable approach possible, Energy Transitions Commission, accessed 6 January 2022.
EU, 2018, Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources (OJ L 328, 21.12.2018, p. 82-209).
FAO, 2014, The water-energy-food nexus. A new approach in support of food security and sustainable agriculture, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
Hoff, H., 2011, ‘Understanding the nexus’, conference paper presented at: Bonn2011 Conference: The Water, Energy and Food Security Nexus, 16-18 November.
Hogeboom, R. J., et al., 2021, ‘Resilience meets the water-energy-food nexus: mapping the research landscape’, Frontiers in Environmental Science9, p. 38.
IEA, 2021, ‘The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions’, International Energy Agency, Paris, accessed 5 October 2021.
IPBES, 2019, Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services, Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, accessed 10 January 2022.
IPBES, 2021, ‘Nexus assessment. Thematic assessment of the interlinkages among biodiversity, water, food and health’, Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, accessed 8 December 2021.
IPCC, 2018, Global warming of 1.5°C, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, accessed 10 November 2018.
IPCC, 2021, Climate change 2021: the physical science basis. ContributionofWorking Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(Masson-Delmotte, V., et al., eds), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (in press).
IRP, 2019, Global resources outlook 2019: natural resources for the future we want, International Resource Panel Report, United Nations Environment Programme, accessed 20 March 2019.
Kyriakou, V., et al., 2020, ‘An electrochemical Haber-Bosch process’, Joule4(1), pp. 142-158.
Liu, J., et al., 2018, ‘Nexus approaches to global sustainable development’, Nature Sustainability1(9), pp. 466-476.
MAGIC Consortium, 2020, The nexus times, Megaloceros Press, Bergen, Norway.
Mancini, L., et al., 2020, Responsible and sustainable sourcing of battery raw materials, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
Oliver, T., et al., 2021, ‘Knowledge architecture for the wise governance of sustainability transitions’, Environmental Science & Policy 126, pp. 152-163.
Orsi, F., 2021, ‘On the sustainability of electric vehicles: what about their impacts on land use?’, Sustainable Cities and Society 66, p. 102680.
Pieper, M., et al., 2020, ‘Calculation of external climate costs for food highlights inadequate pricing of animal products’, Nature Communications 11, 6117.
Ripa, M., et al., 2021, ‘Cutting through the biofuel confusion: A conceptual framework to check the feasibility, viability and desirability of biofuels’, Energy Strategy Reviews
Seufert, V. and Ramankutty, N., 2017, ‘Many shades of gray — the context-dependent performance of organic agriculture’, Science Advances 3(3), e1602638.
SIM4NEXUS, 2020, ‘SIM4NEXUS 8 policy coherence recommendations to the European Green Deal’, January 2020, revised October 2020, accessed 8 November 2021.
Skinner, C., et al., 2014, ‘Greenhouse gas fluxes from agricultural soils under organic and non-organic management — a global meta-analysis’, Science of the Total Environment 468-469, pp. 553-563.
Smith, L. G., et al., 2019, ‘The greenhouse gas impacts of converting food production in England and Wales to organic methods’, Nature Communications 10, 4641.
Steffen, W., et al., 2011, ‘The Anthropocene: conceptual and historical perspectives’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 369(1938), pp. 842-867.
Steffen, W., et al., 2015, ‘The trajectory of the Anthropocene: the great acceleration’, The Anthropocene Review 2(1), pp. 81-98.
Tuck, S. L., et al., 2014, ‘Land-use intensity and the effects of organic farming on biodiversity: a hierarchical meta-analysis’, Journal of Applied Ecology 51, pp. 746-755.
UN, 1987, Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our common future, United Nations, New York.
UNU-FLORES, 2021, ‘The nexus approach to environmental resources management. A definition from the perspective of UNU-FLORES’, United Nations University, Institute for Integrated Management of Material Fluxes and Resources, accessed 8 December 2021.
UNEP, 2017, Resource efficiency: potential and economic implications, International Resource Panel Report, United Nations Environment Programme, accessed 6 January 2022.
UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme), 2019, Global environment outlook — GEO-6: healthy planet, healthy people, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Vera, I., et al., 2017, Regional specific impacts of biomass feed-stock sustainability. D4.3 report on biomass potentials and LUC-related environmental impact, accessed 11 January 2022.
Weitz, N., et al., 2014, Cross-sectoral integration in the sustainable development goals: a nexus approach, SEI Discussion Brief, Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
Weitz, N., et al., 2019, SDGs and the Environment in the EU: A Systems View to Improve Coherence, Project Report, Stockholm Environment Institute, accessed 8 June 2021
Willett, W., et al., 2019, ‘Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT-Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems’, The Lancet 393(10170), pp. 447-492.
WWAP, 2015, The United Nations world water development report 2015: water for a sustainable world, United Nations World Water Assessment Programme (WWAP), United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris, France.
Briefing no. 24/2021
Title: Resource nexus and the European Green Deal
EN HTML: TH-AM-21-024-EN-Q - ISBN: 978-92-9480-431-0 - ISSN: 2467-3196 - doi: 10.2800/960984
EN PDF: TH-AM-21-024-EN-N - ISBN: 978-92-9480-430-3 - ISSN: 2467-3196 - doi: 10.2800/23787
The country assessments are the sole responsibility of the EEA member and cooperating countries supported by the EEA through guidance, translation and editing.
For references, please go to https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/resource-nexus-challenges-and-opportunities/resource-nexus-and-the-european or scan the QR code.
PDF generated on 16 Apr 2024, 09:21 PM
Engineered by: EEA Web Team
Software updated on 26 September 2023 08:13 from version 23.8.18
Software version: EEA Plone KGS 23.9.14
Document Actions
Share with others