a new framework for resource productivity: a case in … new framework for resource productivity: a...
TRANSCRIPT
A new framework for resource productivity: a case in South
Korea
Sangwon Suh
1
Sangwon Suh
Assistant ProfessorUniversity of Minnesota
U.S.A.
OECD / UNEP Conference on Resource Efficiency, Paris, 23 – 25, April, 2008
Introduction
MFA / resources productivity projectsEuropean Commission:
FORWASTEXIOPOLEXIOPOL
South Korea:Industry-level Material Flow AnalysisFeasibility study for national resources account
USA:Vision study -- Resources Conservation and Recycling Act (US EPA)
2
Introduction
Often subtle but important differences in perspectives and strategies for resources productivity.Interpretation and communication of resource Interpretation and communication of resource productivity figures with policy makers require a caution.
Global life-cycleCompetitive impact
Example: Int’l comparison of EW-MFA results3
“Economic growth is the way to improve Resource Productivity”
5Source: GDP/DMI data for the EU15: Eurostat online database (accessed in 2008); GDP/DMI data for candidate countries: EEA (2004); GDP/DMI for Japan: NIES (2007); GDP per capita-PPP data: CIA (2000).
Perspectives on resource productivity
The case of the Ministry of Industry, South Korea
Competitiveness of South Korean Industry’s resource-productivityresource-productivityResilient economic structure against potential price hikes or material scarcity crisis.Reducing environmental impacts of resources use throughout the life-cycle.
6
Analytical framework
EW-MFA has limited applicability in this case.3 Key industry sectors are selected (1st year)
Petroleum refineryAutomotiveAutomotiveLiquid Cristal Display (LCD)
Hybrid IO-MFA frameworkMethodological / accounting framework well established and practiced since 1990s (CBS).Combination of process information and national accounts. 7
Analytical framework (cont’d)
Key resources identified for each industry Material flows are tracked down
Along the supply-chain .Regardless of the national border.Regardless of the national border.Ex) Indium
Material-specific characterizationCommonly practiced in LCAE.g., 1kg Pt has different resource-base implication compared to 1kg gravel.
8
Materials Production
Alloy
Zinc Ore
CopperOre
Bauxite
kaolin
Silica
Limestone
Iron Ore
Coal
Steel
Brass
Aluminum
Glass
Iron
Ingot, Plate,Bar, Rod,
Tube
Ingot
Fused Mass
Ingot, Bar,Billet, Plate
Plate, Ingot
Shot,Ingot,Wirebar
Slab
Copper
Zinc
End-of-Life Management
DismantledParts for
Remanufacturing/ Reuse
DismantledParts forRecycling
Retired AutoShreddedHulk
SecondaryMaterial
FerrousFracion
non-ferrousMetal
OtherProductSystem
(magnetic Separation)
Secondary Material
Vehicle Use and Service
AftermarketParts
RemanufacturedParts
Auto in Use/Service
Manufacturing and Assembly
AssembledAuto
Module
Power-train
Chassis
Body
Sub-module
engine block
clutch system
transmissionassembly
...
steeringsystem
suspensionsystem
brake system
...
ReplacementParts
NaturalRubber
Lead Ore
Other
Water
Metals
NaturalGas
Petroleum
Lead Oxide
Lead
Rubber
Refined Oil/Recycled Oil
Ingot
Lead OxidePaste
RubberPellet
Plastics
PaintPigments
Extenders
Solvents
Resin/OtherMaterials
Oil
Prefabric.Material
AbandonedAuto
Used Parts,Fluids forRecycling
ASR
Non-ferrousFractio
n
(air separation,classification)
ReplacementFluids
Used Parts, Waste
Body
Exterior
Interior
...
floor panel
side bodypanel
...
lamp
bumper
...
console
seat
instrumentpanel
9
Supply-security index
Rank Symbol Name
Supply Security index Major producers with low credit rating
1 Co Cobalt 32% Zambia, Congo2 Hg Mercury 65% China
New Caledonia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, 3 Ni Nickel 66%
New Caledonia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Zimbabwe
4 Sn Tin 67% Indonesia, Peru, Bolivia, Brazil5 Ti Titanium 67% Sierra Leone6 Cr Chromium 70% South Africa, Kazakhstan, India
7 Pt Platinum 70% South Africa, Russia, Zimbabwe, Colombia
8 Al Aluminum 71%Guinea, Jamaica, India, Russia, Venezuela, Kazakhstan, Suriname
9 Mn Manganese 72% South Africa, Gabon, Ukraine
10 Pd Palladium 73% Russia, South Africa, Zimbabwe13
Own calculation. S&P country credit rating in 2008 applied to ore producing countries. AAA: 1; AA: 0.9; … D or SD: 1
Top 10 characterization factors
Rank Symbol Name Reserve year ^-1
1 Sr Strontium 0.086
2 Ag Silver 0.072
3 Sb Antimony 0.0643 Sb Antimony 0.064
4 Au Gold 0.060
5 Pb Lead 0.050
6 Zn Zinc 0.045
7 Sn Tin 0.045
8 Cr Chromium 0.042
9 Cd Cadmium 0.039
10 Hg Mercury 0.03214
Weighting factor example
According to the study by Dr. Halada, Cu has half of the reserve-year of Fe. 0
50,000,000
100,000,000
150,000,000
200,000,000
250,000,000
5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0
Fe (K t
on)
reserve
reserve base
already mine
60 years
of Fe.Extraction of 1kg Cu can be considered to be equivalent to extraction of 2kg of Fe in terms of its scarcity.
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
Cu
(K t
on)
30 years
Source: Halada, 2007 15
Overall picture
National MFAcc
Industry-specific, material-specific
hybrid MFA • Industry-based
RP benchmark Innovation
16
Corporate MFAcc
Additional data
hybrid MFA framework
RP benchmark• Hot-spot
identification• Material• Process• Supply-
chain
Database on price-risk, supply
security
Innovation
Ind-specific RP
improvementstrategy
Data Analysis Results Outcome
Summary
Resource productivity figures across nations should be carefully interpreted.Trade liberalization and “global division of labor” make it increasingly difficult to interpret resource productivity figures based on DMI across nations.figures based on DMI across nations.Especially, resource productivity discourse may need to take the socio-economic and historical trajectories of an economy into consideration.An industry-specific, material-specific approach that is based on hybrid IO-MFA and LC thinking is proposed.The project is at its early stage and comments / suggestions are welcomed. 17
Import trend – Japan
1E+11
1,2E+11
1,4E+11
1,6E+11
1,8E+11
2E+11
pan
by
cate
go
ryn
US
D)
Basic materials
Source: WTO international trade statistics 2007: own grouping and aggregation (fuels excluded)
0
2E+10
4E+10
6E+10
8E+10
1E+11
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Imp
ort
s b
y Ja
pa
(Mill
ion
Basic materials
Semifinished and finished products
Import trend – U.S.
5E+11
6E+11
7E+11
8E+11
9E+11
US
by
cate
go
ry
US
D)
Basic materials
0
1E+11
2E+11
3E+11
4E+11
5E+11
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Imp
ort
s b
y th
e U
S(M
illio
n U Basic materials
Semifinished and finished products
Source: WTO international trade statistics 2007: own grouping and aggregation (fuels excluded)