ecological power of nations - footprint network

The Ecological Power of Nations 1

When I was born in 1962, the world still had significant

ecological reserves. Residents of most of the world’s

countries demanded less resources and emitted less

waste than their respective countries’ ecosystems could

regenerate. Today, less than 20 percent of the world

population lives in countries where this is still the case.

This assessment is based on Ecological Footprint

accounting, a balance sheet that compares how much

nature we have to how much nature we use. Based

on about 5000 data points per country and year, all

from UN statistical sources, it documents our resource

balance. The results for 2005: human demand on

the biosphere exceeds by 30 percent what Earth can

renew. In other words, it takes a year and four months

to regenerate what humanity uses within that one year.

Like in the financial world, overspending can work, for

some time. The question is for how long, and at what

costs. When adding up moderate projections of UN

agencies for 2050, based on slow population growth,

slight improvements of people’s diets, decarbonization

of our energy systems, continued increase in agricultural

productivity, human demand would be twice of what

Earth could provide.

Banking on this growing level of consumption is

unrealistic. Demand would be too far out of sync with

supply. Worse, the accumulated ecological debt from

decades of ecological overspending cannot be fed

indefinitely by depleting our planet. There just are not

that many fisheries to overharvest, atmospheres to fill

up with CO2, or forests to deforest.

If we want to realize the “right to develop” – and this

is the motivation behind this publication – we must

work with the budget of nature, not against it. Ignoring

nature’s budget weakens us – makes it less likely that

we can secure human wellbeing.

To succeed, and to make this success last, we need

to reverse these trends. I am an unwavering optimist

and am convinced we can. Consider this: if the current

trends in biocapacity and Footprint were financial

curves, every planner, economist or minister would

know what would need to be done. They would huddle

and identify an aggressive agenda for action. Nothing

less is required with our current resource trends. After

all, money can be printed, but resources cannot.

Foreword

Mathis Wackernagel

Earth, our home planet is the only planet in our so-lar system known to harbor life and life of incredible diversity. The view from space enables us to better understand how thin and fragile is the Earth’s atmo-sphere, how it protects us from the uninhabitable void and why we need to protect it.

The presence of the Moon stabilizes the Earth’s wob-ble thereby making the climate more stable in billions of years of influence. The regular daily and monthly rhythms of Earth’s only natural satellite, the Moon, have guided timekeepers for thousands of years. Its influence on the Earth’s cycles, notably the tides, has also been charted by many cultures throughout many ages. More than 70 spacecraft have been sent to the Moon; 12 astronauts have walked upon its surface and brought back 842 pounds of lunar rock and soil to Earth. This color-coded image shows the Moon’s mineral composition and barren soil.

This work is based in part on statistical information that

countries provide to the United Nations Food and Agricul-

ture Organization (UN FAO), the UN Development Program

(UNDP) and other international agencies. It is presented

here in a way that shows the demand the human commu-

nity is putting on the Earth’s ecological assets. The relation-

ship between this demand and the availability of natural

capital to satisfy it is shown both globally and for individual

nations.

The purpose of this publication is to provide data rather

than policy recommendations, and to open a creative

debate over the implications of living in a resource-con-

strained world. Statistics show that the human community

is using the Earth’s living resources faster than the planet is

able to regenerate them. This publication is intended as a

starting point for discussion to raise awareness of the vari-

ous risks and opportunities for individual countries created

by this resource imbalance by asking such questions as:

• What does this global deficit mean to those countries that

use less biological capacity than they have available?

• What does it mean for those who are in ecological deficit?

• What are the political, economic, social and strategic im-

plications of the fact that eight countries control more than

half the planet’s biological capacity?

• If the wellbeing of all is a

desirable goal, how can

nations work together to best manage ecological assets so

that those assets are not depleted or degraded, but rather,

can continue to meet human demands as well as maintain

a healthy biodiversity?

The data presented in this publication is intended as a

means to enhance the understanding of the extent, use

and distribution of ecological assets, and their relation-

ship to human wellbeing. This provides an objective and

measurable starting point for politicians, decision makers,

opinion leaders and citizens to address the sustainability

challenge—how to live well, while living within the means

of the planet. This challenge is perhaps the key issue of the

21st century, and how it is resolved will likely determine the

fate of humanity and the rest of the Earth’s species.

We invite all countries and organizations to participate in

this debate, and to explore the implications of the Ecologi-

cal Footprint and biocapacity data for national programs,

for valuation of ecological services, and for international

agreements such as those designed to protect biodiversity.

In particular, this data provides an important perspective

for shaping and evaluating post-Kyoto and other initiatives

related to the emission and capture of carbon dioxide gen-

erated by the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. In a

world of “peak everything;” food, water, climate, soil and

energy, this perspective given current ecological reality can

help in the evaluation of proposed solutions to see if they

are sufficient and will result in an absolute reduction in hu-

manity’s ecological overshoot rather than just transferring

pressure from one type of ecosystem to another.

Purpose of this publication

2


Recent and ongoing news – from the economy to the

environment – make it clear: The world is changing,

and we cannot continue to ignore the importance of

ecological assets. With an expanding population and

an economy that has already crossed many global lim-

its, now more than ever it is essential to recognize that

the health and wellbeing of the human community de-

pends on the health and wellbeing of the Earth’s eco-

systems.

The world is changing not only with regard to growing

resource scarcity, but also in the way we are becom-

ing increasingly more interconnected and interdepen-

dent. The global economy and the internet are only a

part of the reason for this change. Today, we can track

the flow of resources around the world in an account-

ing system that shows where ecological assets are

available and where they are being used. This gives

us a new way to see the world and provides the foun-

dation for a new chapter of global collaboration with

a view to share the ecological assets, without their

depletion or degradation.

Throughout this publication, you will see demonstrated

the growing need for nations to recognize the value of

their own natural resources as well as the need to find

a way for humanity to live well, within the means of our

planet. You will also learn more about the the Ecologi-

cal Footprint - the metric tool that calculates human

pressure on the planet, and about a new way of look-

ing at nations, from the perspective of natural capital,

questioning whether or not nations have enough natu-

ral capital to supply their own consumption or are they

operating in ecological deficit.

Introduction

All forms of life on the planet coexist within a thin surface lay-er 40 miles thick, the biosphere. This layer extends from the depths of the oceans to the stratosphere and it is here where all living creatures interact with chemical processes and the energy from the sun to sustain life. Picture taken by the Gemini 9 tripulation on July 5, 1966. NASA

4 The Ecological Power of Nations

EF= YF EQF

•PYN

•

BC = AYF EQF•

•

EF = BC + EF EF

CP

I

_ EThe Earth’s biosphere absorbs the energy from the sun and from within its thin, fragile layer, it supplies everything we need to survive. The Earth is made up of complex, interac-

tive systems that are often unpredictable. Air, water, land, and life - including human life - combine forces to create a constantly changing world that we are striving to under-

stand. Photo of anvils over the Pacific Ocean. NASA, July 21, 2003.


EF= YF EQF

•PYN

•

BC = AYF EQF•

•

EF = BC + EF EF

CP

I

_ E

We’re going to have to think of ourselves as a subsystem, part of the natural world and that we depend upon it in two ways:

we’ll have to take from the natural world resources at a rate at which the natural world can regenerate and we’ll have to throw back the wastes

from using those natural resources at a rate the natural world can assimilate Herman Daly.


Latin America, beyond its identity as a culturally cohesive unit is also the largest region of regenerative biological capacity on Earth. With almost the same biocapacity of Asia-Pacific but with a population six times smaller, Latin America contributes an invaluable ecological service to the sustainment of life on this planet. The Amazon basin contains 25% of the species of the planet, 15% of unfrozen fresh water and is home to more than 400 indigenous groups. However, the situation is chang-ing rapidly; more than 2 million hectares of forests are being burned each year; now one of the biggest sources of carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. Photo NASA.

While economies, populations and resource demands

grow, the size of the planet remains the same. To sat-

isfy our demands, the human community is using the

Earth’s living resources more than 35 % faster than

they are regenerated. The continuing growth in this

demand, according to moderate United Nations sce-

narios, suggests that by the early 2030s our consump-

tion will require the capacity of 2 planet Earths. If we

continue on this path without altering course, room to

maneuver will quickly diminish.

In 2008, by September 23rd, humanity’s use of eco-

logical resources exceeded the amount the planet pro-

duced in that entire 2008 year. Since the mid-1980s,

when global ecological overshoot first became a reality,

we have been living on ecological credit. To support

our consumption, we have been liquidating resource

stocks and allowing carbon to concentrate in the at-

mosphere. Ecological overshoot is possible only for a

limited time before ecosystems begin to degrade and

possibly collapse. Many of the results are already vis-

ible today in the form of water shortages, desertifica-

tion, erosion, reduced cropland productivity, overgraz-

ing, deforestation, rapid extinction of species, collapse

of fisheries and global climate change.

Some of the pressures we are putting on the planet

today will have consequences that may only be seen

long into the future.

The Earth’s ecological limits

This chart shows humanity’s increasing Ecological Footprint. In 1961 we used only half of the biocapacity of the Earth; to-day we use 35% more than is available.

In the effort to expand the agricultural frontier, 200 million acres of the Amazon Basin have become unproductive and seen a loss of soil fertility. Tropical forests store between 50 and 170 tons of carbon dioxide per acre, FAO estimates that 7.3 billion tons of carbon dioxide, between 18 and 25% of greenhouse gas emissions come from deforestation annually. Deforesta-tion in Amazonia, Mato Grosso, Brazil (12°38’ S, 60°12’ W). ©Yann Arthus-Bertrand.


Huella Ecológica y biocapacidad per cápita de países. 2005


The Ecological Footprint measures the area of bi-

ologically productive land and water required to

provide the resources used and absorb the waste

generated by human activity, under current techno-

logy. A country’s Footprint reflects consumption by

its residents, and includes imported goods and ser-

vices but not those which are exported.

Biocapacity is the area of productive land and sea

available to produce resources and absorb waste.

Both the Ecological Footprint and biocapacity are

measured in standard units called global hectares

(gha). One gha represents a hectare of land with

world average productivity.

This graphs shows the relative size of each coun-

try’s Footprint and biocapacity.


Countries with biocapacity greater than their Footprints

have ecological reserves. An ecological reserve is not

necessarily unused—it may be supplying resources

for export, or sequestering carbon dioxide. Maintaining

ecological reserves provides a competitive advantage,

and serves as insurance against economic and eco-

logical instability. Conversely, as reserves disappear,

countries are at risk of greater dependency on eco-

logical services from others, and the possibilities for

sustainable development are reduced.

Notice that the graphs have different scales


Intertropical convergence zone, NASA


“First we have to change how we view the world, and that will cause us to change how we act.” Thomas Homer-Dixon


The changing world

The Earth as seen from the Space Station window. Today we can see ourselves from space as a sphere in a cosmic voyage. The artificial borders between countries are almost unnotice-able, and the perception of the planet is as a unit in which all it’s parts have a regulatory effect that promotes life. Photo NASA.

The world is changing and we cannot continue to

ignore the importance of ecological assets.

In the past, we valued economic growth and quick

profit with no concern for the environment. Today,

having exceeded the limits of the planet, it becomes

ever more important to manage our ecological wealth

responsibly, so that it can continue to support both

human and economic wellbeing.

In the past, maximizing financial capital was the goal,

regardless of environmental consequences. But per-

haps maximizing ecological assets is a more power-

ful goal. Nature is the playing field that makes pos-

sible all economic activity. Ecological assets can be

both opportunities as well as constraints; how do we

measure them, and manage them wisely?

In the past, we sought to dominate nature in our

quest for it to service mankind, provoking the de-

struction of nature. Can we establish instead a har-

monious relationship between human beings and

the rest of nature to maximize the wellbeing of both?

In the past, we have often treated nature simply as

a pantry of resources. This has lead not only to pol-

lution and the degradation of the natural capital, but

also to a sense of disconnection and loss of mean-

ing. Can we establish instead a symbiotic relation-

ship between human and natural communities, pre-

serving the integrity of life and restoring the sense of

joy at being one with the Earth?

In the past, we asked, who is right? Who is wrong?

Who needs to change? Today, could we begin to ask

ourselves, “how can we collaborate to create a good

life for all?”

In the past, we tried to establish relations only with with the

perfect partner. Could it be that, more important than hav-

ing the perfect partner is being the perfect partner?

In the past, we thought that it was impossible to agree

unless all participants were willing. Could it be that one

partner can create the difference by choosing to act

with ethical leadership?

In the past, changes were often slow and incremental.

Might we now be on the verge of a quantum leap that

can establish balance between humanity and the natural

world?

“I go and come with a strange liberty in Nature, a part of herself ” .H. D. Thoreau


The green pigment of chlo-rophyll from plants, trees and algae absorbs the en-ergy from the sun and pro-duces a series of chemical reactions (photosynthesis) that combine carbon diox-ide with water to produce food. Oxygen is a byproduct of this process. Los Micos lagoon, San Pe-dro Sula region, Honduras (15°47’ N, 87°35’ W) ©Yann Arthus-Bertrand.


Helix Nebula, a spectacular image of a dying star unraveling into space at a distance of 650 light years, in the Aquarius constellation. Photo of Splitzer Space Telescope, NASA


“A vision is not just a picture of what could be; it is an appeal to our better selves, a call to become something more”.

Rosabeth Moss Kanter


Vision of a good life

Humanity’s challenge is to live well, while carefully using

the resources that nature provides so that the wellbe-

ing of future generations is not compromised. This is

the challenge of sustainable development. The United

Nations defines living well as surpassing minimum stan-

dards for life expectancy, for education and literacy, and

for the ability to purchase needed goods and services;

together these determine a nation’s score on the Hu-

man Development Index (HDI). The UN defines a score

of 0.8 as the threshold for a high level of development.

But living well can only be sustained if it is done within

the Earth’s ecological limits. This means that the av-

erage person’s Ecological Footprint must not exceed

the biocapacity available to support each individual on

the planet. Using world-average productivity figures for

the 6.5 billion inhabitants of the planet, we each have

available just over 2 hectares of fertile land. However, if

we take into account that biocapacity must be shared

with other species. In reality we have much less than 2

hectares. Taken together, these two thresholds define

the minimum conditions that must be met if a globally

sustainable society is to be achieved.

As populations expand, economies grow and the de-

mand for ecological resources increases. Thus, both

the biocapacity available to support each individual’s

consumption shrinks and the space for sustainable de-

velopment is reduced.

World population is rising at 1.3% a year.

At this rate, population doubles every 50

years. However since we live in a finite

world, it is impossible for this population

growth to continue indefinitely. Growth will

decline as the Earth’s carrying capacity

becomes more evident. Equally can we

ask ourselves if it is the same with the

economy? Can the economy grow infi-

nitely? After all, the economy is subsidiary

of the environment and cannot continue to

operate without a supply of the resources

upon which it depends, and adequate

means to dispose of its waste. Crowd in Abengourou, Ivory Coast (6°44’ N, 3°29’ W). ©Yann Arthus-Ber-trand.

… From a thing-oriented society to a people-oriented society. M. L. King


In a sustainable world, all countries would enjoy a high level of development, defined by the UN as an HDI

score above 0.8, and the average Ecological Footprint would be less than 2.1 global hectares, the amount

currently available per person on the planet. Countries meeting both these criteria would be located in the

green quadrant. As world population grows, or if a percentage of biocapacity is reserved for the use of wild

species, the green quadrant shrinks accordingly.

In spite of international recognition almost twenty years ago of the need for sustainable development, al-

most no country now meets both of these minimal criteria.

Can we learn to live well on less than 2.1 global hectares per person?


Garbage disposal is one of the biggest problems of the cit-ies. Mexico produces 20,000 tones of resi-dential garbage daily. Refuse dump in Mexi-co City, Mexico (19°25’ N – 99°01’ W)


“We simply don’t have a vision of an alternative economic system that isn’t oriented toward unending material growth.

Until we have an alternative vision, we won’t give up the one we have.” Homer-Dixon


A new way to see ourselves

In this graph, countries running ecologi-cal deficits-those whose Footprints ex-ceed their own biocapacity- are shown in red.

Ecological creditor countries -those who have more biocapacity than they them-selves are using- are shown in green.

In facing this formidable challenge of living well

within ecological limits, economic indicators of

consumption like GDP perhaps become less valu-

able, and the differences between ‘developed’ and

’developing’ countries become less meaningful. As

resource constraints play an increasingly prominent

role in determining quality of life, the distinction be-

tween countries that have more biocapacity than

they are using and those running ecological deficits

is becoming ever more significant.

Geopolitics in the 20th century emphasized the

strategic importance of controlling non-renewable

natural resources, with demand for fossil fuels,

metals and minerals playing a critical role in shaping

foreign policy in the search for new commercial op-

portunities, and military control.

But in today’s world, new means of connectivity fa-

cilitate social relations and global transactions that

are taking place at the speed of light. The Earth is

transitioning from a battleground to a single, inte-

grated, interdependent, and ultimately indivisible

whole.

Scientists are coming to see the living planet as a

single, self-regulating organism, with its fauna and

flora interacting with geochemical processes keep-

ing the climate stable and suitable for life.


This meat factory reflects the degree of industrialization in Ja-pan. Cattle raised here are fed with resources that are grown using biocapacity located in distant regions. Much of this biocapacity is found in ecological creditor countries. Cattle-raising near Fukuyama (East of Hiroshima), Honshu, Japan (34°31’ N, 133°20’ E) ©Yann Arthus-Bertrand.

Agricultural landscape near Quito, Ecuador (0°13’ S, 78°30’ W). ©Yann Arthus-Bertrand.

The search to integrate the human community with the larger biological community suggests the need for a new social and economic architecture, one that is

more aligned with the earth’s physiology. The old geopolitical paradigm is being replaced by a new biopolitical one, and with this shift will come a transition from

competition to collaboration, a richness of new possibilities, and creative new solutions for living well without transgressing the Earth’s ecological limits.


Night on Earth reveals the regions of the planet where energy consumption is concentrated. Approximately 85% of the elec-trical energy of the planet is generated from coal and oil, which are increasingly scarce and pollute the atmosphere with car-bon dioxide.

In this picture fires set to burn forest land for agricultural ex-pansion are also visible. Up to 25% of global carbon emis-sions result from the burning of forests.

Flaring of natural gas during petroleum extraction can also be seen. More than 100 billion cubic meters of gas are

wasted each year, enough to power both Germany and France.

The glare of blue light in the oceans comes from commercial fishing at night. Photo NASA.


Earth by day shows where land is covered by vegetation, and the marine area where most ecological services are being pro-vided. The services provided by these areas include the cap-ture of dispersed carbon dioxide and its regeneration, through photosynthesis, into useful resources. Other invaluable servic-es provided by ecosystems include climate regulation, oxygen

production, erosion control, recycling of fresh water, and the provision of habitat for biodiversity. These essential services are not typically measured nor valued in monetary terms, and as a result are often taken for granted. This situation is likely to change as the world becomes increasingly resource con-strained, and ecological creditor countries begin to realize the

value of the biocapacity they are making available for use by others, and then seek to be compensated for the ecological services they are providing. Terra modis, aqua modis. NASA 2005


Ecological creditor and ecological deficit countries

Countries with ecological defi-cits have an Ecological Footprint greater than their own biocapac-ity. Ecological creditor countries have Footprints smaller than their biocapacity.Creditor countries might use their net biocapacity reserves to sup-port increased consumption by their own residents, to generate goods for export, to sequester carbon, or to set area aside for the protection of biodiversity. Some, but not all of these uses are mutually compatible. Coun-tries running ecological deficits are drawing down their own eco-systems, or depending on the biocapacity of other nations for imported resources and/or for carbon sequestration.

Ecological deficit countries, those without sufficient bio-

capacity to meet their own demands, risk economic dis-

ruption as increasing scarcity of resources and limits on

carbon emissions bring higher prices. Countries whose

biocapacity is greater than their Footprints, ecological

creditors, have ecological assets that could contribute

to maintaining their autonomy and independence, and

provide a form of insurance against economic and eco-

logical instability. This more secure position may prove

advantageous in future international relations.

While countries with ecological deficits may need to im-

port resources, countries with biocapacity greater than

their own Footprints often use the remainder to provide

exports that generate income. If managed well, these

ecological assets can provide an ongoing revenue

stream that continues indefinitely. But if overexploited,

these same ecosystems can become degraded and

suffer a reduction or even permanent loss of productiv-

ity due to pollution, deforestation, agricultural practices

that lead to erosion and a corresponding loss of eco-

systems and their services. This reduces the possibility

of achieving sustainable development goals, both for

that individual nation and for the planet as a whole.

How then do we best manage this ecological wealth?

This challenge is for all countries, ecological creditors

as well as those running ecological deficits, and meet-


ing this challenge requires both vision, and the practical

tools to make sustainable development a reality.

When Japan imports Ecuadorian wood to make pa-

per, when Europe imports meat fed by Brazilian soy, or

when the United States imports Peruvian cotton, these

importing countries, all of whom are running ecological

deficits, are using biocapacity from beyond their own

borders. Because disruptions of this supply chain can

negatively impact their economies and their quality of

life, countries with ecological deficits that are importing

renewable resources are dependent on how well both

their own ecological assets and those of their trading

partners are being managed.

For countries that can’t currently afford to import re-

sources, it is especially in their self-interest to make

sure their own biocapacity is well-managed. If not,

these countries are at greater risk of scarcity, hunger,

desertification, economic collapse, political instability

and resource wars.

In an increasingly resource-constrained world, ecologi-

cal assets and the politics of the biosphere are playing

an ever more important role in international relations.

Every country has its own unique characteristics and

its own path to follow, and there are many factors each

needs to consider to decrease risks to the quality of life

of its inhabitants. But all countries face a common set

of challenges as well: to build and maintain a robust

economy while minimizing dependence on limited eco-

logical resources, and to ensure that the biocapacity

on which it depends, whether local or global, can con-

tinue to provide the necessary resources and to safely

absorb the waste. Changes are slow and the sooner

we act, the greater will be the return on the investment.

Pioneers may well benefit.

Meeting these challenges will require the creation of

resource-efficient and waste-reuse infrastructure, and

in many cases a leapfrogging over resource-intensive

phases of development that are no longer technologi-

cally necessary. Together with the appropriate programs

and regulations, this focus on investing in low-Footprint

infrastructure will help bring about and then sustain a

high level of development. However, reaching this goal

also means managing biocapacity to optimize its long-

term productivity, while paying careful attention to the

impact of a growing population on overall demand for

goods and services.

Exploitation of forests for wood is a main contributor to the Brazilian economy. Close to 8,000 square miles are deforested each year in the Amazon basin. The world loses around 45,000 square miles a year of tropical forest. 80% of the deforesta-tion is illegal so what is needed is political will and economic incentives to keep the forests alive. Floating wood down the Amazon, near the city of Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil (3°09’ S, 59°58’ W). ©Yann Arthus-Bertrand.


Investment priorities

Today’s infrastructure investment policies are decisions

that will affect the future wellbeing for generations, as what

is built today will be around for many decades to come.

Ecological Footprint analysis can inform the decision

making process so the infrastructure projects we are

about to build will contribute to future quality of life, and

not become resource traps that compromise wellbeing

and increase dependency and vulnerability. It can help

us shape and answer questions like:

How can we best invest in renewable energies that,

while reducing dependency on polluting and increas-

ingly scarce fossil fuels, do not create problems else-

where in the biosphere? How do we build and en-

courage use of the most efficient and resilient public

transportation systems?

Big infrastructure projects take years to plan, design

and finance and while many are about to leave the

drawing board and begin the building phase, with the

ecological challenges we are facing, numerous proj-

ects are already obsolete even before they are built.

Which infrastructure ventures need to be redesigned

to avoid falling into resource traps that will compromise

the wellbeing of future generations? Which will be resil-

ient enough to take advantage of future opportunities in

a resource constrained world?

Renewable and clean energy is generated with technologies developed by the air space indus-try to harness the power of the wind. Windmills of Banning Pass, near Palm Springs, California, United States (33°55’ N, 116°42’ W). ©Yann Ar-thus-Bertrand.

Moderate UN projections translated into Ecological

Footprint terms, suggest that by the mid 2030s the

pressure from human activity will be double the Earth’s

biocapacity to meet it. We have already been running

ecological deficits for at least a quarter of a century, and

the accumulating debt continues to grow. The degrada-

tion of the ecosystem is in danger of bringing collapse

to life as we know it. Society needs to change course

to live within the limits of our one and only planet. We

need the right information, the creativity and the will to

establish unprecedented global collaborations.


Vehicles are responsible for 20% of world greenhouse gas emissions, but indirectly they are also responsible for emis-sions from the manufacturing of steel, aluminum, rubber, lead, asphalt, and cement for road building. There are 800 million cars in the world today. These cars re-quire continuous investment in new roads and other hard sur-faces, which typically result in the paving over of bioproductive areas. Freeway interchange near the port of Yokohama, Hons-hu, Japan (35°27’ N, 139°41’ E). ©Yann Arthus-Bertrand.

The Earth provides us with everything we need to live

and thrive, but with the human community having al-

ready surpassed the planet’s ecological limits, devel-

oping sustainably can no longer be delayed.

Just as it is essential for a business to keep detailed

financial accounts in order to manage and benefit from

its assets, countries need ecological resource ac-

counts to manage their ecological assets and protect

the wellbeing of their populations. With the same atten-

tion that today we pay to GDP, paying close attention

to biocapacity and Ecological Footprint resource ac-

counts can tell us how much we have, how much we

are using, what is being used, and by whom. Doing so

provides us with the essential information needed to

make ecological limits a central consideration in policy

and decision making. It can help us answer questions

such as:

Is your country running an ecological deficit or are you

still an ecological creditor?

What are the risks and opportunities for your country in

a resource constrained world?

What ecological assets does your country have, and

how are they valued in the world market?

Are these ecological assets thriving or declining?

Can technological advances and greater efficiency

compensate for increased demand for goods and ser-

vices?

How can your population live well using fewer re-

sources?

Are your infrastructure investments contributing to

your country’s security, or are they increasing its vul-

nerability?

This new symbiotic vision based on biological resourc-

es means rethinking the conventional geopolitical as-

sumptions and ideas about security and progress that

don’t take into account the natural dynamic of ecosys-

tems, and all that is making it difficult to live in a sustain-

able way.


Credits

Global Footprint Network Mathis Wackernagel - Executive Director

Fundación Acuerdo EcuadorGloria Dávila – Executive Director

Foro de Ciudades para la VidaLiliana Miranda: Director

Text y ProductionJuan Alfonso Peña

Contributing EditorsSteven GoldfingerPati PoblatiGloria DávilaLiliana MirandaMathis Wackernagel

InfographicsMeredith StechbartJuan Carcelen

PhotographyYann Arthus-BertrandPatricio PillajoJuan Alfonso PeñaNASA

Additional Contribution Susan BurnsJennifer MitchelAili PyhalaMartin KaercherTatjana PuschkarskyKristin KaneAnna Oursler Rachel Hodara

Graphic designDaniela Arias

PrintedImprenta MariscalQuito EcuadorAugust 2009

Photographs

Photographs accredited as NASA, provided by many sources, are the result of the collaboration between various institutions: Image science & Análisis Laboratory, JSC (Jonson Space Center), JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory), Splitzer Space Telescope. UCSD, Caltech, UA. All pho-tographs and images have been obtained using a variety of methods from X ray, MODIS (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer), OLS (Operational Linescan System) taken from terrestrial systems, space chips, and orbiting satellites. Photos courtesy of Yann Arthus-Bertrand from the book “Earth from Above 365 Days” published by Harry N. Abrams. www.yannarthus-bertrand.org and www.goodplanet.orgPhotos from Patricio Pillajo courtesy of Fundación TerraCover photo: Charlevoix forest, Quebec Province, Canada. ©Yann Arthus-Bertrand. Page 2.1: Color coded mineral and soil compossi-tion of the moon, NASA. Page 2.2 Earth satellite composition, NASA. Page 3: biosphere, gemini 9, NASA. Page 4: Anvil over the pacific ocean, ISS007,July 21, 2003 NASA. Page 6: Composition of satellite images, NASA. Page 7: Deforestation in Amazonia, Mato Grosso, Bra-zil. ©Yann Arthus-Bertrand. Page 12: intertropical convergence zone, NASA. Page 14: Internacional Space Station window, NASA. Page 15 Los Micos lagoon, San Pedro Sula region, Honduras. ©Yann Arthus-Bertrand. Page 16: Helix Nebula, Splitzer Space Telescope. NASA. Page 18: Crowd in Abengourou, Ivory coast ©Yann Arthus-Bertrand. Page 19.1: Plantation, Juan Alfonso Peña. 19.2: Ají, Juan Alfonso Peña. 19.3: Tomatoes, Juan Alfonso Peña. 19.4: Corn. Juan Alfonso Peña. 19.5: Herbs, Juan Alfonso Peña. 19.6: Water, Patricio Pillajo. Page 20: Refuse dump in Mexico City, Mexico ©Yann Arthus-Ber-trand. Page 23.1: Cattle-raising near Fukuyama (East of Hiroshima), Honshu, Japan. ©Yann Arthus-Bertrand. 23.2: Agricultural landsca-pe near Quito, Ecuador. ©Yann Arthus-Bertrand. Page 24: Data Marc Imhoff, NASA GSFC & Christopher Elvidge of NOAA NGDC. Image Craig Mayhew & Robert Simmon, NASA GSFC. Pag. 25: Images with-out clouds. Terra MODIS y Aqua MODIS, NASA. Oct. 2005. Page 27: Floating wood down the Amazon, near the city of Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil. ©Yann Arthus-Bertrand. Page 28: Windmills of Banning Pass, near Palm Springs, California, United States. ©Yann Arthus-Bertrand. Page 29: Freeway interchange near the port of Yokohama, Honshu, Japan. ©Yann Arthus-Bertrand. Inner back cover: High Andean forest, Ecuador. © Patricio Pillajo

References and further reading

Ecological Footprint Atlas, Global Footprint Network, 2008. www.foot-printnetwork.org/atlas.Biosphere, Vladimir Vernardsky, 1962El cambio climático no tiene fronteras, Carlos Amat, Comunidad Andina. 2008Global Land Cover, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Joint Research Centre, European Commission, 2000 http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/our-activities/global-support/global-land-cover-2000.html. Quanti-fying and mapping the human appropiation of net primary production in earth’s terrestrial ecosystems. H.Haberl, K.H. Erb, F. Krausman, V. Gaube, E. Bondeau, C. Plutzar, S. Gingrich, W. Lucht, M. Fisher-K. 2007, www.pnas.org/content/104/31/12942/soppl/DC1.Climate change, scientific bases IPCC, 2001. Cambridge University Press, UK.Nuestra huella ecológica, Mathis Wackernagel and William Reese, 1996. LOM Ediciones.Sea around us, Global database on marine fisheries and ecosystems center. 2008, University of British Columbia. www.seaaroundus.org United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics Database. UN Comtrade. 2008. UN. NY. http://comtrade.un.orgCountry classification, Data and statistic division World Bank, 2008. http://go.worldbank.org/K2CKM78CC0 Earth trends environmental in-formation, World Resources Institute. 2007. http://earthtrends.wri.orgToward a new sustainable economy, Robert Costanza, University of Vermont. 2009, real-world economics review, issue no. 49 https://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&attid=0.1&thid=1204aae476eb62b4&mt=application%2Fpdf Living Planet Report. WWF, GFN, ZSL. 2008. For the common good. Redirecting the Economy toward Community, the Environment, and a Sustainable Future. Herman Daly-John B. Cobb. 1989.The Upside of Down: Catastrophe, Creativity, and the Renewal of Civili-zation. Thomas Homer-Dixon. 2006 The Ingenuity Gap, how can we solve the problems of the future. Thom-as Homer-Dixon. 2000An Ecological Footprint Approach to external debt relief. Mariano Torras. 2003. Adelphi University NY. From production-based to consumption-based national emission inven-tories. Glen P. Peters. 2007 ww.elsevier.com/locate/ecoleconAfter the meltdown. David Korten. 2009. ww.davidkorten.org Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim? James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Pushker Kharecha, David Beerling, Robert Berner, Valerie Masson-Delmotte, Mark Pagani, Maureen Raymo, Dana L. Royer, James C. Zachos. The Open Atmospheric Science Journal, vol 2, 2008,

ecological power of nations - footprint network

Documents