Project: Bram Edens, Rutger Hoekstra, Daan Zult, Harry Wilting

(PBL), Ronghao Wu (intern)

Carbon footprints – reconciling

academic and statistical work

Overview

– Overview work within statistical community– Overview work within academic community– State the problem– Possible solution: SNAC footprint– Conclusions and discussion

2

Overview of footprint calculations at NSI’s and other government agencies NSI/Other Institute Type

Country specific IO

Years Environmental

Regions

Industries

National Statistical Institutes

Australian Bureau of Statistics

SRIO Y 2007/ 2008 GHG 1 40

Statistics Canada MRIO Y 2002&2006 GHG 4 ?Statistics Denmark Partial Y 2005 CO2 13 60INSEE Partial Y 2005 CO2 ±1

560

DESTATIS Partial/ hybrid Y 2007 Energy, CO2 14 73

Statistics Netherlands

Partial N 2009 GHG (4) 17 60

Statistics Sweden SRIO N 1993-2008 Energy; materials; air emissions

2 134

GSO Vietnam SRIO N 2005, 2007 CO2 1 5Other government agencies

PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency

Partial and MRIO

Y 2001 GHG (3) and land 13 57

DEFRA MRIO Y 1990-2009 CO2 and GHG 4 123

International institutes

OECD MRIO Y 1995, 2000, 2005, 2008, 2009

CO2 (only emissions from fuel combustion)

57 18

Eurostat SRIO N 2000-2007 8 pressures 2 64

3

Statistical community

– There is wide range of methods being used‐ NSIs often use simpler models

– Focus broader than carbon– Clear interest in additional breakdowns

‐ Household characteristics such as income– Dissemination practices of the institutes show

that the results are not always presented as “official statistics”

4

Overview of MRIO databases that are currently publically available

  GTAP EXIOBASE WIOD EoraAcronym Global Trade Analysis

Project 

EXIOPOL: Externality data and input-output tools for policy analysis 

World Input-Output Database -

Institute Purdue University EXIOBASE: FP6 project (EXIOPOL) led by FEEM Database created by NTNU, TNO, SERI, CML

FP7 project lead by the University of Groningen

University of Sydney

Years 1990, 1992, 1995, 1997, 2001, 2004, 2007 (years are not comparable)

2000 1995-2011 1990-2009

Prices of previous year

- - 1995-2009 -

Countries/Regions

15-129 (depends on year)

43(27 EU, 16 non-EU)(95% of the global GDP)

40(27 EU and 12 non-EU)(80% of world GDP in 2006)

187 

Number of industries

57 industries 130 industries 35 industries 100-500 industries

Environmental data

Greenhouse gases (CO2, NO2, CH4)Energy useLand use (split agro-ecological zone) 

Emissions (56)Materials (96)Land use (15)Water use (14)

Energy use / several energy carriersWater consumptionLand useEmissions of greenhouse gasesAir pollutantsResource use/extractionGeneration and treatment of various types of waste

Greenhouse gasesAir pollutionWater useEcological Footprint 

5

6

Academic work

– Difference between MRIOs:‐ Aggregation (industries and/or countries)‐ Construction method: IO based, SUT based, or

trade based‐ Assumptions RoW or ITMs‐ Emission data (modeled or not)

– Aim of MRIOs‐ Information about global developments‐ No claim to be 100% correct at national level‐ Focus on consistent method (rather than best

country data)

7

Carbon footprints for the Netherlands from various MRIO databases

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 20100

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

PNASNCCESSDEORAGRAMWIODOECDEm

issi

ons

(MtC

O2)

Data provided by Glen Peters and Nori Yamano

8

Carbon footprints for the Netherlands: WIOD and Eora

Stating the problem

– Growing policy interest in footprints, but no clear answers

– MRIOs have set the standard, but outside NSIs capabilities• Labour intensive• Assumptions

– MRIOs vs. official statistics• Always inconsistent due to integration/balancing

required:• Trade asymmetries

– Can we reconcile statistical and academic work in area of footprint analysis?

9

10

A SNAC footprint

– Produce a footprint, based on MRIO, that is consistent to official statistics of the Netherlands ‐ Single-country National Accounts consistent

(SNAC) – Main approach: “Adjust WIOD to be consistent to

Dutch data”– Why WIOD?

‐ Transparancy‐ Time series availibility

– Gain insight why results could be so different

11

Method

– Follow WIOD procedure, but overrule with improved Dutch int SUT:‐ Improved allocation of imports/exports to countries:• Trade in goods: Bilateral trade data (re-exports and

domestic trade) from micro data• Trade in services: Trade in services (confidential)

‐ National Accounts• Used IO database to isolate re-exports • Used IO database for valuation layers -> basic prices

‐ Expand from 35 to 72 industries (CO2 only)– Balancing using the WIOD procedure but keeping the

Dutch data fixed

Results: SNAC vs. WIOD

12

– Overall difference in footprint: 4-6%– Mainly due to lower foreign emissions– NL becomes net exporter of emissions

2003 2009

NameSNAC-footprint WIOD

SNAC-footprint WIOD

Absolute/Percentage MtCO2 MtCO2 % MtCO2 MtCO2 %

Total Footprint 206 220 -6% 202 210 -4%

Domestic indirect emissions 81 78 4%

80 71 11%

Domestic direct emissions 41 40 3%

40 39 5%

Total Domestic 122 118 3% 120 109 9%

Total Foreign 85 102 -17% 83 101-22%

Resident emissions 209 205

13

Results 2: per capita

Source: CBS 2013

14

Results for top 10 countries/regions

Source: CBS 2013– China at 19%: largest foreign emissions followed

by Germany– WIOD: 21%

Why do SNAC and WIOD results differ?

WIOD

intermediate

consumption

Final consumpti

on expenditur

e

Gross fixed

capital formation

Changes in

inventories and

valuables

Gross capital

formation

Exports Total use at basic prices

use 362 344 78 -3 75 310 1,091imports (incl ITM) 187 59 22 0 22 0 268Total intermediate inputs 549 403 100 -3 97Taxes less subsidies on products 33 21 9 0 9 62Intermediate Inputs adjusted 582 425 109 -4 105Value added at basic prices 510 0Output at basic prices 1,091 0

CBSuse 411 368 75 -1 75 244 1,096imports 159 37 20 -2 20 0 214Total intermediate inputs 570 405 95 -3 95Taxes less subsidies on products 15 32 14 0 14 62Total intermediate inputs adjusted 585 437 109 -3 109Value added at basic prices 511Output at basic prices 1,096

15

Why do SNAC and WIOD results differ? 2

CBS/WIOD

intermediate consumption

Final consumption expenditure

Gross fixed capital formation

Changes in inventories and valuables

Gross capital formation Exports

Total use at basic prices

use 114% 107% 96% 33% 100% 79% 100%imports 85% 63% 91% 91% 80%Total intermediate inputs 104% 100% 95% 100% 98%Taxes less subsidies on products 45% 152% 156% 156%Total intermediate inputs adjusted 101% 103% 100% 75% 104%Value added at basic prices 100%Output at basic prices 100%

16

Differences due to:• Re-exports • Valuation layersMore detailed information

17

Conclusions and discussion

1. Shift: uncertainty within MRIO to between MRIOs2. MRIOs are produced for global questions, a SNAC-footprint is

more relevant for national policy makers due to consistency to country statistics

3. SNAC makes a difference! (at least for the Netherlands)4. MRIO producers could quite easily make a footprint for

individual countries using “SNAC-philosophy”; key issue is sharing data

5. Need for enhanced cooperation especially in light of 2008 SNA

‐ Between statistical offices‐ Between MRIO producers‐ Statistical and academic community