The Use of Environmental Information in Decision Making

1. The Use of Environmental Information in Decision Making Charlotte Lagerberg Fogelberg1 & Fredrik Fogelberg2 1Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden 2Hedmark University College, Norway Jurmala, May 11-14 2005

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. Divided Responsibility 15 national quality objectives interim targets for each Central authorities Regional authorities regional objectives Local authorities local objectives

6. 2002 UN conference in Johannesburg measures to 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

7. Sustainable consumption of foodstuffs, housing and transport • Swedish governmental investigation • Final conclusions and suggestions by end of May 2005

8. Material welfare Economic welfare 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 satisfaction

9. 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

10. 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

11. Vegetables and meats • Carrot • Tomato • Apple • Beans and peas • Broccoli • Onion • Chicken • Beef

12. 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

13. Sweden Netherlands Italy Sweden Denmark Netherlands Spain Denmark Poland (Hungary) Sweden Brazil Ireland Different origin Carrot Poland Tomato Onion Beef

14. Carrot production Fresh carrot Inputs such as water, electricity, diesel, soap, chemicals, crop protection agents, fertilizers, lime , , Washing and packing, incl all processes in the packing house Storage on farm or packing house Storage at wholesaler Handling at food service institutions Discarded carrots Discarded carrots Discarded carrots ? Animal feed Animal feed

15. Beef, grazing system

16. Primary producers, Spain1 Primary producers, Spain2 Primary producers, Sweden Primary producers, The Netherlands E E E E E E D D D D C C C C C B B B A Complex supply chain Many purchasing managers involved

17. Profiles depend on method What you see depends on how you look. Herman Verhagen (Change 52)

18. 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

19. Testing purchaser’s decision 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/kg Price: 34.80 SEK/kg 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/kg Price: 40.00 SEK/kg I prefer A I prefer A and B equally I prefer B

20. Testing purchaser’s decision again 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/kg Price: 34.80 SEK/kg 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/kg Price: 40.00 SEK/kg I prefer A I prefer A and B equally I prefer B

21. 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

22. Final project seminar November 15, 2005 Thank you for your attention!