footprint and biocapacity atlas of francophonie … · preparing economies for the “global...

FOOTPRINT AND BIOCAPACITY ATLAS OF

FRANCOPHONIE MEMBER NATIONSPREPARING ECONOMIES FOR THE “GLOBAL AUCTION”

P R E V I E W

http://www.footprintnetwork.org

http://www.francophonie.org

http://www.iepf.org

II

Introduction

From Ecological Creditors to Debtors

Ecological Footprint and Biocapacity

in Francophone Nations

Succeeding in the Global Auction

Country Profi les

Belgium

RD Congo

Egypt

France

Greece

Guinea-Bissau

Lebanon

Marocco

Senegal

Togo

Tunisia

Appendix A

Footprint and Biocapacity

Methodology

Appendix B

References

Abbreviations

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

32

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

Global Footprint Networkpromotes a sustainable economy by advancing the use of the Ecological Footprint, a resource management tool that measures how much nature we have, how much we use and who uses what. All Footprint and biocapacity data in this report are based on the National Footprint Accounts, Edition 2011.www.footprintnetwork.org

Organisation Internationale de La Francophonie The International Organisation of the Francophonie (OIF) represents the countries that share the French language. Today, it includes 75 member states and governments (56 members and 19 observers) on fi ve continents. It represents a unique group for whom the sharing of a common language is a starting point for political, economic and cultural cooperation between its members.www.francophonie.org Institute de l’énergie et del’environnement de la Francophonie (IEFP)OIF is also involved in sustainabledevelopment cooperation through (IEEP). IEFP’s mission is to contribute to strengthening national capabilities on both institutional and individual levels and to promote partnerships in the fi eld of energy and the environment. IEPF has been created in 1988 to refl ect the commitment of heads of States and governments of Francophone countries for a concerted action on developing the energy sector in member countries. In 1996, this mission was expanded to include the environment. www.iepf.org

PUBLICATIONS DIRECTOR

Fatimata Dia Touré, Directrice de l’IEPF

SCIENTIFIC TEAM

Mathis Wackernagel*David Moore*Alessandro Galli*Katsunori Iha*Gemma Cranston*

COORDINATION

Rajae Chafi l, IEPF

AUTHORS

Mathis Wackernagel*David Moore*Scott Mattoon*Melissa Mazzarella*Rajae Chafi l, IEPFAlessandro Galli*

MEMBERS OF FRANCOPHONIE’S IEPF

Fatimata Dia Touré, Director

Prosper Biabo, Program Director

Rajae Chafi l, Program Specialist

Louis-Noël Jail, Communication

Jacinthe Potvin, Information Services

DESIGN

MaddoxDesign.net

*Global Footprint Network

ISBN of the English version of the Footprint and Biocapacity Atlas

of Francophonie Member Nations:978-2-89481-120-7

With additional fi nancial support from:

In collaboration with:



http://www.iepf.org

http://www.maddoxdesign.net

1

FOOTPRINT AND BIOCAPACIT Y ATL AS OF FRANCOPHONIE MEMBER NATIONS

e are in a new era of resource constraints,

with countries becoming increasingly dependent

on resources they do not have.

As a result, more countries are competing

in an accelerated race for limited global resources.

We call this new dynamic “The global auction.”

To remain economically competitive,

countries with ecological defi cits need new tools

for successful policy and investment decisions.

Economic planners and private investors who ignore

this new reality put their assets in peril.

“W

1

2

Even the strongest economies will not operate without fuel, water, food and fi bers. Input of primary resources keeps economies on the move. During the 20th century, such inputs were easily available. Prices were falling. As a result, most countries became dependent on large amounts of natural resources they did not have—both non-renewables (such as fossil fuels) and biological resources and services (such as food, water, fi bers and carbon sequestration). While resources are still relatively cheap today, growing global demand has led to a supply crunch. This new situation is reshaping the rules of competitiveness for all economies.

The Ecological Footprint represents humanity’s demand on the planet for natural resources and ecosystem services. Biocapacity tracks Earth’s supply of these same resources and services. Both Ecological Footprint and biocapacity results are expressed in a globally comparable, standardized unit called a “global hectare” (gha)—a hectare of biologically productive land or sea area with world average bioproductivity in a given year.

These two indicators show a clear trend over the past 50 years: More and more countries are becoming ecological debtors—that is, their Footprint exceeds the biocapacity available within their borders. As the maps show, in 1961 most people lived in countries that had more biocapacity than their residents demanded. By 2008, 83 percent of the world population lived in countries that demanded more than what their local ecosystems could renew.

F R A N C O P H O N E N A T I O N S

Member nations of the Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie represent a diversity of geographies, cultures, and

economic possibilities. Through La Francophonie, they are united in the goal of advancing peace and sustainable development.

Global Footprint Network’s initiative with La Francophonie has this same goal at heart. Its purpose is to summarize the

resource situation of those nations using the Ecological Footprint and biocapacity indicators, and to identify how resource

constraints carry implications for their economic performance. The full Footprint Atlas will be published in 2013.

FROM ECOLOGICAL CREDITORS TO DEBTORSE C O L O G I C A L C R E D I T O R S A N D E C O L O G I C A L D E B T O R S 1 9 61

3


Countries with ecological defi cits (when the Footprint exceeds local biocapacity) depend on net imports of resources, on depletion of their ecological assets, and/or on the use of global commons (such as the sequestration of anthropogenic CO2 pollution). Dependence on imported resources exposes a country to supply disruption and price volatility. Overharvesting causes a loss of capital assets. Emitting CO2 from fossil fuel burning is largely free of direct costs for now, but fossil fuels are far from free. For instance, oil costs dwarf even the most aggressive proposed CO2 taxes.

E C O L O G I C A L C R E D I T O R S

Biocapacity is

0-50% larger than footprint



>150% larger than footprint

Data not available

Ecological creditor countries use fewer re-sources and ecological services than are available within their borders, and there-fore are endowed with a biocapacity reserve. Biocapacity reserves, in an in-creasingly resource-constrained world, are becoming rare and more sought after. The growing value of biocapacity gives those countries an economic advantage.

E C O L O G I C A L D E B T O R S

Footprint is

0-50% larger than biocapacity



>150% larger than biocapacity

Data not available

E C O L O G I C A L C R E D I T O R S A N D E C O L O G I C A L D E B T O R S 2 0 0 8

GLOBAL FOOTPRINT

GLOBAL BIOCAPACITY= 1.5

O N E K E Y T R E N D I S C L E A R :

more and more countries are becoming ecological debtors. As the maps show, there has been a signifi cant shift since 1961. Back then,

most people lived in countries that had more biocapacity than their residents demanded. In other words, they were like true farms,

where the farm family is consuming less than what their farm can produce. By now 83 percent of the world population lives in countries

where residents demand more than what their ecosystems can renew. Humanity’s demand is now 50 percent larger than the planet’s

biocapacity, up from a 30 percent reserve in 1961. This global overshoot translates inevitably into liquidation of ecological assets.

4

Gab

on

Cana

da

Cong

o

Esto

nia

Cent

ral A

frica

n Re

p.

Latv

ia

Mau

ritan

ia

Lithu

ania

Gui

nea-

Biss

au

Austr

ia

Chad

RD, C

ongo

Fran

ce

Gui

nea

Mad

agas

car

Slov

akia

Hung

ary

rebmuN rebmuN

glob

al h

ecta

res

per p

erso

n

28

26

24

22

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

30

ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT AND BIOCAPACIT Y IN FRANCOPHONE NATIONS

W H Y B I O C A P A C I T Y

M A T T E R S Humanity is entering a new era of constraints, when demand exceeds the planet’s limited supplies of natural resources and other ecosystem services. While many resource and consumption trends are global, each country is in a unique situation (as demonstrated by countries’ biocapacity and Footprint trends shown for 11 countries in the appendix).

Human and non-human life compete for area on this planet, and is ultimately limited by the biosphere’s regenerative capacity. In addition to the scarcity of crop land, fi shing grounds, forests, and the like, use of non-renewable resources from the lithosphere also faces limitations.

The primary lithosphere resource, fossil fuel, is most restricted by the biosphere’s fi nite capacity to absorb CO2 waste. Biocapacity is far more limited than oil, gas and coal availability. In fact, if humanity burned more than one fi fth of the fossil fuels already found, global average temperatures would increase more than 2 degrees Celsius, a commonly recognized upper threshold for dangerous climate change (carbontracker.org).

T H E E C O L O G I C A L F O O T P R I N T measures people’s demand on nature. It is expressed as the biologically productive land and sea area required to provide all the ecosystem services people use through the consumption of their goods and services. In 2008, humanity’s Ecological Footprint was 18 billion global hectares (gha), or 2.7 gha per person. On the supply side, the planet’s productive area, or biocapacity, was 12 billion gha, or 1.8 gha per person. This means global demand exceeded the planet’s supply by the aforementioned 50 percent (2.7 gha/1.8 gha ≈ 1.5).

A country’s Footprint is the sum of all the cropland, grazing land, forest and fi shing grounds required to produce the food, fi ber, timber, and fuel wood it consumes, to provide space for its settlements and infrastructure, and to absorb the wastes it emits (current Footprint calculations only include one waste: CO2 from fossil fuels). A country’s Footprint calculation includes its net imports—that is, when residents demand resources and ecological services from foreign ecosystems, it adds to their total and per capita Footprint. In 2008, the single largest demand humanity put on the biosphere was its carbon Footprint.

E C O L O G I C A L F O O T P R I N T

Built up land

Carbon Footprint

Fish Footprint

Forest product Footprint

Grazing Footprint

Cropland Footprint

4

5


Croa

tia

Bulg

aria

Slov

enia

FRA

NCO

PHO

NIE

Rom

ania

Mal

i

Ukra

ine

Moz

ambi

que

Pola

nd

Luxe

mbo

urg

***

Cam

eroo

n

WO

RLD

Lao

Peop

le's

DR

Bosn

ia &

Her

zego

vina

Gre

ece

Mac

edon

ia TF

YR

Serb

ia*

Sene

gal

Burk

ina

Faso

Belg

ium

Mol

dova

Gha

na

Switz

erla

nd

Thai

land

Geo

rgia

Viet

Nam

Cam

bodi

a

Beni

n

Tuni

sia

Alba

nia

Arm

enia

Mor

occo

Togo

Egyp

t*

UAE

Mau

ritiu

s

Dom

inica

n Re

publ

ic

Rwan

da

Buru

ndi

Leba

non

Haiti

Global biocapacity per person (2008), including space needed for wild species.

Figure 1: Ecological Footprint and biocapacity ranked by countries’ per capita biocapacity.

This comparison includes all Francophonie member countries for which suffi cient data are available

(typically those with populations greater than 1 million). While the average per person Footprint

among members is slightly smaller than the world average, their biocapacity per person

exceeds that of the world by one third.

BIOCAPACIT Y is infl uenced both by natural events and human activities. Some agricultural practices, for example, can reduce long-term biocapacity by increasing soil erosion or salinity. Climate change, whether driven by human or natural forces, can decrease forest biocapacity as drier and warmer weather increase the potential for changing species composition, yield losses, fi res and pest outbreaks.

In an era of global overshoot, the uneven distribution of biocapacity

raises political and economic questions. Ecological debtor countries face

increasing risk from a growing dependence on the biological capacity

of others. Conversely, countries with biocapacity reserves can view their

biological wealth as an asset that provides an important competitive

advantage in an uncertain world.

B I O C A P A C I T Y

Built up land

Fishing Ground

Forest Land

Grazing Land

Cropland

6

S U C C E E D I N G I N T H E G L O B A L A U C T I O N

Global Footprint Network’s data highlights the fundamental confl ict between two major trends: Human demand for biocapacity is continuously increasing, while relative income for many countries is in decline.

For many Francophonie member countries, their residents’ absolute income may have increased on average, but their share in global income has fallen. For instance, the French resident today earns on average 35 percent less of the total global income than 30 years ago (measured in GNI according to World Bank statistics). The resident of Senegal receives on average 50 percent less of the global income than three decades earlier. This is creating a new challenge for these and other countries: Since all countries participate in increasingly interconnected economies, dropping relative incomes make it more diffi cult for ecological debtors to compete in the global market for the world’s limited resources.

This is the essence: for most countries, the relative income of residents’ has decreased. At the same time, biocapacity defi cits have increased (or biocapacity reserves have shrunk). As countries depend more on biocapacity from outside the country, their ability to

bid for these resources is diminishing.

These confl icting trends point to a

structural weakening of countries’

economies. Before the global auction

for biocapacity (when resources were

abundant), declining relative income

barely affected countries’ economies.

In the era of plentiful resources, supply

of goods and resources was limited

only by market demands. In a world

where resource costs are becoming a

signifi cant factor to economic production,

biocapacity and relative income

trends will become key determinants of

economic success or failure.

W H Y A N A U C T I O N

– A N D W H Y

T H E F O C U S O N

R E L A T I V E I N C O M E ?

We are in a world of resource

limitations, with more countries

wanting—and competing for—more

of the planet’s limited biocapacity. In

this global auction of fi nite goods,

what matters most is not absolute

ability to pay, but the relative ability

compared to all the other bidding

powers. If people’s relative income is

decreasing in a world where all want

more, their ability to compete in the

auction is weakening.

To remain competitive, policy

makers need to pay closer attention

to relative income, not just

absolute income. For instance,

what percentage share does an

Egyptian, a Belgian, a Nigerian or

a Cambodian, get from the total

global income pie? And how is this

share changing over time?

W H AT ’ S N E X T ?

La Francophonie and Global Footprint Network will launch the complete report on francophone member nations’ biocapacity and Footprints in mid-2013.

The appendix contains eleven country trends to spotlight the particular situation of those countries.

The initiative’s goal is to help policy analysts identify more specifi c risks and opportunities for each nation, including options for diversifying trade.

The full report will highlight tools for measuring risks, and include strategies for action. It will discuss how to mitigate the risks of a global auction, including countries’ need to revisit their competitiveness strategies and adapt them to this new era of resource constraints. It will also outline why focusing on wealth generation, rather than income maximization, allows countries to build a foundation for a stable economy.

To fi nd out more, or to participate in this initiative, contact La Francophonie at:

rajae.chafi [email protected] or Global Footprint Network at

[email protected].

6

7


1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

-8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0.0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Switzerland

Belgium France

Greece

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0

BIOCAPACIT Y DEFICIT BIOCAPACIT Y RESERVE (gha/cap)

World

Bulgaria

Romania

Egypt

Tunesia

MaroccoCameroon

MaliSenegal

Burkina-Fasco

Viet Nam

Canada

Congo, Democratic RepublicCamaroon

RELA

TIVE IN

CO

ME SH

AR

EFra

ction o

f wo

rld to

tal G

NI held

per co

untry resident,

on a

verag

e (in billio

nths)

-3 -2 -1 0.0 1 2 3

B I O C A P A C I T Y A N D G L O B A L I N C O M E S H A R E ( 1 9 8 5 T O 2 0 0 7 )

Figure 2: Ecological defi cits go up, relative

incomes come down (1985 – 2007).

While the biocapacity defi cits have been growing

fast, per capita income of most countries compared

to global income has been shrinking, weakening

their position to access limited resources from

around the globe.

This means as countries increasingly require

resources and ecological services beyond

what their domestic ecosystems can provide

(in net terms), their relative purchasing power

is declining.

Note: The y-axis shows the fraction of the world’s

GDP a resident of a given country on average

generates. Therefore the world’s average per

person share, per defi nition, is at (1/world

population) or currently at about 0.14 of a

billionths of total world GDP.

G L O B A L A U C T I O NCountries that grow a biocapacity deficit while losing relative income amplify their exposure to the global auction.

CroplandGrazing Land Carbon Footprint

Built-up Land Forest Land Fishing Grounds Population Ecological Footprint - Total Ecological Footprint per capita

Built-up Land CroplandForest Land Fishing Grounds Grazing Land Population Biocapacity per hectare (Biocapacity density) Area Biocapacity per capita

* GNI fraction of world from 1970, not 1961

** HDI value from 1980, not 1961

8

FOOTPRINT AND BIOCAPACIT Y ATL AS OF FRANCOPHONIE MEMBER NATIONSB E L G I U M

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

20001990198019701960G

loba

l Hec

tare

s P

er C

apita

0.0

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

1.5

20001990198019701960

Glo

bal H

ecta

res

Per C

apita

Rel

ativ

e va

lue

(196

1=1)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2005200019951990198519801975197019651960

Figure BE-1: Ecological Footprint per capita in Belgium by component, 1961-2008

Figure BE-2: Contributing drivers of Belgium’s Ecological Footprint, 1961-2008

Figure BE-3: Biocapacity per capita in Belgium by component 1961-2008

Rel

ativ

e va

lue

(196

1=1)

0.6

0.9

1.2

1.5

2005200019951990198519801975197019651960

Figure BE-4: Contributing drivers of Belgium’s biocapacity, 1961-2008

Indicator Value(2008)

Value(1961)

Change(%)

EF per capita [gha] 7.11 6.69 6%- EF Carbon 3.26 2.50 30%

BC per capita [gha] 1.33 1.32 1%BC deficit per capita [gha] 5.78 5.36 8%

- deficit Forest 3.45 2.47 40%GNI per capita[constant 2000 $US]

25,450 7,879 223%

- fraction of world [billionths]

0.63 0.94 -33%

GDP per capita[constant 2000 $US]

25,100 7,800 222%

Exports per capita[constant 2000 $US]

21,967 2,445 798%

Population ['000] 10,710 9,184 17%0-14 1,807 2,149 -16%15-64 7,038 5,906 19%>64 2,405 1,098 119%

HDI 0.88 0.76 16%

Carbon ForestFishing Ground Grazing Land Cropland

Biocapacity per capita Ecological Footprint per capita 0-14 years >65 years15-64 yearsConsumption InvestmentGovernment

GNI (left axis) GNI ratio (right axis)

GDP (left axis):

9


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Popu

latio

n [m

illio

ns]

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Figure BE-9: Belgium’s population by age group, 1961-2010

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Gro

ss D

omes

tic P

rodu

ct P

er C

apita

[c

onsta

nt 2

000

$ U

S]

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

National G

NI per capita over w

orld total GN

I[billionths]

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Figure BE-7: Belgium’s GDP by component, GNI, and ratio of national GNI per capita to world total GNI, 1961-2008

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

2005200019951990198519801975197019651960

Glo

bal H

ecta

res

Per

Cap

ita

Figure BE-6: Belgium’s per capita biocapacity defi cit by contributing land-use type, 1961-2008

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

2005199019751960

Glo

bal H

ecta

res

Per

Cap

ita

Figure BE-5: Belgium’s per capita biocapacity defi cit, 1961-2008

Figure BE-8: Ecological Footprint and HDI for all countries in 2008, with Belgium’s trend for 1980-2008

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.80

22

4

6

8

10

12

United Nations Human Development Index

1.0

Global biocapacity per person in 2008

Eco

log

ical fo

otp

rint in

gh

a p

er p

erso

n

Threshold for high human development

Blue box represents global sustainable development - with high human development within globally replicable resource demands.






10


0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

20001990198019701960G

loba

l Hec

tare

s P

er C

apita

0

3

6

9

12

15

20001990198019701960

Glo

bal H

ecta

res

Per

Cap

ita

Rel

ativ

e va

lue

(196

1=1)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

2005200019951990198519801975197019651960

Figure CD-1: Ecological Footprint per capita in RD Congo by component, 1961-2008

Figure CD-2: Contributing drivers of RD Congo’s Ecological Footprint, 1961-2008

Figure CD-3: Biocapacity per capita in RD Congo by component 1961-2008

Rel

ativ

e va

lue

(196

1=1)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

2005200019951990198519801975197019651960

Figure CD-4: Contributing drivers of RD Congo’s biocapacity, 1961-2008


Value(1961)

Change(%)

EF per capita [gha] 0.76 1.00 -24%- EF Forest 0.50 0.51 -2%

BC per capita [gha] 3.10 13.72 -77%BC deficit per capita [gha] -2.35 -12.72 -82%

- deficit Crop 0.03 -0.02 -211%GNI per capita[constant 2000 $US]

88 271 -68%


0.00 0.03 -92%


101 282 -64%


24 25 -4%

Population ['000] 62,475 15,767 296%0-14 30,530 6,732 354%15-64 33,679 8,188 311%>64 1,940 447 334%

HDI 0.27 0.28 -3%

C O N G O , D E M O C R A T I C R E P U B L I C




GDP (left axis):

11


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Popu

latio

n [m

illio

ns]

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Figure CD-9: RD Congo’s population by age group, 1961-2010

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Gro

ss D

omes

tic P

rodu

ct P

er C

apita

[c

onsta

nt 2

000

$ U

S]

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

( ) ( g ) National G


orld total GN

I[billionths]

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Figure CD-7: RD Congo’s GDP by component, GNI, and ratio of national GNI per capita to world total GNI, 1961-2008

0

3

6

9

12

15

2005200019951990198519801975197019651960

Glo

bal H

ecta

res

Per

Cap

ita

Figure CD-6: RD Congo’s per capita biocapacity defi cit by contributing land-use type, 1961-2008

0

3

6

9

12

15

2005199019751960

Glo

bal H

ecta

res

Per

Cap

ita

Figure CD-5: RD Congo’s per capita biocapacity defi cit, 1961-2008

Figure CD-8: Ecological Footprint and HDI for all countries in 2008, with RD Congo’s trend for 1980-2008

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.80

22

4

6

8

10

12


1.0


Eco

log

ical fo

otp

rint in

gh

a p

er p

erso

n








12


0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

20001990198019701960G

loba

l Hec

tare

s P

er C

apita

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

20001990198019701960

Glo

bal H

ecta

res

Per

Cap

ita

Rel

ativ

e va

lue

(196

1=1)

1

2

3

4

5

6

2005200019951990198519801975197019651960

Figure EG-1: Ecological Footprint per capita in Egypt by component, 1961-2008

Figure EG-2: Contributing drivers of Egypt’s Ecological Footprint, 1961-2008

Figure EG-3: Biocapacity per capita in Egypt by component 1961-2008

Rel

ativ

e va

lue

(196

1=1)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

2005200019951990198519801975197019651960

Figure EG-4: Contributing drivers of Egypt’s biocapacity, 1961-2008


Value(1961)

Change(%)

EF per capita [gha] 1.70 0.87 94%- EF Crop 0.66 0.38 74%



1,874 438 328%


0.05 0.05 1%


1,859 438 325%


745 89 737%

Population ['000] 78,323 28,649 173%0-14 25,581 12,295 108%15-64 51,460 14,707 250%>64 4,634 900 415%

HDI 0.63 0.41 55%

E G Y P T




GDP (left axis):

13


0

20

40

60

80

100

Popu

latio

n [m

illio

ns]

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Figure EG-9: Egypt’s population by age group, 1961-2010

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Gro

ss D

omes

tic P

rodu

ct P

er C

apita

[c

onsta

nt 2

000

$ U

S]

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005



orld total GN

I[billionths]

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Figure EG-7: Egypt’s GDP by component, GNI, and ratio of national GNI per capita to world total GNI, 1961-2008

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2005200019951990198519801975197019651960

Glo

bal H

ecta

res

Per

Cap

ita

Figure EG-6: Egypt’s per capita biocapacity defi cit by contributing land-use type, 1961-2008

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2005199019751960

Glo

bal H

ecta

res

Per

Cap

ita

Figure EG-5: Egypt’s per capita biocapacity defi cit, 1961-2008

Figure EG-8: Ecological Footprint and HDI for all countries in 2008, with Egypt’s trend for 1980-2008

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.80

22

4

6

8

10

12


1.0


Eco

log

ical fo

otp

rint in

gh

a p

er p

erso

n








14


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

20001990198019701960G

loba

l Hec

tare

s P

er C

apita

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

20001990198019701960

Glo

bal H

ecta

res

Per

Cap

ita

Rel

ativ

e va

lue

(196

1=1)

1.0

1.5

2.0

2005200019951990198519801975197019651960

Figure FR-1: Ecological Footprint per capita in France by component, 1961-2008

Figure FR-2: Contributing drivers of France’s Ecological Footprint, 1961-2008

Figure FR-3: Biocapacity per capita in France by component 1961-2008

Rel

ativ

e va

lue

(196

1=1)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2005200019951990198519801975197019651960

Figure FR-4: Contributing drivers of France’s biocapacity, 1961-2008


Value(1961)

Change(%)




23,776 7,871 202%


0.59 0.96 -39%


23,366 7,809 199%


7,059 626 1028%

Population ['000] 64,371 47,255 36%0-14 11,531 12,047 -4%15-64 40,713 28,320 44%>64 13,916 5,322 161%

HDI 0.88 0.72 22%

F R A N C E




GDP (left axis):

15


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Popu

latio

n [m

illio

ns]

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Figure FR-9: France’s population by age group, 1961-2010

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

Gro

ss D

omes

tic P

rodu

ct P

er C

apita

[c

onsta

nt 2

000

$ U

S]

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005



orld total GN

I[billionths]

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Figure FR-7: France’s GDP by component, GNI, and ratio of national GNI per capita to world total GNI, 1961-2008

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2005200019951990198519801975197019651960

Glo

bal H

ecta

res

Per

Cap

ita

Figure FR-6: France’s per capita biocapacity defi cit by contributing land-use type, 1961-2008

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2005199019751960

Glo

bal H

ecta

res

Per

Cap

ita

Figure FR-5: France’s per capita biocapacity defi cit, 1961-2008

Figure FR-8: Ecological Footprint and HDI for all countries in 2008, with France’s trend for 1980-2008

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.80

22

4

6

8

10

12


1.0


Eco

log

ical fo

otp

rint in

gh

a p

er p

erso

n








16


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

20001990198019701960G

loba

l Hec

tare

s P

er C

apita

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

20001990198019701960

Glo

bal H

ecta

res

Per

Cap

ita

Rel

ativ

e va

lue

(196

1=1)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

2005200019951990198519801975197019651960

Figure GR-1: Ecological Footprint per capita in Greece by component, 1961-2008

Figure GR-2: Contributing drivers of Greece’s Ecological Footprint, 1961-2008

Figure GR-3: Biocapacity per capita in Greece by component 1961-2008

Rel

ativ

e va

lue

(196

1=1)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2005200019951990198519801975197019651960

Figure GR-4: Contributing drivers of Greece’s biocapacity, 1961-2008


Value(1961)

Change(%)




14,172 3,782 275%


0.35 0.56 -37%


14,648 3,733 292%


3,667 168 2081%

Population ['000] 11,237 8,398 34%0-14 1,655 2,208 -25%15-64 7,597 5,438 40%>64 2,658 688 287%

HDI 0.86 0.72 20%

G R E E C E




GDP (left axis):

17


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Popu

latio

n [m

illio

ns]

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Figure GR-9: Greece’s population by age group, 1961-2010

0

3000

6000

9000

12000

15000

Gro

ss D

omes

tic P

rodu

ct P

er C

apita

[c

onsta

nt 2

000

$ U

S]

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

National G


orld total GN

I[billionths]

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Figure GR-7: Greece’s GDP by component, GNI, and ratio of national GNI per capita to world total GNI, 1961-2008

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2005200019951990198519801975197019651960

Glo

bal H

ecta

res

Per

Cap

ita

Figure GR-6: Greece’s per capita biocapacity defi cit by contributing land-use type, 1961-2008

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2005199019751960

Glo

bal H

ecta

res

Per

Cap

ita

Figure GR-5: Greece’s per capita biocapacity defi cit, 1961-2008

Figure GR-8: Ecological Footprint and HDI for all countries in 2008, with Greece’s trend for 1980-2008


Eco

log

ical fo

otp

rint in

gh

a p

er p

erso

n


0.2 0.4 0.6 0.80

22

4

6

8

10

12


1.0







18


0.0

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

1.5

20001990198019701960G

loba

l Hec

tare

s P

er C

apita

0

2

4

6

8

10

20001990198019701960

Glo

bal H

ecta

res

Per

Cap

ita

Rel

ativ

e va

lue

(196

1=1)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

2005200019951990198519801975197019651960

Figure GW-1: Ecological Footprint per capita in Guinea-Bissau by component, 1961-2008

Figure GW-2: Contributing drivers of Guinea-Bissau’s Ecological Footprint, 1961-2008

Figure GW-3: Biocapacity per capita in Guinea-Bissau by component 1961-2008

Rel

ativ

e va

lue

(196

1=1)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

2005200019951990198519801975197019651960

Figure GW-4: Contributing drivers of Guinea-Bissau’s biocapacity, 1961-2008


Value(1961)

Change(%)

EF per capita [gha] 1.10 1.33 -17%- EF Grazing 0.42 0.37 12%

BC per capita [gha] 3.40 8.02 -58%BC deficit per capita [gha] -2.30 -6.69 -66%

- deficit Grazing 0.01 -0.66 -101%GNI per capita[constant 2000 $US]

- - -


- - -


158 - -


- - -

Population ['000] 1,454 596 144%0-14 626 245 156%15-64 839 330 154%>64 56 18 210%

HDI 0.35 - -

G U I N E A - B I S S A U




GDP (left axis):

19


0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Popu

latio

n [m

illio

ns]

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Figure GW-9: Guinea-Bissau’s population by age group, 1961-2010

0

50

100

150

200

250

Gro

ss D

omes

tic P

rodu

ct P

er C

apita

[c

onsta

nt 2

000

$ U

S]

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005



orld total GN

I[billionths]

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Figure GW-7: Guinea-Bissau’s GDP by component, GNI, and ratio of national GNI per capita to world total GNI, 1961-2008

0

2

4

6

8

10

2005200019951990198519801975197019651960

Glo

bal H

ecta

res

Per

Cap

ita

Figure GW-6: Guinea-Bissau’s per capita biocapacity defi cit by contributing land-use type, 1961-2008

0

2

4

6

8

10

2005199019751960

Glo

bal H

ecta

res

Per

Cap

ita

Figure GW-5: Guinea-Bissau’s per capita biocapacity defi cit, 1961-2008

Figure GW-8: Ecological Footprint and HDI for all countries in 2008, with Guinea-Bissau’s trend for 1980-2008

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.80

22

4

6

8

10

12


1.0


Eco

log

ical fo

otp

rint in

gh

a p

er p

erso

n








20


0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

20001990198019701960G

loba

l Hec

tare

s P

er C

apita

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

20001990198019701960

Glo

bal H

ecta

res

Per

Cap

ita

Rel

ativ

e va

lue

(196

1=1)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

2005200019951990198519801975197019651960

Figure LB-1: Ecological Footprint per capita in Lebanon by component, 1961-2008

Figure LB-2: Contributing drivers of Lebanon’s Ecological Footprint, 1961-2008

Figure LB-3: Biocapacity per capita in Lebanon by component 1961-2008

Rel

ativ

e va

lue

(196

1=1)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

2005200019951990198519801975197019651960

Figure LB-4: Contributing drivers of Lebanon’s biocapacity, 1961-2008


Value(1961)

Change(%)


BC per capita [gha] 0.39 0.47 -17%BC deficit per capita [gha] 2.45 1.21 103%


5,975 - -


0.15 - -


5,895 - -


1,414 - -

Population ['000] 4,167 1,967 112%0-14 1,048 784 34%15-64 2,871 1,011 184%>64 357 112 219%

HDI 0.73 - -

L E B A N O N




GDP (left axis):

21


0

1

2

3

4

5

Popu

latio

n [m

illio

ns]

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Figure LB-9: Lebanon’s population by age group, 1961-2010

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Gro

ss D

omes

tic P

rodu

ct P

er C

apita

[c

onsta

nt 2

000

$ U

S]

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

National G


orld total GN

I[billionths]

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Figure LB-7: Lebanon’s GDP by component, GNI, and ratio of national GNI per capita to world total GNI, 1961-2008

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

2005200019951990198519801975197019651960

Glo

bal H

ecta

res

Per

Cap

ita

Figure LB-6: Lebanon’s per capita biocapacity defi cit by contributing land-use type, 1961-2008

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

2005199019751960

Glo

bal H

ecta

res

Per

Cap

ita

Figure LB-5: Lebanon’s per capita biocapacity defi cit, 1961-2008

Figure LB-8: Ecological Footprint and HDI for all countries in 2008, with Lebanon’s trend for 1980-2008

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.80

22

4

6

8

10

12


1.0


Eco

log

ical fo

otp

rint in

gh

a p

er p

erso

n








22


0.0

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

1.5

20001990198019701960G

loba

l Hec

tare

s P

er C

apita

0.0

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

1.5

20001990198019701960

Glo

bal H

ecta

res

Per

Cap

ita

Rel

ativ

e va

lue

(196

1=1)

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

2005200019951990198519801975197019651960

Figure MA-1: Ecological Footprint per capita in Morocco by component, 1961-2008

Figure MA-2: Contributing drivers of Morocco’s Ecological Footprint, 1961-2008

Figure MA-3: Biocapacity per capita in Morocco by component 1961-2008

Rel

ativ

e va

lue

(196

1=1)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

2005200019951990198519801975197019651960

Figure MA-4: Contributing drivers of Morocco’s biocapacity, 1961-2008


Value(1961)

Change(%)

EF per capita [gha] 1.32 0.94 41%- EF Crop 0.60 0.32 89%

BC per capita [gha] 0.70 1.14 -39%BC deficit per capita [gha] 0.63 -0.20 -

- deficit Forest 0.34 0.00 -GNI per capita[constant 2000 $US]

1,706 618 176%


0.04 0.06 -35%


1,734 613 183%


603 118 411%

Population ['000] 31,321 11,948 162%0-14 8,949 5,211 72%15-64 21,247 6,114 247%>64 2,010 301 569%

HDI 0.57 0.36 56%

M O R O C C O




GDP (left axis):

23


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Popu

latio

n [m

illio

ns]

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

y yy

Figure MA-9: Morocco’s population by age group, 1961-2010

0

500

1000

1500

2000

Gro

ss D

omes

tic P

rodu

ct P

er C

apita

[c

onsta

nt 2

000

$ U

S]

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005



orld total GN

I[billionths]

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Figure MA-7: Morocco’s GDP by component, GNI, and ratio of national GNI per capita to world total GNI, 1961-2008

0.0

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

1.5

2005200019951990198519801975197019651960

Glo

bal H

ecta

res

Per

Cap

ita

Figure MA-6: Morocco’s per capita biocapacity defi cit by contributing land-use type, 1961-2008

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2005199019751960

Glo

bal H

ecta

res

Per

Cap

ita

Figure MA-5: Morocco’s per capita biocapacity defi cit, 1961-2008

Figure MA-8: Ecological Footprint and HDI for all countries in 2008, with Morocco’s trend for 1980-2008

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.80

22

4

6

8

10

12


1.0


Eco

log

ical fo

otp

rint in

gh

a p

er p

erso

n








24


0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

20001990198019701960G

loba

l Hec

tare

s P

er C

apita

0

1

2

3

4

5

20001990198019701960

Glo

bal H

ecta

res

Per

Cap

ita

Rel

ativ

e va

lue

(196

1=1)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

2005200019951990198519801975197019651960

Figure SN-1: Ecological Footprint per capita in Senegal by component, 1961-2008

Figure SN-2: Contributing drivers of Senegal’s Ecological Footprint, 1961-2008

Figure SN-3: Biocapacity per capita in Senegal by component 1961-2008

Rel

ativ

e va

lue

(196

1=1)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

2005200019951990198519801975197019651960

Figure SN-4: Contributing drivers of Senegal’s biocapacity, 1961-2008


Value(1961)

Change(%)

EF per capita [gha] 1.53 2.32 -34%- EF Crop 0.69 1.00 -31%


- deficit Crop 0.26 -0.08 -GNI per capita[constant 2000 $US]

555 - -


0.01 0.04 -69%


557 617 -10%


161 219 -26%

Population ['000] 11,787 3,131 276%0-14 5,432 1,278 325%15-64 6,703 1,691 296%>64 316 78 304%

HDI 0.45 0.32 41%

S E N E G A L




GDP (left axis):

25


0

3

6

9

12

15

Popu

latio

n [m

illio

ns]

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Figure SN-9: Senegal’s population by age group, 1961-2010

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Gro

ss D

omes

tic P

rodu

ct P

er C

apita

[c

onsta

nt 2

000

$ U

S]

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005



orld total GN

I[billionths]

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Figure SN-7: Senegal’s GDP by component, GNI, and ratio of national GNI per capita to world total GNI, 1961-2008

0

1

2

3

4

5

2005200019951990198519801975197019651960

Glo

bal H

ecta

res

Per

Cap

ita

Figure SN-6: Senegal’s per capita biocapacity defi cit by contributing land-use type, 1961-2008

0

1

2

3

4

5

2005199019751960

Glo

bal H

ecta

res

Per

Cap

ita

Figure SN-5: Senegal’s per capita biocapacity defi cit, 1961-2008

Figure SN-8: Ecological Footprint and HDI for all countries in 2008, with Senegal’s trend for 1980-2008

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.80

22

4

6

8

10

12


1.0


Eco

log

ical fo

otp

rint in

gh

a p

er p

erso

n








26


0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

20001990198019701960G

loba

l Hec

tare

s P

er C

apita

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

20001990198019701960

Glo

bal H

ecta

res

Per

Cap

ita

Rel

ativ

e va

lue

(196

1=1)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

2005200019951990198519801975197019651960

Figure TG-1: Ecological Footprint per capita in Togo by component, 1961-2008

Figure TG-2: Contributing drivers of Togo’s Ecological Footprint, 1961-2008

Figure TG-3: Biocapacity per capita in Togo by component 1961-2008

Rel

ativ

e va

lue

(196

1=1)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

2005200019951990198519801975197019651960

Figure TG-4: Contributing drivers of Togo’s biocapacity, 1961-2008


Value(1961)

Change(%)

EF per capita [gha] 1.03 1.54 -33%- EF Crop 0.41 0.39 5%

BC per capita [gha] 0.67 1.52 -56%BC deficit per capita [gha] 0.36 0.02 2065%

- deficit Forest 0.40 0.60 -34%GNI per capita[constant 2000 $US]

257 194 33%


0.01 0.02 -73%


258 196 32%


82 57 44%

Population ['000] 5,777 1,594 262%0-14 2,390 672 256%15-64 3,433 850 304%>64 231 56 310%

HDI 0.43 0.35 23%

T O G O




GDP (left axis):

27


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Popu

latio

n [m

illio

ns]

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Figure TG-9: Togo’s population by age group, 1961-2010

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Gro

ss D

omes

tic P

rodu

ct P

er C

apita

[c

onsta

nt 2

000

$ U

S]

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

National G


orld total GN

I[billionths]

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Figure TG-7: Togo’s GDP by component, GNI, and ratio of national GNI per capita to world total GNI, 1961-2008

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2005200019951990198519801975197019651960

Glo

bal H

ecta

res

Per

Cap

ita

Figure TG-6: Togo’s per capita biocapacity defi cit by contributing land-use type, 1961-2008

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2005199019751960

Glo

bal H

ecta

res

Per

Cap

ita

Figure TG-5: Togo’s per capita biocapacity defi cit, 1961-2008

Figure TG-8: Ecological Footprint and HDI for all countries in 2008, with Togo’s trend for 1980-2008

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.80

22

4

6

8

10

12


1.0


Eco

log

ical fo

otp

rint in

gh

a p

er p

erso

n








28


0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

20001990198019701960G

loba

l Hec

tare

s P

er C

apita

0.0

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

1.5

20001990198019701960

Glo

bal H

ecta

res

Per

Cap

ita

Rel

ativ

e va

lue

(196

1=1)

0

1

2

3

4

5

2005200019951990198519801975197019651960

Figure TN-1: Ecological Footprint per capita in Tunisia by component, 1961-2008

Figure TN-2: Contributing drivers of Tunisia’s Ecological Footprint, 1961-2008

Figure TN-3: Biocapacity per capita in Tunisia by component 1961-2008

Rel

ativ

e va

lue

(196

1=1)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

2005200019951990198519801975197019651960

Figure TN-4: Contributing drivers of Tunisia’s biocapacity, 1961-2008


Value(1961)

Change(%)




2,857 689 314%


0.07 0.07 -2%


3,023 691 337%


1,176 162 625%

Population ['000] 10,329 4,277 141%0-14 2,459 1,830 34%15-64 7,294 2,215 229%>64 850 176 383%

HDI 0.69 0.45 52%

T U N I S I A




GDP (left axis):

29


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Popu

latio

n [m

illio

ns]

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Figure TN-9: Tunisia’s population by age group, 1961-2010

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Gro

ss D

omes

tic P

rodu

ct P

er C

apita

[c

onsta

nt 2

000

$ U

S]

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

National G


orld total GN

I[billionths]

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Figure TN-7: Tunisia’s GDP by component, GNI, and ratio of national GNI per capita to world total GNI, 1961-2008

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2005200019951990198519801975197019651960

Glo

bal H

ecta

res

Per

Cap

ita

Figure TN-6: Tunisia’s per capita biocapacity defi cit by contributing land-use type, 1961-2008

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2005199019751960

Glo

bal H

ecta

res

Per

Cap

ita

Figure TN-5: Tunisia’s per capita biocapacity defi cit, 1961-2008

Figure TN-8: Ecological Footprint and HDI for all countries in 2008, with Tunisia’s trend for 1980-2008

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.80

22

4

6

8

10

12


1.0


Eco

log

ical fo

otp

rint in

gh

a p

er p

erso

n



30

The National Footprint Accounts track countries’ use of ecological services and resources as well as the biocapacity available in each country. As with any resource accounts, they are static, quantitative descriptions of outcomes for any given year in the past for which data exist. The detailed calculation methodology of the most updated Accounts are described in Calculation Methodology for the National Footprint Accounts, 2011 Edition (www.footprintnetwork.org, 2011). The implementation of the National Footprint Accounts through database-supported templates is described in the Guidebook to the National Footprint Accounts (Kitzes et al. 2008) and the method paper by Borucke et al. (2013). Kitzes et al. (2009) outline the research agenda for improvements.

The National Footprint Accounts, 2011 edition, calculate the Ecological Footprint and biocapacity for 240 countries, territories and regions, from 1961 to 2008.

ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT

The National Footprint Accounts, 2011 edition, track human demand for ecological services in terms of six major land use types (cropland, grazing land, forest land, carbon Footprint, fi shing grounds, and built-up land). The Ecological Footprint of each major land use type is calculated by summing the contributions of products and activities

competing for bioproductive space. Built-up land refl ects the bioproductivity compromised by infrastructure and hydropower. Forest land for carbon dioxide uptake represents the carbon absorptive capacity of a world average hectare of forest needed to absorb human induced carbon dioxide emissions, after having considered the ocean sequestration capacity (also called the carbon Footprint).

The Ecological Footprint calculates the combined demand for ecological resources wherever they are located and presents them as the global average area needed to support a specifi c human activity. This quantity is expressed in units of global hectares. A global hectare is defi ned as a biologically productive hectare with world average bioproductivity.

By expressing all results in a common unit, biocapacity and Footprints can be directly compared across land use types and countries.

Demand for resource production and waste assimilation are translated into global hectares by dividing the total amount of a resource consumed by the yield per hectare, or dividing the waste emitted by the absorptive capacity per hectare. Yields are calculated based on various international statistics, primarily those from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO ResourceSTAT Statistical Databases).

APPENDIX A : CALCUL ATING THE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT AND BIOCAPACIT Y

Yields are mutually exclusive: If two crops are grown at the same time on the same hectare, one portion of the hectare is assigned to one crop, and the remainder to the other. This avoids double counting. This follows the same logic as measuring the size of a farm: Each hectare is only counted once, even though it might provide multiple services.

The Ecological Footprint, in its most basic form, is calculated by the following equation:

where D is the annual demand of a product and Y is the annual yield of the same product (Borucke et al, 2013). Yield is expressed in global hectares. In practice, global hectares are estimated with the help of two factors: The yield factors (that compare national average yield per hectare to world average yield in the same land category) and the equivalence factors (which capture the relative productivity among the various land and sea area types).

Therefore, the formula of the Ecological Footprint becomes:

where P is the amount of a product harvested or waste emitted (equal to

DANNUAL above), YN is the national average yield for P, and YF and EQF are the yield factor and equivalence factor, respectively, for the country and land use type in question. The yield factor is the ratio of national-to-world-average yields. It is calculated as the annual availability of usable products and varies by country and year. Equivalence factors translate the area supplied or demanded of a specifi c land use type (e.g. world average cropland, grazing land, etc.) into units of world average biologically productive area expressed in global hectares. These factors vary by land use type and year.

Annual demand for manufactured or derivative products (e.g. fl our or wood pulp) is converted into primary product equivalents (e.g., wheat or roundwood) through the use of extraction rates. These quantities of primary product equivalents are then translated into an Ecological Footprint. The Ecological Footprint also embodies the energy required for the manufacturing process.

CONSUMPTION , PRODUCTION, AND TRADE

The National Footprint Accounts calculate the Footprint of a population from a number of perspectives. Most commonly reported is the Ecological Footprint of consumption of a population, typically just called Ecological Footprint. The Ecological Footprint of consumption

31


for a given country measures the biocapacity demanded by the fi nal consumption of all the residents of the country. This includes their household consumption as well as their collective consumption, such as schools, roads, fi re brigades, etc., which serve the household, but may not be directly paid for by the households.

In contrast, a country’s primary production Ecological Footprint is the sum of the Footprints for all resources harvested and all waste generated within the country’s geographical borders. This includes all the area within a country necessary for supporting the actual harvest of primary products (cropland, grazing land, forest land, and fi shing grounds), the country’s infrastructure and hydropower (built-up land), and the area needed to absorb fossil fuel carbon dioxide emissions generated within the country (carbon Footprint).

The difference between the production and consumption Footprint is trade, shown by the following equation:

where EFC is the Ecological Footprint of consumption, EFP is the Ecological Footprint of production, and EFI and EFE are the Footprints of imported and exported commodity fl ows, respectively.

BIOCAPACITY

A national biocapacity calculation starts with the total amount of bioproductive land and sea available. “Bioproductive” refers to land and water areas that supports signifi cant photosynthetic activity and accumulation of biomass, ignoring barren areas of low, dispersed productivity. This is not to say that areas such as the Sahara Desert, Antarctica, or Alpine mountaintops do not support life; their production is simply too widespread to be directly harvestable and negligible in quantity. Biocapacity is an aggregated measure of the amount of area available, weighted by the productivity of that area. It represents the ability of the biosphere to produce crops, livestock (pasture), timber products (forest), and fi sh, as well as to uptake carbon dioxide in forests. It also includes how much of this regenerative capacity is occupied by infrastructure (built-up land). In short, it measures the ability of available terrestrial and aquatic areas to provide ecological services. A country’s biocapacity for any land use type is calculated as:

where BC is the biocapacity, A is the area available for a given land use type, and YF and EQF are the yield factor and equivalence factor, respectively, for the country land use type in question.

SELECTED SOURCE DATA

Dataset Source

Ecological Footprint

Production of primaryagricultural products

Production of crop-basedfeeds used to feedanimals

Import and Export ofprimary agricultural andlivestock products

Livestock cropconsumption

Production, import andexport of primary forestryproducts

Production, import andexport of primary fisheryproducts

Import and Export ofcommodities

Debt

Gross Domestic Product

Population by age group

FAO ProdSTAT section of the FAOSTAT web-site: http://faostat.fao.org/site/567/default.aspx#ancor

Feed from general marketed crops data is directly drawn from the SUA/FBS section of FAOSTAT : http://faostat.fao.org/site/354/default.aspx

FAO TradeSTAT section of the FAOSTAT web-site:http://faostat.fao.org/site/535/default.aspx#ancor

Calculated by Global Footprint Network based upon the following datasets:• FAO Production for Livestock primary.• Haberl, et al. 2007. Quantifying and mapping the human appropriation of net primary production in earth’s terrestrial ecosystems. PNAS 104: 12

FAO ForeSTAT section of the FAOSTAT website: http://faostat.fao.org/site/630/default.aspx

FAO FishSTAT section of the FAOSTAT website: http://www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/en

Data available directly from the UN Commodity Trade StatisticsDatabase. http://comtrade.un.org.

World Bank data portal

lan Heston, Robert Summers and Bettina Aten, Penn World Table Version 6.3, Center for International Comparisons of Production, Income and Prices at the University of Pennsylvania, August 2009.

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Population Division. World Population Prospects: The 2008 Revision. http://esa.un.org/unpp/index.asp

Economic Trends

Demographic Trends

32

REFERENCES

Kitzes, J., A. Galli, S.M. Rizk, A. Reed and M. Wackernagel. 2008. Guidebook to the National Footprint Accounts: 2008 Edition. Oakland: Global Footprint Network.

Kitzes, J., Galli, A, Bagliani, M., Barrett, J., et al., 2009. A Research Agenda for Improving National Ecological Footprint Accounts. Ecological Economics, 68 (7), 1991– 2007.

Borucke, M. et al, 2013, Accounting for demand and supply of the biosphere’s regenerative capacity: The National Footprint Accounts’ underlying methodology and framework, Ecological Indicators 24 (2013) 518–533

A P P E N D I X B

Abbreviations

BC

EF

GDP

gha

GNI

HDI

Country with *

Country with ***

Biocapacity, regenerative capacity of nature, measured in global hectares

Ecological Footprint, human demand on nature, measured in global hectares

Gross Domestic Product

global hectare

Gross National Income

UNDP’s Human Development Index

slightly updated results based on 2011 edition

results from 2010 edition, modified in country collaboration

33


e have entered a global auction,

with more people bidding for fewer resources.

Such an auction changes the rules of competitiveness,

and poses a systemic risk to many countries’ economic

stability. In a time of global ecological overshoot, managing

our use of natural capital is crucial for economic success.

“W

U.S. OFFICE

312 Clay Street, Suite 300

Oakland, CA 94607-3510 USA

T: +1 (510) 839 8879

EUROPE OFFICE

International Environment House 2

7-9 chemin de Balexert

1219 Chatelaine (Geneva)

SWITZERLAND

T: +41 22 797 41 08

[email protected]

www.footprintnetwork.org

ORGANISATION INTERNATIONALE

DE LA FRANCOPHONIE

19-21 avenue Bosquet

75007 Paris

FRANCE

T: + 33 1 44 11 12 50

www.francophonie.org

www.iepf.org

Printed on 100% recycled paper.supported by:

In the past, seemingly unlimited resources fueled

our economies. As demand for these resources

and other ecological services expand, ecological

defi cits are skyrocketing. As a consequence,

it requires ever more effort to secure resources.

This tightening situation increasingly affects whether

business, communities, and nations succeed.

Global Footprint Network and La Francophonie’s

initiative documents these resource and

consumption trends among member nations and

outlines options for action, so all can prosper in

a world of resource constraints.



http://www.iepf.org

footprint and biocapacity atlas of francophonie … · preparing economies for the “global...

Documents