Policy makers are often called upon to navigate between scientists' urgent calls for long-term concerted action to reduce the environmental impacts due to resource use, and the public's concerns over policies that threaten lifestyles or jobs. Against these political challenges, resource efficiency policy making is often a changeable and even chaotic process, which has fallen short of the political ambitions set by democratically elected governments. This article examines the importance of paradigms in understanding how the public collectively responds to new policy proposals, such as those developed within the project DYNAmic policy MiXes for absolute decoupling of environmental impact of EU resource use from economic growth (DYNAMIX). The resulting proposed approach provides a framework to understand how different concerns and worldviews converge within public discourse, potentially resulting in paradigm change. Thus an alternative perspective on how resource efficiency policy can be development is proposed, which envisages early policies to lay the ground for future far-reaching policies, by altering the underlying paradigm context in which the public receive and respond to policy. The article concludes by arguing that paradigm change is more likely if the policy is conceived, framed, designed, analyzed, presented, and evaluated from the worldview or paradigm pathway that it seeks to create (i.e., the destination paradigm).

This report documents the development of the initial dynamic policy mixes that were developed for assessment in the DYNAMIX project. The policy mixes were designed within three different policy areas: overarching policy, land-use and food, and metals and other materials. The policy areas were selected to address absolute decoupling in general and, specifically, the DYNAMIX targets related to the use of virgin metals, the use of arable land and freshwater, the input of the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus, and emissions of greenhouse gases.Each policy mix was developed within a separate author team, using a common methodological framework that utilize previous findings in the project. Specific drivers and barriers for resource use and resource efficiency are discussed in each policy area. Specific policy objectives and targets are also discussed before the actual policy mix is presented. Each policy mix includes a set of key instruments, which can be embedded in a wider set of supporting and complementary policy instruments. All key instruments are described in the report through responses to a set of predefined questions.The overarching mix includes a broad variety of key instruments. The land-use policy mix emphasizes five instruments to improve food production through, for example, revisions of already existing policy documents. It also includes three instruments to influence the food consumption and food waste. The policy mix on metals and other materials primarily aims at reducing the use of virgin metals through increased recycling, increased material efficiency and environmentally justified material substitution. To avoid simply shifting of burdens, it includes several instruments of an overarching character.

Where the public acceptability of a policy can influence its chance of success, it is important to anticipate and mitigate potential concerns. This paper applies search frequency analysis and a form of claims-making analysis to identify public acceptability concerns among fourteen policies proposed by the EU-funded DYNAMIX project to achieve EU resource efficiency. Key points of contention in the corresponding public discourses focus primarily on trust, fairness, effectiveness and cost. We use our findings to provide specific recommendations for the design and implementation of the proposed policy mix which are intended to improve the public acceptability of contentious aspects, and highlight some broader insights for policymakers.

This paper discusses methodologies that have been employed to give insights into business performance in relation to sustainable development, both at a sectoral and corporate level. From consideration of different sectoral sustainable development methodologies, some key issues and good practice related to their derivation are elaborated. These issues are then further illustrated by a detailed comparison between three sustainable development methodologies that have been used in the UK offshore oil and gas industry. The methodologies chiefly differ in terms of how they address the problem of comparing different impacts across potentially non-commensurable dimensions, one proceeding through explicit monetary valuation, another through implicit valuation of different options and another through presentation of an unaggregated framework of indicators. The paper concludes by identifying the different situations in which use of these different methodologies is appropriate.

‘Produced water’ is seawater mixed with hydrocarbons and derives from the extraction of oil and gas from under the seabed. Its discharge into the marine environment of the North Sea is strictly regulated. This paper discusses the environmental concerns associated with produced water, and the regulatory approach that is currently being taken to reduce produced water discharges into the sea. It is found that there is currently no evidence of harm to the marine environment from produced water, but a number of areas of uncertainty remain. A novel methodology, involving the analysis of material and energy flows, and their associated financial and environmental implications, is used to compare a number of different techniques of reducing these discharges. It is found that these techniques have significant environmental and financial implications. In the absence of evidence of actual environmental harm being caused by produced water, there are three possible precautionary approaches to its management and regulation. The approach that involves zero emissions of produced water implies a relatively high social valuation of the reduction in environmental risk that this achieves.

A material and energy flow analysis, with corresponding financial flows, was carried out for different decommissioning scenarios for the different elements of an offshore oil and gas structure. A comparative assessment was made of the non-financial (especially environmental) outcomes of the different scenarios, with the reference scenario being to leave all structures in situ, while other scenarios envisaged leaving them on the seabed or removing them to shore for recycling and disposal. The costs of each scenario, when compared with the reference scenario, give an implicit valuation of the non-financial outcomes (e.g. environmental improvements), should that scenario be adopted by society. The paper concludes that it is not clear that the removal of the topsides and jackets of large steel structures to shore, as currently required by regulations, is environmentally justified; that concrete structures should certainly be left in place; and that leaving footings, cuttings and pipelines in place, with subsequent monitoring, would also be justified unless very large values were placed by society on a clear seabed and trawling access.

Abstract There is currently no evidence of harm to the marine environment from produced water, but a number of areas of uncertainty remain. Using a novel methodology to compare a number of different techniques of reducing produced water discharges, it is found that these techniques have significant environmental and financial implications. In the absence of evidence of actual environmental harm being caused by produced water, the current policy objective of achieving zero discharge of hazardous substances in produced water implies a relatively high social valuation of the reduction in environmental risk that this achieves.

Case studies provided by the UK Offshore Operators Association and its member companies Part of a wider collaborative study A Methodology for Measuring Sectoral Sustainable Development and its application to the UK oil & gas sector' The project is funded under the DTI's Sustainable Technologies Initiative LINK Programme, with funding from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), matched by industry, largely through in-kind contributions in identifying and providing data, case studies and research papers Contents i SUMMARY INTRODUCTION In 2000, discharges of produced water from UK oil and gas offshore facilities amounted to over 244 million tonnes (DTI 2004c), with estimated dispersed oil content of 5,768 tonnes (DTI 2004d) and therefore a calculated mean dispersed oil concentration of about 24mg/l. It is thought that produced water's contribution to total inputs of oil entering the North Sea is only relatively minor, research reporting this to be 6% (Cordah 2001, p31). Models comparing Predicted Environmental Concentrations (PEC's) with Predicted No Effect Concentrations (PNECs) suggest only hypothetical and low risks from the various components of produced water. Recent recommendations from OSPAR would require reductions in the amount of dispersed oil being discharged with produced water, with the longer-term objective being the cessation of discharges of hazardous substances within one generation. This paper reviews the literature on the risks of produced water discharges and then explores through the use of flow analysis the material and financial implications of the advanced produced water abatement techniques likely to be deployed in response to regulation. It highlights the trade-off between the benefits of further abatement and the wastes and emissions implicit in such action. The paper concludes by commenting on these regulations in the light of these trade-offs.