I N D U S T R I A L E C O S Y S T E M S A N D E C O - I N D U S T R I A L PA R K S
Comparability of Industrial Symbioses Ren´e van Berkel
Industrial symbiosis is principally con- Kalundborg model were just replicated and upcerned with the recovery and reuse of wastes scaled elsewhere. Critics have stated that the (materials, water, lack of other working or energy) from one examples was a sign A recurring theme in industrial symindustry as alternative of the nonreplicabilbiosis research is characterization and input in a neighity and lack of pracquantification of connectedness or boring facility. This tical value of indusreuse is an iconic trial symbiosis. In the symbiotic intensity, typically by application of induspast 5 years, however, means of a number of physical transfers trial ecology and is a range of other indusand a number of businesses and other regularly combined trial symbiosis examwith other collective ples have found their entities involved. A count on the basis environmental manway into the literature, of symbiotic resource flows would, in agement initiatives and there are currently principle, enable the use of indicators into eco-industrial at least some 50 reparks. Industrial symgions globally that disthat are commonly used to quantify biosis is more common play interfirm collabecosystem integration in nature. The than initially assumed, oration with physical way to do so remains somewhat unrewhich has sparked an exchanges of materiinterest in comparing als, energy, and wasolved, as industrial systems are differindustrial symbioses ter for competitive and ent from natural systems. in different regions. environmental benefit. This set of regions is most likely the tip Kalundborg + 20 of the iceberg, as collaborating companies may This year marks the 20th anniversary of in- not necessarily label their initiatives as indusdustrial symbiosis and eco-industrial systems, trial symbiosis until an outsider does so (Chertow concepts that were inspired by the experience [2007] called this phenomenon uncovering). The cooperation structures and networks of of industries in the town of Kalundborg in physical exchanges vary considerably (Chertow Denmark. Kalundborg long dominated the lit2007; Van Beers et al. 2007; Van Berkel et al. erature and practice as the quintessential work2009). Kalundborg was initially driven by the ing example of industrial symbiosis. Proponeed to develop a new industrial water source nents of industrial symbiosis have claimed that for two anchor companies (an oil refinery and much greater benefits could be achieved if the a power station). The symbiosis in Kawasaki, Japan, developed with integration of novel re c 2009 by Yale University cycling technologies in an existing materials DOI: 10.1111/j.1530-9290.2009.00140.x processing center with aging industries. The symbiosis in Kwinana, Australia, showcases Volume 13, Number 4
www.blackwellpublishing.com/jie
Journal of Industrial Ecology
483
I N D U S T R I A L E C O S Y S T E M S A N D E C O - I N D U S T R I A L PA R K S
comprehensive integration along and between different value and supply chains in a geographically isolated industrial area. Dalian, China, demonstrates environmental infrastructure development for common use in a rapidly expanding industrial processing zone.
Symbiotic Intensity A recurring theme in industrial symbiosis research is the characterization and quantification of connectedness or symbiotic intensity, typically by means of a number of physical transfers and a number of businesses and other entities involved. This characterization and quantification require clear system boundaries. There is widespread recognition that ordinary supply chains should not be counted; this acknowledgement is reflected in, for example, Chertow’s (2000) definition of industrial symbiosis as “engaging traditionally separate industries” (314). This distinction requires a level of expert judgment and industry know-how. In Australia, the term industrial symbiosis explicitly was limited to two types of resource synergies—namely, by-product exchanges (based on physical exchanges of materials or byproducts) and utility sharing (shared use of infrastructure to provide process water, energy, etc., or common treatment of effluents or wastes; Bossilkov et al. 2005). Researchers can assess the symbiotic intensity by counting symbiotic resource flows or symbiotic projects; each project can have multiple resource flows. In Kwinana, for example, the Water Reclamation Project extracts treated effluent from the municipal wastewater treatment plant, treats this effluent to produce industrial-grade process water, and supplies the process water to five companies (a chemical complex, an oil refinery, a pigment plant, a pig iron plant, and a cogeneration plant). It also collects treated industrial effluents from three companies for discharge through the existing deep ocean outlet of the same municipal waste water treatment plant (Van Beers et al. 2007). This alternatively counts as one symbiotic project or ten symbiotic resource flows. With symbiotic projects as the basis (Van Berkel et al. 2009), Gladstone (Australia) comprises 3 symbiotic projects between 6 firms, 484
Journal of Industrial Ecology
whereas Kwinana (Australia) comprises 47 symbiotic projects between 22 firms. Guitang (China) includes 5 symbiotic projects between 5 firms, and in Ulsan (Republic of Korea) 9 symbiotic projects are in place among 12 firms. Kawasaki (Japan) is based on 14 symbiotic projects involving 9 businesses. Chertow (2007) recently proposed a stricter interpretation of industrial symbiosis that would essentially limit the count of businesses to those that have symbiotic resource flows but are not primarily recycling businesses. According to this definition, Kawasaki is a 3–4-type symbiosis involving 3 companies (steel, cement, and paper works) and 4 resource flows (scrap metal, electricity, sludge, and slag; Van Berkel et al. 2009). Counting symbiotic resource flows enables researchers to use indicators that are commonly used to quantify ecosystem integration in nature. The way to do so remains somewhat unresolved, as industrial systems are different from natural systems in at least two fundamental ways. First, species in ecosystems operate with distinct trophic levels, and physical exchanges between species are therefore unidirectional, which leads to food chains. Industrial enterprises can operate at different trophic levels for their different material flows (end consumer of fuel and intermediate consumer for product raw materials). Industries can also have bidirectional resource exchanges (a furniture manufacturer could be a supplier of wood waste to and a consumer of electricity from a biomass power plant). Second, natural ecology counts resource flows at the species level. The analogous entity for species in an industrial system is subject to debate. As companies are diverse (in terms of their specific products, raw materials, and markets), it can be argued that each company is the equivalent of a species in nature. Alternatively, as facilities in the same industry sector have nearly identical resource requirements, perform similar material transformations, and have comparable types of waste streams, it can also be argued that an industry sector is the equivalent of a species in nature. The above methodological limitations pertain to the physical descriptions of the resource exchange networks and arguably can be resolved with further research and standardization
I N D U S T R I A L E C O S Y S T E M S A N D E C O - I N D U S T R I A L PA R K S
of methodologies and indicators. Even with consensus and standardization on physical indicators, however, the quantification of symbiotic intensity in any given industrial area will remain dependent on several factors that are not related to the type, nature, and intensity of the resource exchanges, as the following examples illustrate: • Level of knowledge of the industrial system: The number of resource exchanges reported for a particular industrial system generally increases rapidly as researchers, industrialists, and policy makers improve their knowledge and understanding of the industrial system and, in particular, the patterns of input and output material flows of its constituent companies. This is evident from subsequent publications on several of the now well-known industrial symbioses (e.g., Kawasaki, Ulsan, and Kwinana) and is part of the uncovering already discussed in this article. • Industrial organization and firm boundaries in the industrial system: The exchange of by-products (including energy and water streams) between industrial plants may or may not count as a symbiotic project, depending on the ownership structure and firm boundaries between the generator and user of the by-product. In Kwinana, for example, one of the cogeneration plants accepts excess refinery gas from the oil refinery and supplies in return process steam back to the refinery. In Kwinana this counts as a symbiotic project, because the cogeneration plant is owned and operated independently of the oil company. In other locations, oil refineries are invested in cogeneration to achieve a comparable environmental and economic benefit. Due to common ownership, these, then, do not count as symbiotic projects.
for comparing industrial symbioses in different industrial systems and for assessing their environmental, economic, and other benefits (Van Berkel et al. 2009).
Outlook Several dozen practical examples of working industrial symbioses have now been documented in the literature, and it is likely that many more will follow as further dissemination of industrial symbiosis concepts prompt the uncovering of other applications. Typically, such descriptions address the symbiotic intensity in the industrial system in addition to qualitative descriptions of the institutional and environmental contexts and proxy or partial assessments of the sustainability benefits. The comparability of different industrial systems is, in practice, constrained by the lack of agreed upon rules, methods, and indicators for the description and assessment of industrial ecosystems. It is likely that comparability between case studies of different regions can be improved with a dedicated methodology development effort, similar to what, for example, has been accomplished in other segments of industrial ecology (e.g., for material flow accounting). Even though this standardization would generate standardized metrics for different industrial areas, the resulting benefit assessments are unlikely to be comparable across different areas, due to differences in industrial composition and organization in the respective areas. An industrial area with a concentration of pharmaceutical industries in Puerto Rico is not comparable to an aging heavy industrial area of metallurgical industries in Japan (Van Berkel et al. 2009). It is therefore doubtful that better connectedness metrics would, in their own right, facilitate greater and faster realization of industrial symbioses.
References The indicators for symbiotic intensity based on the number of symbiotic projects or resource flows in an industrial ecosystem therefore reflect primarily on the organizational complexity of the industrial ecosystem. They appear useful to monitor the maturing of symbioses in any particular industrial system over time but are inadequate
Bossilkov, A., R. van Berkel, and G. Corder. 2005. Regional synergies for sustainable resource processing: A status report. Perth, Australia: Centre for Sustainable Resource Processing. Chertow, M. 2000. Industrial symbiosis: Literature and taxonomy. Annual Review of Energy and Environment 25(1): 313–337.
Van Berkel, Comparability of Industrial Symbioses
485
I N D U S T R I A L E C O S Y S T E M S A N D E C O - I N D U S T R I A L PA R K S
Chertow, M. 2007. Uncovering industrial symbiosis. Journal of Industrial Ecology 11(1): 11–30. Van Beers, D., G. Corder, A. Bossilkov, and R. van Berkel. 2007. Industrial symbiosis in the Australian minerals industries: The cases of Kwinana and Gladstone. Journal of Industrial Ecology 11(1): 55–72. Van Berkel, R., T. Fujita, S. Hashimoto, and M. Fuji. 2009. Quantitative assessment of urban and industrial symbiosis in Kawasaki (Japan). Environmental Science and Technology 43(5): 1271–1281.
About the Author Ren´e van Berkel, PhD, is unit chief of the Cleaner and Sustainable Production Unit, United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), in Vienna, Austria, and holds
486
Journal of Industrial Ecology
a position as visiting senior fellow at the United Nations University’s Institute of Advanced Studies (UNU-IAS), in Yokohama, Japan. The views expressed in this column are based on his extensive involvement in industrial symbiosis projects in the Asia Pacific region. These do not necessarily reflect the official position of UNIDO or UNU-IAS.
Address correspondence to: Dr. Ren´e van Berkel c/o United Nations University, Institute of Advanced Studies 1-1-1 Minato Mirai Nishi-ku Yokohama 220-8502 Japan
[email protected]
