ISO IWA 13-2014 Multiple resource evaluation guideline (First Edition)《多种资源评估指南 (第一版)》.pdf

《ISO IWA 13-2014 Multiple resource evaluation guideline (First Edition)《多种资源评估指南 (第一版)》.pdf》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《ISO IWA 13-2014 Multiple resource evaluation guideline (First Edition)《多种资源评估指南 (第一版)》.pdf（18页珍藏版）》请在麦多课文档分享上搜索。

1、 ISO 2014 Multiple resource evaluation guideline Lignes directrices pour lvaluation de ressources multiples INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP AGREEMENT IWA 13 First edition 2014-11-15 Reference number ISO 13:2014(E) ISO 13:2014(E)ii ISO 2014 All rights reserved COPYRIGHT PROTECTED DOCUMENT ISO 2014 All rights

2、reserved. Unless otherwise specified, no part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized otherwise in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, or posting on the internet or an intranet, without prior written permission. Permission can be requested from eithe

3、r ISO at the address below or ISOs member body in the country of the requester. ISO copyright office Case postale 56 CH-1211 Geneva 20 Tel. + 41 22 749 01 11 Fax + 41 22 749 09 47 E-mail copyrightiso.org Web www.iso.org Published in Switzerland ISO 13:2014(E)Contents Page Foreword iv Introduction v

4、1 Scope . 1 2 Background 1 3 MRP suggested methodology . 2 3.1 General 2 3.2 Basic parameters . 2 3.3 Secondary parameters . 3 3.4 Methodology . 4 4 Principles, criteria and indicators . 6 4.1 General . 6 4.2 Water availability and reliability Methodologies and models for calculations 6 4.3 Energy a

5、vailability and reliability Methodologies and models for calculations . 6 4.4 Food availability and reliability Methodologies and models for calculations . 6 Annex A (informative) Example of an MRP analysis algorithm 7 Bibliography 8 ISO 2014 All rights reserved iii ISO 13:2014(E) Foreword ISO (the

6、International Organization for Standardization) is a worldwide federation of national standards bodies (ISO member bodies). The work of preparing International Standards is normally carried out through ISO technical committees. Each member body interested in a subject for which a technical committee

7、 has been established has the right to be represented on that committee. International organizations, governmental and non-governmental, in liaison with ISO, also take part in the work. ISO collaborates closely with the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) on all matters of electrotechnic

8、al standardization. The procedures used to develop this document and those intended for its further maintenance are described in the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 1. In particular the different approval criteria needed for the different types of ISO documents should be noted. This document was drafted in

9、 accordance with the editorial rules of the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2 (see www.iso.org/directives). Attention is drawn to the possibility that some of the elements of this document may be the subject of patent rights. ISO shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all such patent rights.

10、Details of any patent rights identified during the development of the document will be in the Introduction and/or on the ISO list of patent declarations received (see www.iso.org/patents). Any trade name used in this document is information given for the convenience of users and does not constitute

11、an endorsement. For an explanation on the meaning of ISO specific terms and expressions related to conformity assessment, as well as information about ISOs adherence to the WTO principles in the Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) see the following URL: Foreword - Supplementary information The committ

12、ee responsible for this document is ISO/TMBG, Technical Management Board Groups.iv ISO 2014 All rights reserved ISO 13:2014(E) Introduction General A current challenge in assessing the economic impact of large-scale environmental projects and solutions with an apparently low greenhouse gas (GHG) foo

13、tprint is how to also account for these projects and solutions consumption of adjacent resources. For example, the supply of water faces degrading quality and volatile availability. Yet any project dealing with water would also have an impact on or be influenced by the supplies of energy and food/cr

14、opland. There is a growing understanding 53that future projects and solutions will need to be assessed and analysed based on a multiple-resource productivity framework. The aim of this International Workshop Agreement is to present the basis for such an analysis. The guidelines given in this Interna

15、tional Workshop Agreement recognize that complex linkages between the supply of these resources make it harder to tackle without depleting one of the other resources. Existing solutions have been criticized because they focus on supplying one resource while negatively impacting another resource. Lis

16、t of contributors Company Country Name South Africa Bureau of Standards South Africa Maisha Judy South Africa Bureau of Standards South Africa Dennis Vusi Cottensam Mexico Espana Francisco Nigerian National Petroleum corporation (NNPC), CHQ, ABUJA Nigeria Iwuchukwu Onyema Justus Nigerian Gas Company

17、 LTD (NNPC) Nigeria Musa Mohammed Alhaji Standards Organization of Nigeria Nigeria Nyado Felix TeddyFederal Ministry of water resources Nigeria Onyeanusi Rufus Chukwuma Federal Ministry of power Nigeria Reis Roland Obafunmi Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission Nigeria Ahaneku Niajiroghene Nati

18、onal Environmental Standards and Regulations enforcement agency Nigeria Choji Davou National Environmental Standards and Regulations enforcement agency Nigeria Atsegwasi Godwin Idaewor Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission Nigeria Ukabiala Chinedum SII Israel Yaron Ben Ari SII Israel Michal Phi

19、losoph Aquate Group Ltd. Israel Barak Yekutiely Brazil Nissim Chen RENSO Israel Maxim Rakov APC Israel Amiram Porath Acknowledgement: E in order to solve a problem concerning one resource, the other two should be taken into account, so that additional problems are avoided. The new concept of sustain

20、ability that also understands the Nexus is called the MRP. The MRP suggests a methodology for a project evaluation based on the impact the projects alternatives may have on all three resources, and allows grading of alternatives based on that evaluation, which may be quantified when required. Each s

21、olution enhances one resource while consuming another resource. The methodology requires that in order to evaluate sustainability correctly, the evaluation must consider a solutions impact on all relevant resources. Current evaluation systems are usually based on an economic translation of the resou

22、rces “value”. However, as some resources are subsidized due to historical/social/political reasons, the economic values attributed to the resources are often erroneous. The required methodology is one that can allow for a project or a program to be evaluated according to its creation or consumption

23、of resources. A modelling of resource utilization that considers the environmental impact of such projects has been in use for some time. Models such as LCA that aimed to model the environmental impact of mineral usage have focused on a single resource, which, as mentioned above, is no longer suffic

24、ient. Decision makers around the world are attempting to resolve the simultaneous resource needs without creating long- term resource depletion. International Workshop Agreement ISO 13:2014(E) ISO 2014 All rights reserved 1 ISO 13:2014(E) Recent policies have focused on reducing the negative impacts

25、 of resource exploitation and have therefore been mostly considered as “mitigation” or “mitigation-oriented” types of models. However, with the growing understanding that mitigation only postpones the inevitable depletion or negative impact, the need to promote or reorient the exploitation towards a

26、 positive, beneficial point of view, has been slowly coming into focus. In addition, new solutions, technologies and business models have the potential to resolve the nexus between water, energy, and food/cropland. Therefore the viewing of a project as “creating” or “consuming” resources is now more

27、 compatible with current and future world trends. Some preliminary work has been done, mainly dual resources analysis (e.g. water-energy; energy-land), but there is a growing need for a more comprehensive analysis, and also for a standardization of the analysis. 3 MRP suggested methodology 3.1 Gener

28、al In this clause, the MRP methodology will be presented in practical terms, including its purpose and details. The MRP is a guideline for the methodological evaluation and comparison of different solutions and projects. The guideline is a decision-making tool that is intended to standardize the eva

29、luation and comparison process of decision makers around the world regarding infrastructure projects. It intends to make sure that the same sustainable outlook is shared by standards users, and allows for the possibility of accreditation of decision making processes and organizations utilizing such

30、processes based on its parameters. It allows for a grading of comparable projects according to the guidelines basic assumptions, and allocates these projects into categories according to their grading. In this clause the utilization of the MRP will be presented; discussion regarding the possibility

31、of accreditation is under consideration. 3.2 Basic parameters 3.2.1 General The three main components of the Nexus water, energy and food/cropland are the main parameters of the methodology underlying the MRP. Nevertheless, other parameters can be added to the Nexus, in two ways: adding another main

32、 parameter when needed; “fine tuning”, i.e. introducing secondary parameters that can help adjust the projects grading and thus assist in decision making. 3.2.2 Water The amount of water (in cubic meters or equivalent) consumed or created (as available water for consumption) is the relevant (basic)

33、parameter in MRP. It should be noted that water can be produced in various qualities and quantities, and the relevant value for this parameter is utilization oriented. For example, 200 m 3of potable water for municipal utilization will have the same impact as 200 m 3of reclaimed water for irrigation

34、 purposes, even though their quality is different. For the creation of water, this parameter will be marked with a positive (+) mark. If, on the other hand, the project utilizes water (e.g. a steam production plant) the parameter will be marked with a negative (-) mark. If the project has a neutral

35、water impact, then the parameter will be marked with a neutral (0) mark. 3.2.3 Energy Energy utilization or creation (which is the second relevant basic parameter of the MRP), is measured in common energy units. The creation of energy, such as electrical power supply, is either through a grid or in

36、a stored capacity. The energy component includes fuel as well as the infrastructure required for the production when analysing its impact on the other parameters. If energy is produced (e.g. in a power 2 ISO 2014 All rights reserved ISO 13:2014(E) plant) this parameter will be marked with a positive

37、 (+) mark. If, on the other hand, the project utilizes energy (e.g. a desalination plant) the parameter will be marked with a negative (-) mark. The net energy to be produced or consumed during the relevant projects life duration will be calculated and used as explained in Annex A. If the project ne

38、ither creates nor consumes energy, then the parameter will be marked with a neutral (0) mark. 3.2.4 Food/cropland (land) Food availability is dependent upon land, but also upon energy and water. The latter two resources are the main parameters and are considered independently; therefore the producti

39、on and availability of food mostly depend upon the availability of land and those two parameters. In this guideline, “food” and “cropland” are interchangeable terms. There is some freedom of choice allowed with this parameter. For example, if food production is irrelevant to the project, other land

40、parameters can be considered, such as land use for other types of agriculture (pulp and paper, furniture, textile and industrial crops in general) instead of the food component of this main parameter. Land made available for food production can be measured by the amount of food it can create, accord

41、ing to similarities in the region, or industrial crops where such an approach is appropriate, thus food creation is the third MRP basic relevant parameter. If the land is made available for these activities by the project (e.g. irrigation systems in arid areas), the amount of food to be produced wil

42、l be marked with a positive (+) mark. If, on the other hand, the project utilizes or consumes food/cropland (e.g. a desalination plant) the parameter will be marked with a negative (-) mark. If the project has a neutral food/cropland impact, then the parameter will be marked with a neutral (0) mark.

43、 3.3 Secondary parameters 3.3.1 General When comparing different projects that seem to have similar grades, which therefore require further characterization and additional grading, secondary parameters are used. Secondary parameters are not included within the main parameters, as their significance

44、may differ from one place to another, and thus, to simplify the methodology, only clear-cut cases are used. Such secondary parameters as employment and improved transportation are to be added when needed, in order to distinguish between projects with similar main parameter marks. This adjustment all

45、ows many projects to be compared and graded. The relative importance of primary parameters as well as secondary parameters can vary from one place to another and they should be considered as the standard is being developed. Some examples are given in 3.3.2 to 3.3.4. 3.3.2 Resource security The added

46、 or reduced security demand related to the project is as follows: if the security demand is increased (e.g. a new installation that requires security measures that were not previously required) it will be marked with a negative (-) mark; if the security demand is decreased (e.g. human resources for security replaced by more cost effective electronic systems) then it will be marked with a positive (+) mark. NOTE In this International Workshop Agreement, “security” refers to the guarding of resource supply cost/effort. ISO 2014 All rights reserved 3