Ecological footprint atlas_2010

of 113 /113

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of Ecological footprint atlas_2010


2. AUTHORS:Brad EwingDavid MooreSteven GoldfingerAnna OurslerAnders ReedMathis WackernagelDesigners:Nora PadulaAnna OurslerBrad EwingSuggested Citation:Ewing B., D. Moore, S. Goldfinger, A. Oursler, A. Reed, and M.Wackernagel. 2010. The Ecological Footprint Atlas 2010. Oakland: GlobalFootprint Network.The Ecological Footprint Atlas 2010 builds on previous versions of the Atlasfrom 2008 and 2009.The designations employed and the presentation of materials in the TheEcological Footprint Atlas 2010 do not imply the expression of anyopinion whatsoever on the part of Global Footprint Network or its partnerorganizations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city, orarea or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers orboundaries.For further information, please contact:Global Footprint Network312 Clay Street, Suite 300Oakland, CA 94607-3510 USAPhone: +1.510.839.8879E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.footprintnetwork.orgPublished in October 2010 by Global Footprint Network,Oakland, California, United States of America. text and graphics: 2010 Global Footprint Network. Allrights reserved. Any reproduction in full or in part of this pub-lication must mention the title and credit the aforementionedpublisher as the copyright owner. 3. Table of Contents Foreword 5 Rethinking Wealth in a Resource-Constrained World /5 The Role of Metrics /5 Seizing the Opportunity /6 National Footprint Accounts8 Ecological Footprint and Biocapacity /8 History of the Ecological Footprint, Biocapacity, and the National Footprint Accounts /9 Linking the National Footprint Accounts with Ecosystem Services /10 Calculation Methodology: National Footprint Accounts11 Ecological Footprint Assessment /11 Consumption, Production, and Trade /12 Land Area Types of the National Footprint Accounts /13 Cropland Grazing land Forest for timber and fuelwood Fishing ground Built-up land Forest for carbon dioxide uptake Normalizing Bioproductive Areas From Hectares to Global Hectares /14 Methodology Updates between the 2008 and 2010 Edition of National Footprint Accounts15 General Updates /15 Cropland Updates /15 Grazing Land/Livestock Updates /15 Fishing Grounds Updates /16 Forest Land Updates /16 Carbon Uptake Land Updates /16 Land Cover Updates /16 Global Results from the National Footprint Accounts 18 4. The Global Context /18 Human Development and the Ecological Footprint /21 Factors in Determining Biocapacity and Ecological Footprint /23 Population Affluence: Consumption Per Person Technology: Resource and Waste Intensity Ecological Footprint of Income Groups /26 Ecological Footprint by Land Use Type and Income Group /27 World Maps /32Regional Results from the National Footprint Accounts 39 Africa /40 Asia /48 Europe /56 Latin America and the Carribean /64 North America /72 Oceania /80Account Templates and Guidebook 88 What information is in the Guidebook? /88Limitations of the Ecological Footprint Method90 Limitations of Scope: What the Footprint Does Not Measure /90 Limitations of Current Methodology and Data: What the Footprint Does Not Measure Well /90 Potential Errors in Implementation /91 Interpreting the Footprint: What the Results Mean /92Quality Assurance Procedures for Raw Data and Results 93 Country-Specific Adaptations of the National Footprint Accounts /93 Missing Data /93 5. Standards and National Footprint Accounts Committees94 Regular Review /94 Future Standardization Plans /94 Ecological Footprint Standards Committee /94 National Footprint Accounts Review Committee /94Progress on the Research Agenda To Improve the National FootprintAccounts95 Detailed Written Documentation /95 Trade /95 Equivalence Factors /96 Nuclear Footprint /96 Carbon Footprint /96 Emissions from Non-Fossil Fuels and Gas Flaring /96 Fisheries Yields /96 Constant Yield Calculations /96 Policy Linkages and Institutional Context /97Research Collaborations 98Frequently Asked Questions 100Glossary 103References 107Sources for the National Footprint Accounts110Global Footprint Network Partner Organizations 111Acknowledgements 111 6. List of AbbreviationsBC Biological capacityCO2Carbon dioxideCLCCORINE Land CoverCOICOPClassification of Individual Consumption by PurposeCORINECoordinate Information on the EnvironmentDG ENVDirectorate General Environment of the European CommissionEC European CommissionEE-MRIO Environmentally Extended Multi-Region Input-Output (analysis/model)EEAEuropean Environment AgencyEF Ecological FootprintEFCEcological Footprint of consumptionEFEEcological Footprint of exportsEFIEcological Footprint of importsEFPEcological Footprint of productionEQFEquivalence FactorEXIOPOL Environmental Accouting Framework Using Externality Data and Input-Output Tools for Policy AnalysisGAEZ Global-Agro Ecological ZonesGDPGross Domestic ProductGFNGlobal Footprint NetworkGNIGross National IncomeGTAP Global Trade Analysis ProjectHANPP Human Appropriation of Net Primary ProductionHDRHuman Development ReportHDIHuman Development IndexHS Harmonized System Commodity ClassificationIEAInternational Energy AgencyIFPRIInternational Food Policy Research InstituteIO Input-Output Analysis (analysis/table)IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeISEALInternational Social and Environmental Accreditation and LabellingLCALife Cycle AssessmentMFAMateral Flow Analysis/AccountingNAMEA National Accounting Matrix including Environmental AccountsNFANational Footprint AccountsNPPNet Primary ProductionOECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and DevelopmentPIOT Physical Input-Output TablePPRPrimary Production RateSCPSustainable Consumption and ProductionSEEA System of Economic and Environmental AccountsSITC Standard Industrial Trade ClassificationSNASystem of National AccountsUN COMTRADEUnited Nations database on the trade of commoditiesUN FAOUnited Nations Food and Agriculture OrganizationYF Yield factor 7. Forewordand services that promote well-being without draining resourceswill play a key role in this effort. Cities, regions, or countries thatRethinking Wealth in a Resource-Constrained are not able to provide a high quality of life on a low FootprintWorld will be at a disadvantage in a resource-constrained future.Access to ecosystem services will become an ever more criticalWithout significant change, countries that depend extensively uponfactor for economic success and resilience in the 21st century. The ecological resources from abroad will become particularly vulnerablereason is simple: current trends are moving us closer to a new erato supply chain disruptions, and to rising costs for greenhouse gasof peak energy and climate change. These effects will combine withemissions and waste disposal. At the same time, countries and statesfood shortages, biodiversity loss, depleted fisheries, soil erosion and with sufficient ecological reserves to balance their own consumptionfreshwater stress to create a global supply-demand crunch of essentialor even export resources will be at a competitive advantage. Thisresources. Humanity is already in overshoot, using more resources also holds true for cities and communities such as BedZed in thethan Earth can renew. Overshoot can persist for some time, sinceUK and Masdar in the UAE, which can operate on small Ecologicalthe human economy can deplete stocks and fill waste sinks. ButFootprints, and are more likely to be able to maintain or even improveeventually, this overshoot will be felt more widely, making apparentthe well-being of their residents. For this reason, Ecuador in 2009the emergence of a peak everything world (Heinberg 2007). has made it a national goal to move out of its ecological deficit.In spite of the economic shock waves since October 2008, mostThe political challenge is to demonstrate that this is not aneconomic recovery efforts are cementing the past resource trends.inconvenient truth to be resisted, but rather a critical issue thatThe massive stimulus efforts of OECD countries were not used todemands bold action in the direct self-interest of nations anddecrease economies structural dependence on resource throughputcities. It is a case of pure economics: Prosperity and well-being willand ecological services. In addition, demand for resources continues tonot be possible without preserving access to the basic ecologicalincrease in other large economies, including China, India and Brazil.resources and services that sustain our economy, and all of life.Unabated overshoot could have dramatic consequences for all thoseeconomies. Further degradation of the Earths capacity to generateresources, continuing accumulation of greenhouse gases and otherThe Role of Metricswastes, make likely shortage, or even collapse, of critical ecosystems.Without a way of comparing the demand on ecological services toBut this path is not unavoidable. The good news is that local solutions the available supply, it is easy for policy makers to ignore the threatneed not wait for a global consensus. While the current climate of overshoot, and remain entangled in ideological debates over thedebate assumes that those who act first may be at a competitive affordability of sustainability. Clear metrics can help change thesedisadvantage, the opposite is often true. Acting aggressively now ideological debates into discussions based on empirical facts. Thisto implement sustainable solutions will reward the pioneers will lead to an understanding of what the real risks are, and facilitatewith lower resource costs, greater resiliency in the face of supply building consensus over the actions needed to address them.chain perturbations and better positioning to take advantageof opportunities presented by a rapidly changing economy. The Ecological Footprint was developed over 15 years ago tohelp provide just such a metric. Since that time, it has become anMany opinion leaders are trapped in the misconception thatincreasingly mature and robust way of capturing human demandadvancing sustainability is detrimental to the economy, anon nature. But its evolution is not yet complete. With growingexpense that will only be affordable at some later date. Rather, in recognition of the value of this metric and its adoption by morea time of global overshoot, investing in aggressive sustainabilitygovernments and businesses, it has become clear that developmentpolicies will become an ever more significant competitiveness of the Ecological Footprint needs to be significantly accelerated.driver. Countries putting off change until later will beunprepared for the challenges of a peak everything world. In 2003, Global Footprint Network was established to address thisneed. In addition to improving the scientific rigor and transparencyResource accounting is therefore as vital to the self-interest of of the Ecological Footprint methodology, this international NGOany country, state, or city as is financial accounting. In an age ofworks to promote a sustainable economy by making ecological limitsgrowing resource scarcity, the wealth of nations increasingly will be central to decision-making. The organizations mission is to assuredefined in terms of who has ecological assets, and who does not.human well-being by ending overshoot, decreasing pressure onAdjusting economies and their infrastructure to this new economic critical ecosystems so they remain robust while continuing to providetruth will take time, making it urgent to begin as quickly as humanity with essential ecological services. Global Footprint Networkpossible. Strategies will need to be simultaneously put in place to works to achieve this mission by advancing the Ecological Footprintbetter manage and protect ecological reserves while minimizing or in collaboration with approximately 100 partner organizationsreducing a nations demand on ecosystem services its Ecologicalthat comprise the network. It coordinates research, developsFootprint. Stimulating and supporting technological innovationsmethodological standards, and provides decision makers with extensive5 8. resource accounts to help the human economy operate within theincluding planning for a low-carbon future;Earths ecological limits. At the heart of this effort are the National Further innovation that maintains or improves quality ofFootprint Accounts, which provide a detailed accounting of ecological life while reducing dependence on ecological capacity.resource demand and supply for all nations with populations over 1 Leverage trade opportunities to:million. Results of the 2010 Edition of the Accounts are summarizedin this report, and some of their implications are explored. As you Create a strong trade position for exports bywill notice, the 2010 Accounts feature a number of improvements better understanding who has ecological reservesaimed at making the results more accurate. Some of the improvements and who does not, and what the trends are;emerged from our research collaborations with countries fromMinimize and prioritize external resource needs.around the world. Others responded to issues raised by major reviews Create a baseline for setting goals and monitoring progressas the one from DG Environment of the European Commissiontoward lasting and sustainable economic development. Guide(2008) or President Sarkozys Stiglitz Commission (2009).investment in infrastructure that is both efficient in its useGlobal Footprint Network and its partners alone cannot of resources, and resilient if supply disruptions materialize.bring about the shift to a sustainable economy. All the keyProvide a complementary metric to GDP that can help leadstakeholdersespecially nations, international agencies, regions to a new way of gauging human progress and development.and companiesneed to engage, for it is they who are at ever-increasing risk if they cannot monitor their ecological performance.Seizing the OpportunityOne thing is clear: As natural capital becomes scarcer than financialIn a new era of resource constraints, new tools are needed forcapital, good governance will depend on resource accounts suchsecuring economic success and resilience. The good news is thatas the Ecological Footprint as much as it depends on Grosswith Ecological Footprint accounting, we now can track somethingDomestic Product (GDP) and other financial accounts.we did not see beforethe extent to which we are overdrawing ourIn an increasingly resource-constrained world, it is a governments ecological accounts, and how far we are away from rebalancing thisfiduciary responsibility to know how much ecological capacity it hasbudget. This information provides a hopeful perspective, suggestingand how much it is using. Global Footprint Network, therefore, is that even working with what we have now, it is well within ourworking to have national governments institutionalize the Ecologicalability to secure long-term well-being for all of society. In addition,Footprint metric, and use it as an indicator for planning and policyfuture-proofing our economies and refocusing our investmentdecisions in parallel with financial indicators such as GDP. Whileefforts can have tremendous payback. Sustainability doesnt simplythis particular effort focuses on nations and their administrations,mean robust ecosystems, it ensures a long-term revenue streamthe goal will not be achievable without active participationfor pioneer investors, those with the foresight to plan and makeby the business sector, civil society and academic institutions.changes now to prepare for future resource constraints. In fact, ifTherefore, the Network is working with these entities as well.we reverse population trends, improve resource efficiency measures,Use of the Footprint by National Governmentssufficiently reduce consumption and better manage our ecologicalassets to increase yields, then demand will no longer exceed supply.As an initial step in working with a national government, GlobalIf we end overshoot, resource constraints by definition disappear.Footprint Network invites the country to collaboratively review theunderlying data in its National Footprint Accounts for accuracy and This is the message Global Footprint Network is committed tocompleteness. This due diligence helps ensure that the Footprintpromoting. The Ecological Footprint communicates the challengesresults for that country are valid and reliable, and also increases of a resource-constrained world. At the same time, it invitesthe reliability and robustness of the Footprint methodology for people to participate and figure out solutions themselves. Theyall nations. The verified national results can then be put to use bycan set themselves targets that people and organizations can boththe government for a wide variety of purposes, including to:understand and invest in. Showing how such targets serve thosepioneer nations and cities self-interest has a catalytic effect. Create an enhanced understanding of the countrysBy preparing oneself for a resource constrained world, one also Ecological Footprint and biocapacity. Specifically, this can:makes the global community more resilient to potential outfallsIdentify resource constraints and dependencies; of overshoot. Lets take advantage of this double dividend.Recognize resource opportunities (e.g. forests). Explore policy creation to:Mathis Wackernagel, PhDProtect national interests and leverage Presidentexisting opportunities; Global Footprint NetworkRevised in October 2010Bring the economy in line with global limits,6 9. 7 10. National Footprint Accounts we need robust natural capital accounts (Dietz and Neumayer2007). These Accounts must be able to assess both human demandIn recent years, much of the discussion on finite global resourceson ecological assets, as well as the ability of these assets to meet thishas focused on the depletion of non-renewable resources, such demand. We cannot make meaningful decisions about where we needas petroleum. However, it is increasingly evident that renewableto go before we know where we stand. Just as national governmentsresources, and the ecosystem services they provide, are also at great currently use gross domestic product (GDP) as a benchmark to gaugeor even greater risk (UNEP 2007, WRI 2007, UNDP 2008, UNEPeconomic performance, natural capital accounts allow governments2007, World Bank 2000, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). to gauge their ecological performance (Stiglitz Report, 2009). TheGlobal economies depend on the biosphere for a steady supply of the National Footprint Accounts provide such accounting, allowing abasic requirements for life: food, energy, fiber, waste sinks, and otherdirect comparison of demand on and supply of ecological assets thatlife-support services. Any depletion of these services is particularlyidentify when limits have been transgressed. The National Footprintrisky since human demand for them is still growing, which can Accounts utilize global datasets to measure the biocapacity andaccelerate the rate at which natural assets are liquidated. Out of this Ecological Footprint of 240 countries, territories, and regions fromconcern, the sustainability proposition emerges. Sustainability is a1961 to 2007. Results in the National Footprint Accounts consistsimple idea. It is based on the recognition that when resources are of more than 800,000 data points that are calculated utilizing moreconsumed faster than they are renewed, or wastes emitted faster than 50 million source data points from databases such as UNthan they are absorbed, the resources are depleted and eventually FAOSTAT, UN Comtrade, and OECD International Energy Agency.exhausted, and wastes are no longer sequestered and converted backinto resources fast enough to prevent accumulation in the biosphere.Ecological Footprint and BiocapacityThe elimination of essential renewable resources is fundamentally The Ecological Footprint is a measure of the demand humanproblematic, as substitution can be expensive or impossible, especially activity puts on the biosphere. More precisely, it measures thewhen the problem is global in scale. When humanitys ecological amount of biologically productive land and water area requireddemands in terms of resource consumption and waste absorption to produce all the resources an individual, population, or activityexceed what nature can supply, this ecological overshoot is a consumes, and to absorb the waste they generate, given prevailingcritical threat to societys well-being. Just as constant erosion oftechnology and resource management practices. This area can thenbusiness capital weakens an enterprise, ecological overshoot erodes be compared with biological capacity (biocapacity), the amount ofthe planets natural capital, our ultimate means of livelihood. productive area that is available to generate these resources and toabsorb the waste. If a land or water area provides more than one ofThe debate over how to make the human enterprise sustainablethese services it is only counted once, so as not to exaggerate thehas accelerated since the widely cited Brundtland Report fromamount of productive area actually available. Land and water area isthe UN World Commission on Environment and Developmentscaled according to its biological productivity. This scaling makes itwas released over two decades ago (UN 1987). The Commissionpossible to compare ecosystems with differing bioproductivity anddefined sustainable development as that which meets the needs ofin different areas of the world in the same unit, a global hectare. Athe present without compromising the ability of future generationsglobal hectare represents a hectare with world average meet their own needs (UN 1987). This definition recognizedthat the goal of rewarding lives for all people on the planet requiresEcological Footprint and biocapacity accounting is basedthat ecosystems be able to continuously supply the resources andon six fundamental assumptions (Wackernagel 2002):waste absorption services necessary for society to flourish. 1. The majority of the resources people or activitiesFor sustainable development to go from concept to action, it consume and the wastes they generate can be tracked.needs to become specific and accountable. The ability of future 2. Most of these resource and waste flows can be measuredgenerations to meet their own needs cannot be directly measured in terms of the biologically productive area necessary tobecause we cannot know how many people there will be in future maintain them. Resource and waste flows that cannot begenerations, and what their needs will be. But some of the underlying measured in terms of biologically productive area are excludedconditions that must be met if this development is to become a from the assessment, leading to a systematic underestimatereality can be specified. If possibilities for future generations are not of the total demand these flows place on be diminished, the most fundamental condition is that we noterode, but rather protect, the ecological wealth of the biosphere. 3. By scaling each area in proportion to its bioproductivity, different types of areas can be converted into the commonWith natural capital at the foundation of every value chain, tracking unit of average bioproductivity, the global hectare. Thisthe health of ecological assets is critical for sustainable development. unit is used to express both Footprint and biocapacity.Regardless of whether the goal is to maintain existing assets, or toensure that the loss of one form of assets is compensated by another,4. Because a global hectare of demand represents a particular use8 11. that excludes any other use tracked by the Footprint, and all The Footprint has been applied in a wide variety of ways. It can global hectares in any single year represent the same amount of provide a global perspective on the current extent of ecological bioproductivity, they can be summed. Together, they represent overshoot, as well as a more localized perspective on city and the aggregate demand or Ecological Footprint. In the same way,regional resource issues. Global and national accounts have been each hectare of productive area can be scaled according to itsreported in headlines worldwide, and over 100 cities or regions bioproductivity and then added up to calculate biocapacity. have assessed their Ecological Footprint. In the United States, for example, Sonoma County, Californias Footprint project Time 5. As both are expressed in global hectares, human demand (as to Lighten Up inspired every city in the county to join the measured by Ecological Footprint accounts) can be directly Climate Saver Initiative of the International Council for Local compared to global, regional, national, or local biocapacity. Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) (Redefining Progress 2002). 6. Area demanded can exceed the area available. If demand At the national level, by 2003 Wales had adopted the Ecological on a particular ecosystem exceeds that ecosystems Footprint as its headline indicator for sustainability. The Swiss regenerative capacity, the ecological assets are being government has incorporated the Footprint into the nations diminished. For example, people can temporarily demand sustainable development plan. Japan includes the Footprint resources from forests or fisheries faster than they can as a measure in its Environmental Plan. Among NGOs, be renewed, but the consequences are smaller stocks WWF International, one of the worlds most influential in that ecosystem. When the human demand exceeds conservation organizations, uses the Ecological Footprint in its available biocapacity, this is referred to as overshoot. communication and policy work for advancing conservationEcological Footprint Analysis tracks the regenerative capacity ofand sustainability. WWF recently established a target ofan ecosystem in terms of historical flows of natural resources.bringing humanity out of overshoot by 2050, and is activelyA flow corresponds to an amount per time unit, for instance, pursuing this goal through its One Planet programs.the number of tonnes of roundwood grown in a given area over Country-level Footprint assessments have been completed fora one-year period. A stock is the standing balance of resources many countries, with some countries analyzed multiple timesat any specific time, for instance, the tonnes of roundwood under different methods (Wackernagel and Rees 1996, Bicknellavailable for harvest in a hectare of forest at the end of a given et al. 1998, Fricker 1998, Simpson et al. 2000, van Vuuren andyear. The National Footprint Accounts capture flows rather than Smeets 2000, Ferng 2001, Haberl et al. 2001, Lenzen and Murraystocks, and thus do not specify when overshoot will result in the 2001, 2003, McDonald and Patterson 2004, Monfreda et al. 2004,total depletion of accumulated resources in an ecosystem. Bagliani et al. 2005, Medved 2006, Venetoulis and Talberth 2007,Humanity is using the regenerative capacity of the Earth eachWorld Wildlife Fund for Nature, Global Footprint Network, andyearthe flow of resourceswhile at the same time eating intoZoological Society of London 2006). Since UN agencies collectthe standing stock of resources that has been building over time and publish national data sets and advance the standardization ofand accumulating waste in the environment. This process reducessuch reporting across the world, and these data sets form the basisour ability to harvest resources at the same rate in the future andof the National Footprint Accounts, country-level calculationsleads to ecological overshoot and possible ecosystem collapse. are more directly comparable than assessments at other scales. For instance, only country-level statistics systematically documentHistory of the Ecological Footprint, Biocapacity,production, imports, and export. Therefore, the national Ecologicaland the National Footprint AccountsFootprint results serve as the basis of all other Footprint analyses .The Ecological Footprint concept was created by Mathis Wackernagel With a growing number of government agencies, organizations andand William Rees at the University of British Columbia in thecommunities adopting the Ecological Footprint as a core indicatorearly 1990s (Wackernagel 1991, Rees 1992, Wackernagel 1994, of sustainable resource use, and the number of Ecological FootprintRees 1996, Wackernagel and Rees 1996). Responding to then- practitioners around the world increasing, different approachescurrent debates surrounding carrying capacity (e.g., Meadows to conducting Footprint studies could lead to fragmentation1972, Ehrlich 1982, Tiezzi 1984, 1996, Brown and Kane 1994), and divergence of the methodology. This would reduce theEcological Footprint accounting was designed to represent humanability of the Footprint to produce consistent and comparableconsumption of biological resources and generation of wastes inresults across applications, and could generate confusion.terms of appropriated ecosystem area, which could then be comparedto the biospheres productive capacity in a given year. In focusingThe value of the Footprint as a sustainability metric depends notonly on bioproductive area and on resources presently extracted andonly on the scientific integrity of the methodology, but also onwastes presently generated, the method provided a focused historical consistent application of this methodology across analyses. It alsoassessment of human demand on the biosphere and the biospheresdepends on results of analyses being communicated in a manner thatability to meet those specific demands (Wackernagel et al 1999a).does not distort or misrepresent findings. To address these needs, 9 12. Global Footprint Network initiated a consensus, committee-basedA third framework to analyzing and valuing ecosystem servicesprocess for ongoing scientific review of the methodology, and foris the System of Integrated Environmental and Economicthe development of standards governing Footprint applications. Accounting (SEEA). The SEEA categorizes valuation methods into four types: (1) real costs incurred due to legally bindingThe National Footprint Accounts Review Committee supports avoidance, compensation or, restoration obligations; (2)continual improvement of the scientific basis of the National expenditure voluntarily undertaken to avoid or limit damage;Footprint Accounts. The Ecological Footprint Standards Committee, (3) peoples revealed preferences for obtaining specifiedcomprised of representatives from Global Footprint Network Partner environmental services or amenities; and (4) peoples statedOrganizations and representing academia, government, NGOs, or hypothetical preferences as elicited through contingentand consulting firms, issued the Ecological Footprint Standards 2009 valuation (that is, willingness to pay or willingness to accept(Global Footprint Network, 2009). The Standards build on the enquiries) (SEEA 2003).Ecological Footprint Standards 2006 and are designed to ensure thatFootprint assessments are produced consistently and accordingHuman well-being requires, in part, the material consumptionto community-proposed best practices. They aim to ensure thatof provisioning services provided by the ecosystem. Theassessments are conducted and communicated in a way that isfigure below provides an overview of the biodiversity-accurate and transparent, by providing standards and guidelinessupported ecosystem services that improve human well-on such issues as use of source data, derivation of conversion being. The biocapacity indicator within the Nationalfactors, establishment of study boundaries, and communicationFootprint Accounts quantifies some of the flows within theof findings. The Standards are applicable to all Footprint studies,provisioning services, including food, fiber, and timber.including sub-national populations, products, and organizations. Land explicitly set aside to uptake carbon dioxide emissions could also be measured within the National FootprintLinking the National Footprint Accounts with Accounts and would provide a regulating ecosystem service.Ecosystem ServicesThe notion that the human economy is a subset of thesurrounding ecology is integral to identifying the economic Human well-beingSecurity, material needs, health, social relations, etc.linkages between nature, human activities, and biodiversity.Various initiatives are currently underway to analyze theeconomic benefits of biodiversity and weigh the costs ofProvisioningEcosystem Services Food, fiber, timber,effective policies against resulting deceleration of biodiversitymedicines, water, air, etc.loss. One of the more ambitious projects is the Millennium Cultural Ecotourism, spiritual, ethics, etc.Ecosystem Assessment, which categorizes three types of Regulatingecosystem services: (1) provisioning (e.g. of food, freshClimate, flood protection, etc.water, wood and fiber, fuel, etc.), (2) regulating (e.g. climateSupporting Habitat provision,regulation, flood regulation, disease regulation, water ecosystem processes, etc.purification, etc.), and (3) cultural (e.g. aesthetic, spiritual,educational, recreational, etc.) (MA 2005). In this context,the biocapacity and Ecological Footprint indicators focusBiodiversityon the biomass-based flows of the ecosystems provisioning Species richness, species rarity, biomass density, primary productivity, and genetic diversityservices and the waste uptake of its regulating services.Examples of the services quantified in the National FootprintAccounts include provisioning of food, fiber, and timber,and uptake of carbon dioxide by forests and oceans.The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB)is another ambitious project that reviews the science andeconomics of ecosystems and biodiversity and includes avaluation framework to improve policy decision-making. ThisTEEB 2009 report for policymakers identified five importantdimensions of biodiversity in the context of the supporting,regulating, provisioning, and cultural ecosystem services theyprovide for human well-being: (1) species richness, (2) speciesrarity, (3) biomass density, (4) primary productivity, and (5)genetic diversity (TEEB 2009).10 13. Calculation Methodology: Nationalexpressing all results in a common unit, biocapacity and Footprints can be directly compared across land use types and countries.Footprint Accounts Demand for resource production and waste assimilation areThe National Footprint Accounts track countries use of ecological translated into global hectares by dividing the total amount ofservices and resources as well as the biocapacity available in eacha resource consumed by the yield per hectare, or dividing thecountry. As with any resource accounts, they are static, quantitativewaste emitted by the absorptive capacity per hectare. Yields aredescriptions of outcomes, for any given year in the past for which calculated based on various international statistics, primarily thosedata exist. The detailed calculation methodology of the most from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organizationupdated Accounts are described in Calculation Methodology for(FAO ResourceSTAT Statistical Databases). Yields are mutuallythe National Footprint Accounts, 2010 Edition (Ewing et al. 2010). exclusive: If two crops are grown at the same time on the sameThe implementation of the National Footprint Accounts throughhectare, one portion of the hectare is assigned to one crop, and thedatabase-supported templates is described in the Guidebook toremainder to the other. This avoids double counting. This followsthe National Footprint Accounts 2010 (Kitzes et al. 2010). the same logic as measuring the size of a farm: Each hectare is onlyThe National Footprint Accounts aim to:counted once, even though it might provide multiple services. Provide a scientifically robust and transparent The Ecological Footprint, in its most basic form, calculation of the demands placed by different nationsis calculated by the following equation: on the regenerative capacity of the biosphere; DANNUAL Build a reliable and consistent method thatEF = Y ANNUAL allows for international comparisons of nations demands on global regenerative capacity; Produce information in a format that is useful for developing where D is the annual demand of a product and Y is the annual yield policies and strategies for living within biophysical limits; and of the same product. Yield is expressed in global hectares. The way global hectares are calculated is explained in more detail below after Generate a core dataset that can be used as the basis the various area types are introduced. But in essence, global hectares of sub-national Ecological Footprint analyses, such asare estimated with the help of two factors: the yield factors (that those for provinces, states, businesses, or products. compare national average yield per hectare to world average yield inThe National Footprint Accounts, 2010 Edition calculate thethe same land category) and the equivalence factors (which capture theEcological Footprint and biocapacity for 240 countries, territories, relative productivity among the various land and sea area types).and regions, from 1961 to 2007. Of these 240 countries,Therefore, the formula of the Ecological Footprint becomes:territories, and regions, 153 were covered consistently by the UNstatistical system and other source datasets. Data for the lattercountries, territories, and regions are included in this report.PEF = YF EQF YNEcological Footprint AssessmentThe National Footprint Accounts, 2010 Edition track human demand where P is the amount of a product harvested or waste emitted (equalfor ecological services in terms of six major land use types (cropland, to DANNUAL above), YN is the national average yield for P, and YFgrazing land, forest land, carbon Footprint, fishing grounds, and built- and EQF are the yield factor and equivalence factor, respectively,up land). With the exception of built-up land and forest for carbon for the country and land use type in question. The yield factor isdioxide uptake, the Ecological Footprint of each major land use type the ratio of national-to world-average yields. It is calculated as theis calculated by summing the contributions of a variety of specific annual availability of usable products and varies by country and year.products. Built-up land reflects the bioproductivity compromised by Equivalence factors trasnlate the area supplied or demanded of ainfrastructure and hydropower. Forest land for carbon dioxide uptake specific land use type (e.g. world average cropland, grazing land, etc.)represents the waste absorption of a world average hectare of forest into units of world average biologically productive area: global hectaresneeded to absorb human induced carbon dioxide emissions, after and varies by land use type and year.having considered the ocean sequestration capacity. Annual demand for manufactured or derivative products (e.g.The Ecological Footprint calculates the combined demand for flour or wood pulp), is converted into primary product equivalentsecological resources wherever they are located and presents them as (e.g. wheat or roundwood) through the use of extraction rates.the global average area needed to support a specific human activity. These quantities of primary product equivalents are then translatedThis quantity is expressed in units of global hectares, defined as into an Ecological Footprint. The Ecological Footprint alsohectares of bioproductive area with world average bioproductivity. By embodies the energy required for the manufacturing process. 11 14. Consumption, Production, and Trade The National Footprint Accounts, 2010 Edition track the embodied Ecological Footprint of over 700 categories ofThe National Footprint Accounts calculate the Footprint of a traded crop, forest, livestock, and fish products. The embodiedpopulation from a number of perspectives. Most commonly reported carbon dioxide emissions in 625 categories of products is usedis the Ecological Footprint of consumption of a population, typically with trade flows from the United Nations COMTRADEjust called Ecological Footprint. The Ecological Footprint of database (UN Commodity Trade Statistics Database 2007) toconsumption for a given country measures the biocapacity demanded calculate the embodied carbon Footprint in traded the final consumption of all the residents of the country. Thisincludes their household consumption as well as their collective Throughout the National Footprint Accounts, the embodiedconsumption, such as schools, roads, fire brigades, etc., which serveFootprint of trade is calculated assuming world average Footprintthe household, but may not be directly paid for by the households. intensities for all products. Using world-average efficiencies for all traded goods is an overestimate of the Footprint of exports forIn contrast, a countrys primary production Ecological Footprint is countries with higher-than-average production efficiency. In turn,the sum of the Footprints for all resources harvested and all waste it underestimates that countrys Footprint of consumption. Forgenerated within the countrys geographical borders. This includes countries with below-average transformation efficiencies for secondaryall the area within a country necessary for supporting the actual products, the opposite is true: An underestimate of the embodiedharvest of primary products (cropland, grazing land, forest land, Footprint of exports yields an exaggerated Footprint of consumption.and fishing grounds), the countrys infrastructure and hydropower(built-up land), and the area needed to absorb fossil fuel carbonThe Footprint intensity of any primary product is bydioxide emissions generated within the country (carbon Footprint). definition the same anywhere in the world since it is expressedThe difference between the production and consumption Footprint is in global hectares. However, the embodied Footprint oftrade, shown by the following equation:secondary products will depend on transformation efficiencies (extraction rates), and these vary between countries. Biocapacity Assessment EF C = EF P EF I EF E A national biocapacity calculation starts with the total amount of bioproductive land available. Bioproductive refers to land and waterwhere EFC is the Ecological Footprint of consumption, EFP is that supports significant photosynthetic activity and accumulationthe Ecological Footprint of production, and EFI and EFE are theof biomass, ignoring barren areas of low, dispersed productivity.Footprints of imported and exported commodity flows, respectively. This is not to say that areas such as the Sahara Desert, Antarctica, orIn order to measure the Footprint of imports and exports, oneAlpine mountaintops do not support life; their production is simplyneeds to know both the amounts traded as well as the embodiedtoo widespread to be directly harvestable by humans. Biocapacityresources (including carbon dioxide emissions) in all an aggregated measure of the amount of land available, weightedThe embodied Footprint is measured as the number of global by the productivity of that land. It represents the ability of thehectares required to make a tonne per year of a given product. biosphere to produce crops, livestock (pasture), timber products (forest), and fish, as well as to uptake carbon dioxide in forests. It also includes how much of this regenerative capacity is occupied by EFC= EFP + EF I - EFE infrastructure (built-up land). In short, it measures the ability of available terrestrial and aquatic areas to provide ecological services. Global biocapacity A countrys biocapacity for any land use type is calculated as(direct and indirect demand)Exports ImportsBC = A YF EQFEconomic SystemConsumption 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,ProductionCO2 Uptake (Harvest)(Emissions)respectively, for the country land use type in question. The yield factor is the ratio of national to world average yields. It is calculatedDomestic Biocapacity Global Biocapacityas the annual availability of usable products and varies by country(direct demand)(indirect demand) and year. Equivalence factors translate the area supplied or demanded of a specific land use type (e.g. world average cropland, grazing land, etc.) into units of world average biologically productive area (global hectares) and varies by land use type and year.12 15. Land Area Types of the National Footprintwith the amount of feed required for the livestock produced inAccounts that year, with the remainder of feed demand assumed to come from grazing land. Since the yield of grazing land represents theThe National Footprint Accounts include six main land use amount of above-ground primary production available in a year,types: cropland, grazing land, fishing ground, forests for overshoot is not physically possible over extended periods oftimber and fuelwood, forests for carbon dioxide uptake, time for this land use type. For this reason, a countrys grazingand built-up land. For all land use types there is a demand land Footprint of production is capped at its biocapacity.on the area, as well as a supply of such an area.In 2007, the area of biologically productive land and water on Forest for timber and fuelwoodEarth was approximately 11.9 billion hectares. World biocapacity The forest Footprint is calculated based on the amount of lumber,is also 11.9 billion global hectares, since the total number ofpulp, timber products, and fuelwood consumed by a country onaverage hectares equals the total number of actual hectares. But the a yearly basis. FAO ResourceSTAT places the total area of worldrelative area of each land type expressed in global hectares differs forests at 3.9 billion hectares (FAO ResourceSTAT Statisticalfrom the distribution in actual hectares as shown in Figure 1. Database 2007). Estimates of timber productivity are derived fromIn 2007, the world had 3.9 billion global hectares of cropland the UNEC and FAO Temperate and Boreal Forest Resourcebiocapacity as compared to 1.6 billion hectares of cropland area Assessment, the FAO Global Fiber Supply Model and the(Figure 1). This difference is due to the relatively high productivity Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UNEC, 2000, FAOof cropland compared to other land use types. This is not surprising 2000, FAO 1998, IPCC 2006), and give a world average yield ofsince cropland typically uses the most suitable and productive land1.81 m3 of harvestable underbark per hectare per year. These sourcesareas, unless they have been urbanized. Thus, cropland affords morealso provide information on plantation type, coverage, timberbiologically productive services to humans than the same physical area yield, and areas of protected and economically inaccessible forest.of other land use types. Fishing ground 12000 The fishing grounds Footprint is calculated using estimates of the 10000Built-up Landmaximum sustainable catch for a variety of fish species (Gulland Area (millions)8000Forest Land1971). The sustainable catch estimates are converted into anFishing Ground equivalent mass of primary production based on the various species6000 trophic levels. This estimate of maximum harvestable primaryGrazing Land4000 production is then divided amongst the continental shelf areas ofCropland the world. Globally, there were 2.4 billion hectares of continental2000 shelf and 433 million hectares of inland water areas in 2007 (World 0 Resources Institute and FAO ResourceSTAT Statistical Database HectaresGlobal hectares 2007). The fishing grounds Footprint is calculated based on theFigure 1. Relative Area of Land Use Types Worldwideestimated primary production required to support the fish Global Hectares and Hectares, 2007 This primary production requirement (PPR) is calculated fromCropland The above graph will be used on the following pages of the 2010 Atlas:the average trophic level of the species in question. Fish that feed Chapter: Current Methodology, 2010 Edition National Footprint Accountshigher on the food chain (at higher trophic levels) require moreCropland is the(Page 13): Global bioproductive area,land use types most bioproductive of all the 2007primary production input and as such are associated with a higherand consists of areas used to produce food and fiber for Footprint of consumption. The National Footprint Accountshuman consumption, feed for livestock, oil crops, and rubber.include primary production requirement estimates for 1,439Worldwide in 2007 there were 1.6 billion hectares designated asdifferent marine species and more than 268 freshwater species.cropland (FAO ResourceSTAT Statistical Database 2007); theNational Footprint Accounts calculate the cropland Footprint Built-up landaccording to the production quantities of 164 different crop The built-up land Footprint is calculated based on the area of landcategories. Cropland Footprint calculations do not take into covered by human infrastructure transportation, housing, industrialaccount the extent to which farming techniques or unsustainablestructures, and reservoirs for hydropower. Built-up land occupiedagricultural practices cause long-term degradation of soil.167 million hectares of land worldwide in 2007, according to satelliteGrazing land imaging and research data sets (FAO 2005 and IIASA Global Agro- Ecological Zones 2000). It is assumed that built-up land occupiesGlobally in 2007, there were 3.4 billion hectares of land classified aswhat was previously cropland. This assumption is based on the theorygrazing land. Grazing land is used to raise livestock for meat, dairy, that human settlements are generally situated in highly fertile areas.hide, and wool products. The grazing land Footprint is calculatedFor lack of data on the types of land inundated, all hydroelectricby comparing the amount of livestock feed available in a country dams are assumed to flood land with global average productivity. 13 16. Forest for carbon dioxide uptakeGrazingFishingYieldCroplandForestLand GroundsCarbon dioxide emissions, primarily from burning fossil fuels, are theonly waste product included in the National Footprint Accounts. OnWorld Average1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0the demand side, the carbon Footprint is calculated as the amount Algeria0.30.40.7 0.9of forest land required to absorb given carbon emissions. It is the Germany2.2 4.1 2.2 3.0largest portion of humanitys current Footprint in some countries Hungary1.1 2.6 1.9 0.0though, it is a minor contribution to their overall Footprint.Japan1.3 1.4 2.2 0.8Jordan 1.1 1.5 0.4 0.7The first step in calculating the carbon Footprint is to sum the New Zealand 0.7 2.0 2.5 1.0atmospheric emissions of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels, Zambia0.2 0.2 1.5 0.0land use change (deforestation, for example), and emissions fromthe international transport of passengers and freight. This total isTable 1: Sample Yield Factors for Selected Countries, 2007.the amount of anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide releasedinto the global atmosphere in a given year. Second, after subtractingthe amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the worlds oceans eachEquivalence factors translate a specific land use type (i.e. worldyear from the anthropogenic total, the remaining carbon dioxide isaverage cropland, pasture, forest, fishing ground) into a universaltranslated into the amount of bioproductive forest that would beunit of biologically productive area, a global hectare. In 2007, forneeded to store it that year. Since timber harvest leads to a release ofexample, cropland had an equivalence factor of 2.51 (Table 2),the stocked carbon, using forest land for carbon uptake and usingindicating that world-average cropland productivity was more thanit for timber or fuel-wood provision are considered to be mutuallydouble the average productivity for all land combined. This sameexclusive activities (see forest area for timber and fuelwood).year, grazing land had an equivalence factor of 0.46, showing thatgrazing land was, on average, half as productive as the world-averageNormalizing Bioproductive Areas FromHectares to Global Hectares bioproductive hectare. The equivalence factor for built-up land isset equal to that for cropland. Equivalence factors are calculatedEcological Footprint results are expressed in a single measurement unit,for every year, and are identical for every country in a given year.the global hectare. To achieve this, Ecological Footprint accountingscales different types of areas to account for productivity differencesArea TypeEquivalence Factoramong land and water use types. Equivalence factors and yield [global hectares per hectare]factors are used to convert actual areas of different land use types (in Cropland2.51hectares) into their global hectare equivalents. Equivalence and yield Forest1.26factors are applied to both Footprint and biocapacity calculations.Grazing Land0.46Yield factors account for differences in productivity of a given landMarineInland Water 0.37use type between a country and the global average in this area type. Built-up Land 2.51A hectare of grazing land in New Zealand, for example, producesmore grass on average than a world average grazing land hectare.Table 2: Equivalence Factors, 2007.Inversely, a hectare of grazing land in Jordan produces less. Hence,the New Zealand hectare is potentially capable of supporting moremeat production than the global average hectare of grazing land.These differences are driven by natural factors, such as precipitation orsoil quality, as well as by management practices. To account for thesedifferences, the yield factor compares the production of a specific landuse type in a country to a world average hectare of the same land usetype. Each country and each year has its own set of yield factors. Forexample, Table 1 shows that New Zealands grazing land is on average2.5 times as productive as world average grazing land. The yield factorfor built-up land is assumed to be equal that for cropland since urbanareas are typically built on or near the most productive cropland areas. 14 17. Methodology Updates between theand food aid shipments. Food aid for cropland, livestock, and fish is now reported separately from other trade, necessitating the addition2008 and 2010 Edition of Nationalof several worksheets to explicitly calculate the embodied FootprintFootprint Accounts of food aid flows. Since food aid quantities are reported only forA formal process is in place to assure continuous improvement of the aggregate categories, the composition of each countrys domesticNational Footprint Accounts (NFA) methodology. Coordinated byproduction is used to determine the intensity of food aid exports.Global Footprint Network, this process is supported by its partnersIn the NFA 2008, a world average un-harvested percentage wasand by the National Footprint Accounts Committee, as well as other applied to each countrys consumption quantity. This meansstakeholders.unharvested crops were added as a universal tax to consumedThere have been three primary motivations for revisions to the crops. This led to each countrys cropland Footprint of productioncalculation method of the National Footprint Accounts: (1) to adaptnot necessarily equaling its cropland biocapacity as it should, asto changes in the organization of the source data, (2) to respond to well as a slight mismatch between production, trade quantities andissues raised in outside reviews (e.g. Stiglitz Commission, European consumption.Commission reports, etc.), and (3) to increase the specificity and In the NFA 2010, a country specific un-harvested cropland percentageaccuracy of the NFA calculations. Many of the changes in the latterhas been calculated, and applied to the yield factor calculation, ascategory focus on incorporating country specific information inmodifiers to the respective yields. Specifically, the sum of the land areadetermining the Footprint intensities of traded goods. harvested for each item in the FAO data base (reported per item withThis section describes each of the calculation method changesproduction) was subtracted from the total area for each land use typeimplemented since the 2010 Edition of the National Footprint as reported by the FAO. This leads to a globally consistent Footprint/Accounts.ton for crop products, consistent with products of other land use types, while maintaining the constraint that each countrys croplandGeneral UpdatesEFp is equal to its BC. The effect is that a larger national un-harvested area percentage appears as a lower biocapacity rather than a higherSince the release of the 2008 NFA, there have been substantial EFp.revisions to some of the FAO datasets the NFA rely on. For example,the product classifications have changed, and in some instances the Grazing Land/Livestock Updatesextended HS codes used previously have been replaced entirely by theFAOs own system of commodity classification.The biggest change in the grazing land and livestock sections is the modification of export intensities to reflect a countrys domesticIn many of the datasets used to calculate the NFA Belgium andfeed mix. Previously, all traded livestock products were assumed toLuxembourg are reported as an aggregate for most of the time series, embody world average cropland and grazing land demand. In theand are only reported separately after 2000. In past editions, we have 2009 Edition of the NFA, these intensities are modified accordingscaled the 2000 values for the two countries according to the change to domestic mix and intensity of feed to estimate a country specificin their combined Footprint and biocapacity to approximate a timeFootprint intensity of livestock. The exports intensity for livestockseries for each prior to 2000. In the 2009 and 2010 Edition of the and livestock products is then calculated as the weighted averageNFA we have split the reported production and trade amounts in the of production and imports intensities. This assumes that countriesraw data where Belgium and Luxembourg are reported as an aggregate,process some of the livestock that is imported, and export a productusing the ratio of their quantities in the earliest year where the two are derived from these imports - as opposed to all imports beingreported separately. This is probably more accurate, since the split for consumed within the country (e.g. sausage). Ideally imports wouldeach product is unaffected by the ratios of other products in the same be country specific as well, but as of yet are not calculated use category. There have also been several smaller changes:In the NFA 2010, a source data cleaning algorithm was implementedto reduce (1) spikes and troughs and (2) inconsistent reporting of The list of livestock for which feed demand is calculated hassource data sets. The algorithm involved interpolation to fill in data been expanded, providing a more comprehensive picture ofgaps and to exclude data points that are far out of the expected dataeach countrys livestock populations and feed intensity.range. In the 2009 edition, the feed intensity for all livestock products were considered to be the weight of feed required for the weightCropland Updates of product. These ratios were obtained from published dataThe product lists for crop production and trade have been changed to sources. For the 2010 edition, feed intensities were calculatedmatch changes in the categories reported in FAOSTAT. by accounting for the feed intake requirements and life span of different livestock animals. These feed intensities for animals werePreviously, the FAO TradeSTAT database reported the sum of trade then allocated to the products that come from the animals. 15 18. The aggregate crop amounts used to determine residue feed included using where possible, regional rather than global averagesavailability are now explicitly calculated from productionfor countries where explicit NAI estimates are lacking. The globalquantities of each aggregate categorys constituent crop products.average NAI is now calculated from national figures, rather thanThis eliminates some potential for double-counting. being reported independently. This has brought greater consistencybetween countries forest biocapacity and Footprint estimates.A conversion factor between wet and dry weight for cropped grassfeed has been removed after a review of reported yields in theCarbon Uptake Land UpdatesProdSTAT database indicated that no such conversion is necessary.In the NFA 2010, there were five substantial revisionsIt is worth noting that the removal of the Other Wooded Landto the carbon Footprint calculations:category described below affects the grazing land Footprint byreducing many countries grazing land Footprints of production.Use of CO2 intensity of total primary energy supply,This is due to the fact that the current calculation method does rather than only heat and electricity generation;not allow EFp for grazing to exceed biocapacity in the Footprint Calculation of country-specific CO2 intensities for energyalgorithm (assuming that this is physically not possible). supply, as a weighted average of production and imports;In the NFA 2010, three additional revisionsInclusion of electricity trade using IEA data;were made to the Accounts: Allocation of international transport emissions (bunker Expansion of livestock feed commodities to includefuels) according to each countrys imports as a fraction of fish and other animal products fed to livestock;total global trade in units of mass (in the 2009 edition this Inclusion of livestock and fish food aid shipments; and was a tax applied to each countrys production); and Revision of the livestock constants for live weight Calculation of embodied energy values for the 625 and total feed requirement that are used to calculate UN COMTRADE commodities were estimated using the Footprint of trade due to a mismatch betweendata fromthe University of Bath Inventory of Carbon annual feed and total feed requirement. and Energy, Thormark 2002, Interfacultaire Vakgroep Energie en Milieukunde Energy Analysis ProgramFishing Grounds Updates1999, EAP, and a collection of data from SEI-York.The FAO FishSTAT database does not report trade in fish In the NFA 2009, there were two minor adjustments to thecommodities prior to 1976. In the NFA 2008, trade in fish carbon Footprint calculation: the CO2 intensity time seriescommodities prior to 1976 was simply omitted. In the 2009 estimation has been imputed by following the % change inEdition of the NFA, we have used COMTRADE data to extrapolate the most closely correlated countries, and the list of tradedthese trade flows back to the start of our time series (1961).commodities is now somewhat more comprehensive.The list of fish species considered in the Footprint of Intensities of The Total Primary Energy Supply prior to 1971production calculation has grown somewhat, as the numberhave been recalculated, using the change in intensity for thoseof reported species has grown, and estimates of average individual countries that do have historical data available as atrophic level have been collected for more species. proxy for the change in global intensity. The algorithm used forthe 2010 accounts was thus: for each country missing a completeThe exports yield for each fish commodity is calculated as thetime series, we took the 3 most closely correlated countries (inweighted average of domestic catch and imports. The catchterms of % change in the parts of the time series that overlapped)intensity for each commodity is now based on the effectiveand used the average % change in these to extrapolate back.trophic level across a countrys catch of several species, ratherthan global constants based on the trophic levels of individual Traded goods which are reported in units other than massspecies. The formula for effective trophic level has also been(e.g. number or volume) are now included in the embodiedrevised to reflect the exponential relation between fish trophiccarbon import and export calculations, since for these itemslevels and Footprint intensities (see guidebook for details). a traded mass is usually provided as a secondary measure.In the NFA 2010, fishmeal and fish oil production and trade, and of Land Cover Updatesaquaculture, were included and the fish commodity extraction rateswere revised to include species-specific extraction rates for all species.In the NFA 2010, CORINE Land Cover 2006 was included andthe CORINE Land Cover and NFA correspondence was revised.Forest Land Updates In the NFA 2009, the following revisions were made:The calculation of national net annual increments (NAI) was refinedFor European countries, the 2008 Edition of the NFA usedfor the 2009 Edition of the National Footprint Accounts. Refinement 16 19. the CLC 2000 dataset for areas under various land cover. In the 2009 Edition, CLC data for 1990 has been added, with areas interpolated between 1990 and 2000. For years outside this range, the change in area reported in the FAO data has been used to scale the CLC reported areas. The equivalence factor calculation has been improved slightly. In previous editions, the equivalence factors shifted abruptly between 1991 and 1992, primarily due to a difference in various land cover areas reported by the USSR and those reported by former Soviet countries. To address this, the 1991 USSR areas have been scaled to match the aggregate areas reported by all former Soviet countries in 1992. The percent change in reported USSR areas is then applied to the USSR 1991 estimate to create a consistent time series. In addition, the distribution of GAEZ suitability indices in the USSR was calculated, based on the distributions reported for the former Soviet Republics. This leadsEcological Footprint (in number of of Earths)1.5National Footprint Accounts 2010 National Footprint Accounts 20091.00.50.0 1960 19651970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005Figure 2. Comparison of global results to greater inter-annual consistency in the equivalence factors. The land cover category Other Wooded Land, previously included as a subcategory of grazing land, has been removed. This category is no longer reported in any available FAO dataset, and in at least some cases it appears to be double counting areas already reported in other FAO land use categories.17 20. Global Results from the NationalFootprint AccountsThe Global ContextNatural resource wealth and material consumption are not evenlyFigure 4 compares Ecological Footprint and biocapacity by land usedistributed worldwide. Some countries and regions have a net type for the world. For components other than carbon Footprint,demand on the planet greater than their respective biocapacity, whilewhere a regions Footprint exceeds its biocapacity, the net deficitothers use less than their available capacity. Humanity as a whole,is made up by depleting its own ecosystem resource stocks, or byhowever, is not living within the means of the planet. In 2007,importing resources from elsewhere. At a national level, this latterhumanitys total Ecological Footprint worldwide was 18.0 billion option is less available to countries with fewer financial hectares (gha); with world population at 6.7 billion people, Half of the global Footprint was attributable to just 10 countries inthe average persons Footprint was 2.7 global hectares. But there were 2007 (Figure 5), with the United States of America and China aloneonly 11.9 billion gha of biocapacity available that year, or 1.8 gha each respectively using 21 and 24 percent of the Earths biocapacity.per person. This overshoot of approximately 50 percent means thatin 2007 humanity used the equivalent of 1.5 Earths to support itsOther1.5Ecological Footprint (number of Earths)consumption (Figure 3). It took the Earth approximately a year and United States of Americasix months to regenerate the resources used by humanity in that year.China World biocapacity India1.0Ecological Footprint (number of Earths) Russia 1.5 JapanBuilt-up LandBrazil0.5United Kingdom World biocapacityForest Land 1.0 MexicoFishing GroundsGermanyGrazing Land0.0France1961 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 20002007 0.5CroplandFigure 5. Humanitys Ecological Footprint by country, 1961-2007Carbon Footprint 0.01961 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2007 Figure 6 below shows the top 10 countries in terms of total Figure 3. Humanitys Ecological Footprint, 1961-2007available biocapacity. Brazil has the most biocapacity of any country, followed in decreasing order by China, United StatesIn 1961, the first year for which National Footprint Accounts areof America, Russian Federation, India, Canada, Australia,available, humanitys Footprint was about half of what the Earth could Indonesia, Argentina, and Bolivia. Half the worlds biocapacitysupplyhumanity was living off the planets annual ecological interest,is found within the borders of just eight countries.not drawing down its principal. Human demand first exceeded theplanets ability to meet this demand around the 1970s and 1980s,Other (39.4%)and this state of overshoot has characterized every year since.Brazil (14.4%)China (11.0%)20000 United States (10.0%) Built-up LandRussian Federation (6.9%) Global Hectares (millions) Forest LandIndia (5.0%)15000 Fishing GroundsCanada (4.1%) Grazing Land Australia (2.6%)10000 Cropland Indonesia (2.6%)Argentina (2.5%)5000 Carbon FootprintFrance (1.6%) 0 Footprint Biocapacity Figure 6: Total Biocapacity of Top 10 Countries, 2007Figure 4. Total Ecological Footprint and biocapacity by land type, 2007 18 21. 5 101520 2530024 6 810120GabonUnited Arab Emirates 0Bolivia QatarMongolia DenmarkCanadaBelgium Australia United States of AmericaCongo Estonia Finland CanadaParaguayAustralia New ZealandKuwait UruguayIrelandSwedenNetherlandsBrazilFinland Estonia Sweden Central African Republic Czech Republic Namibia Macedonia TFYR ArgentinaLatvia LatviaNorwayRussian Federation Mongolia Mauritania SpainNorwayGreeceDenmark SingaporeLithuania SloveniaKazakhstanAustriaColombia Saudi ArabiaUnited States of AmericaUruguay Figure 8. Biocapacity by Country per person, 2007 PeruGermanyChile SwitzerlandBotswana FrancePapua New GuineaItaly Figure 7. Ecological Footprint by Country per person, 2007 Ireland Oman Austria United Kingdom Belarus New Zealand Guinea-Bissau Korea, Republic ofTurkmenistanMalaysiaChad IsraelPanamaJapan19Madagascar LithuaniaFrance Kazakhstan Angola Portugal Guinea Russian Federation NicaraguaPoland Venezuela, Bolivarian Rep.Mauritius Congo, Democratic Rep. Bulgaria Slovakia SlovakiaCzech RepublicTurkmenistan Slovenia Belarus Malaysia Croatia QatarNepal Croatia Gambia MaliChileLiberiaParaguaySudan Trinidad and Tobago Ecuador Libyan Arab JamahiriyaZambiaMexico HungaryHungary OmanBrazil BulgariaLebanon PolandUkraine NigerVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofMyanmarCropland Cropland Panama RomaniaBosnia and HerzegovinaGermanyGrazing LandGrazing Land RomaniaMozambique Turkey Fishing Grounds Carbon Footprint Cameroon WorldHondurasCosta RicaUkrainespace for wild speciesIran, Islamic Republic of WorldBotswana Cte dIvoire MauritaniaWorld Biocapacity, includingGreeceArgentina Spain BoliviaBosnia and Herzegovina Serbia Forest LandForest Land wild speciesEritreaBuilt-up LandBuilt-up LandThailand Lao Peoples Democratic Republic Niger Fishing GroundsTrinidad and Tobago South Africa World Biocapacity, including space for Mexico ChinaMacedonia TFYRNamibia 22. Somalia Papua New GuineaIndonesiaJordan Kyrgyzstan El SalvadorBelgiumMali United Kingdom JamaicaTurkey Honduras Burkina Faso AlbaniaPortugal TunisiaSwitzerlandEcuadorTimor-Leste Azerbaijan Georgia Colombia SenegalCuba Sierra Leone Georgia Ghana Madagascar Serbia MyanmarThailandGuatemalaItaly Ghana South AfricaArmenia GuatemalaUzbekistanNigeria Sudan GambiaChad Netherlands GuineaTanzania, United Republic of EgyptSwazilandAlgeriaTunisiaNicaragua China PeruCambodiaUganda UzbekistanSyrian Arab Republic Albania Swaziland Viet Nam Dominican Republic United Arab EmiratesNigeria Uganda Somalia Saudi ArabiaGabon LesothoViet NamIran, Islamic Republic ofMoldova of biocapacity is not a pre-requisite for a large average EcologicalBenin Iraq per person for these same countries. While having high availability Figure 7 shows the average Ecological Footprint of consumption per person in 2007 for 153 of the 240 countries covered in the National Azerbaijan biocapacity per person of any country, while its Ecological Footprint Footprint Accounts. Figure 8 shows the average biocapacity availableKorea, Democratic Peoples Republic of Footprint, the converse is also true. Bolivia, for example, has the most Zimbabwe Central African RepublicCubaBurkina FasoArmenia PhilippinesMalawiLao Peoples Democratic Republic 20Syrian Arab Republic Liberia El SalvadorZimbabweMoldova KyrgyzstanEthiopia Benin Philippines Morocco EgyptSri LankaYemenIndonesiaMorocco Tanzania, United Republic of JapanKenya TogoEthiopia KenyaSenegalAlgeria LesothoKorea, Democratic Peoples Republic ofSierra Leone Rwanda Cameroon TajikistanCambodia Mauritius Rwanda NepalCte dIvoire Afghanistan Angola IndiaTajikistanper person is less than half the global average.Cape VerdeTogo Burundi CongoDominican RepublicGuinea-Bissau Sri Lanka Yemen Libyan Arab Jamahiriya IndiaPakistanZambiaLebanon BurundiKuwaitEritrea Jamaica MozambiqueBangladesh Pakistan Korea, Republic of Congo, Democratic Republic ofIsrael Occupied Palestinian TerritoryHaitiMalawi IraqHaitiJordan Afghanistan Occupied Palestinian TerritoryBangladeshSingaporeTimor-Leste 23. Human Development and the Ecological demands on it. Realizing the right to develop of all countries, whichFootprintis the principle underlying this publication, requires constructing new development pathways that place much less strain on the globalMany low-income countries have an abundance of natural resources, environment than have historically been the case.yet their populations often suffer first and most tragically whenhumanitys demand on the biosphere exceeds what the biosphere canThe challenge of reaching a high level of human well-being whilerenewably provide. Countries in Africa, Latin America, and South ensuring long-term resource availability is illustrated in the graphEast Asia have some of the lowest per person Ecological Footprints below. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) definesin the world--in many cases the flow of usable resources from thesea high level of development as an HDI score of 0.8 or above, whileEcological Footprints is too small to meet basic needs for food, shelter,1.8 global hectares is the average productive area available for eachhealth, and sanitation. For these regions to reduce poverty, hunger, person on the planet. Countries with an HDI score of 0.8 or higher,and disease, their access to natural resources must increase. Yet theand a Footprint of 1.8 global hectares per person or lower, meet twogrowing population and the rest of the worlds escalating resource minimum criteria for global sustainable development: a high level ofconsumption are making this increasingly difficult to manage in adevelopment and an Ecological Footprint per person that could besustainable manner. If low-income countries are to make advances inglobally replicated to a level less than global biocapacity. Any countrieshuman development that can persist, they will need to find approachesthat meet both criteria are shown in the lower right quadrant. Despitethat work within the Earths ecological budget.growing adoption of sustainable development as an explicit policy goal, all countries do not meet both minimum conditions.When utilizing moderate projections of UN agencies for 2050, basedon slow population growth and slight improvements of peoples diet,The well-being of human society is intricately linked to the biologicalhuman demand would be twice of what Earth could provide. Movingcapital on which it depends. Accounting for the biological capacityenergy systems away from dependancy on fossil fuels, preservingavailable to, and used by, a society can help identify opportunities andbioproductive areas, and restoring unproductive areas would go a challenges in meeting human development goals. The loss in humanlong way to reducing this demand, but even optimistic forecasts arewell-being due to ecological degradation often comes after a significantstill not sufficient to bring demand within the biological capacity of time delay, and is difficult to reverse once the stock of resources hasthe Earth. Therefore, relying on a growing level of consumption to been significantly depleted. Short-term methods to improve humanattain sustainable well-being for all is unrealistic, especially given the lives such as water purification, basic medicine, and electricity forincreasing global population. While technological improvements can hospitals must be complemented by effective long-term resourcecertainly help alleviate the strain placed on the environment, placing management in order to address and reverse humanitys cumulativecomplete reliance on continued improvements in the future does not ecological degradation.represent good planning. Worse, the accumulated ecological debt from1212 UNDP threshold for high human developmentdecades of ecological overspending is likely to start decreasing thebiospheres regenerative capacity at the same time we are increasing ourEcological Footprint (global hectares per person)1010African countriesAsian countries 88European countriesLatin American and Caribbean countriesNorth American countries 66Oceanian countries World average biocapacity per person in 1961 (This must also include the needs of wild species) 44World average biocapacity per person in 2007 22 High human development within the Earths limits 00.2 0.4 0.6 0.81.0 United Nations Human Development IndexFigure 9: Human Development Index and Ecological Footprint , 2007 21 24. Ecological resources will play a crucial role in the success or failure to 1212 UNDP threshold for high human developmentreduce poverty, hunger, and disease in the future. Global FootprintNetworks Human Development Initiative aims to address the Ecological Footprint (global hectares per person) 1010question: How can enduring human development be achieved, given aAfrican countries Asian countriesworld of increasing resource constraints?European countries88 Latin American and Caribbean countriesIn an effort to explore the answer to this question, Global FootprintNorth American countries66 Oceanian countriesNetwork collaborates with a wide range of partners in countriesWorld average biocapacity per person in 1961throughout Latin America, Africa and South East Asia. In 2006 (This must also include the needs of wild species)44Global Footprint Network and the Swiss Agency for Development World average biocapacity per person in 1980 2and Cooperation (SDC) published the Africa Ecological Footprint2High human developmentAtlas; a document examining indicators for human well-being and 0within the Earths limitsecological health in 34 sub-Saharan African countries. This document 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8Figure 9a: Human United Nations Human Development Index Development Index and Ecological Footprint , 1980served as the basis for discussion at workshops in Senegal, South 1212Africa, and Kenya, where local and regional environmental leadersUNDP threshold for high human developmentgathered to discuss the impacts of natural resource constraints on Ecological Footprint (global hectares per person) 1010development in Africa. A 2008 report Africa: Ecological Footprint African countriesand Well-being was subsequently published to capture the ideasAsian countries88generated at the workshops, while highlighting case study examples European countries Latin American and Caribbean countriesof how countries have achieved advances in human development North American countries66within their countrys ecological limits. In 2008, Global FootprintOceanian countriesNetwork worked together with Camfed International to implement anWorld average biocapacity per person in 1961(This must also include the needs of wild species)44environmental-business training programme for 200 female secondaryWorld average biocapacity per person in 1990school graduates in northern Zambia. Recently, the 2006 Africa Atlas 22High human developmentwas revised to become the 2009 Africa Footprint Factbook. This newwithin the Earths limits0edition included perspectives of local natural resource experts in each 0.20.4 0.60.8of the countries featured.Figure 9b: Human United Nations Human Development IndexDevelopment Index and Ecological Footprint , 1990 1212 UNDP threshold for high human developmentIn India, Global Footprint Network partnered with the GreenBusiness Centre of the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) and the Ecological Footprint (global hectares per person) 1010World Wide Fund for Nature - India (WWF-India) to publish Indias African countriesEcological Footprint; A Business Perspective in 2008. This report Asian countries88 European countriesexamined Indias Ecological Footprint and biocapacity in the context Latin American and Caribbean countriesof Indias rapidly growing industrial sector. It highlighted businessNorth American countries66 Oceanian countriesopportunities for specific industries, in light of Indias ecologicalWorld average biocapacity per person in 1961challenges. (This must also include the needs of wild species)44On the Latin American continent, Global Footprint Network has World average biocapacity per person in 2000 2 2built a strong relationship with the Community of Andean NationsHigh human developmentwithin the Earths limits(CAN) to begin a dialog on the growing significance of biocapacity0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8levels in developing countries. This partnership has yielded theFigure 9c: Human United Nations Human Development Index Footprint , 2000 Development Index and Ecologicalpublication of two important documents; the Huella Ecologica y 1212UNDP threshold for high human developmentBiocapacidad en la Comunidad Andina, which presents the EcologicalFootprint and biocapacity data for the four CAN member nations, Ecological Footprint (global hectares per person) 1010Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, and Colombia and The Ecological Power ofAfrican countries Asian countriesNations: The Earths Biocapacity as a new framework for internationalEuropean countries88cooperation. Latin American and Caribbean countries North American countries66In the future, Global Footprint Networks Human DevelopmentOceanian countriesInitiative will continue to explore how the Ecological FootprintWorld average biocapacity per person in 1961 44(This must also include the needs of wild species)can be used as a tool to make sustainable investments in humandevelopment. By working side-by-side with governments, institutions,World average biocapacity per person in 20072 2High human developmentand innovators, we will work to better understand how to providewithin the Earths limitsincreases in human well-being while preserving, and even replenishing, 0.8 1.0the worlds natural capital.United Nations Human Development Index Figure 9d: Human Development Index and Ecological Footprint , 2007 22 25. Factors in Determining Biocapacity and In 1971, Paul R. Ehrlich and John P. Holdren released a seminalEcological Footprint work that decomposed the anthropogenic driving forces of natural capital appropriation into three variables: Population, Affluence,Biocapacity is determined by two factors: area of biologically and Technology (EhrlichHoldren, 1971). This model came toproductive land or water and the productivity of that area, be known as the IPAT model (Environmental Impact = Populationmeasured by how much it yields per hectare. Since 1961, the * Affluence * Technology), and remains a useful framework forarea of land harvested under the most prevalent crops -- cereals examining environmental impact. Although all three factors are-- has remained relatively constant, while the yield per hectare likely to be limiting in the long run, modern societies usually tryhas more than doubled. In recent years, however, the area of land to increase affluence and many attempt to maintain continuousunder cultivation has been increasing rapidly, and humanity is population growth. Therefore, in attempting to avoid catastrophicutilizing increasingly large areas of land for single plant species resource depletion, continually improving technology is assumed.and intensive agriculture -- leaving less land undisturbed. The driving forces behind changes in the Ecological Footprint can beCareful land management can ensure that bioproductive areas do derived from the IPAT model, with a total of five factors influencingnot decrease due to anthropogenic influence on factors including the degree of global overshoot or a countrys ecological deficit.urbanization, deforestation, erosion, pollution, and desertification. Ecological Footprint is determined by three factors: Population,Yields can often be increased through technology, but innovation consumption per person, and resource and waste intensity.needs to be managed cautiously to avoid harming human orecological health. Mechanized agriculture equipment, geneticallyengineered seeds, irrigation, fertilizers, and pesticides can increasethe yield of biologically productive land. However, many of thesetechnological inputs come at the expense of a larger EcologicalFootprint due to additional energy and resource inputs. Thesetechnologies may also decrease biocapacity in future years byincreasing topsoil runoff, reducing water availability, decreasingbiological diversity, or increasing the degradation of surrounding areas. 1.8 global hectares per person (2007 global biocapacity)2.7 global hectares per person (2007 global Footprint) Gap betweenBiocapacitysupply and Areax Bioproductivity =(CAPACITY) demand:OVERSHOOTEcological ConsumptionResource andPopulation x x=Footprintper personwaste intensity(DEMAND) Figure 10. Footprint and biocapacity factors that determine global overshoot 23 26. Population income countries, there has been a 113 percent increase in population since 1980. In contrast, middle-income countriesPopulation, one of the Ecological Footprints primary have had a 63 percent increase in population during this samedriving factors, can play a decisive role in the level of human time period; high-income countries have increased only 24development within a country or region. Although it is only percent in population. The pyramids below show populationone of the determining factors of the Ecological Footprint, the structure for low, middle, and high-income countries.exponential growth of global population plays a disproportionallylarge role in humanitys total Ecological Footprint. Historically, societies have tended to progress from young populations with a low life expectancy (characterized by a population pyramid withWhen disregarding population growth, humans have made significant a wide base and a narrow peak) to older populations with higher lifeprogress by increasing the world average level of human development expectancy (characterized by a top-heavy population pyramid), dueto from 0.65 to 0.73 between 1980 and 2007, without increasing the to medical and cultural changes. It can be expected that those regionsworld average Ecological Footprint per person. However, over this with young populations today will undergo rapid population growthperiod the total Ecological Footprint has increased by 46 percent. and a consequent multiplicative effect on their Ecological Footprint.Population growth rates vary widely across income, geography,and culture, and understanding these underlying trends is keyto determining the future of environmental demands. In low-1987Age Group20072027 Low Income Middle IncomeHigh IncomePercent of Population Figure 11: Population pyramids showing population structure by income group, 1987, 2007, 202724 27. Affluence: Consumption Per PersonGlobal affluence, as measured by the average value of goodsand services that each person consumes, has risen dramaticallyover the last century: One example of this can be seen in GrossDomestic Product. GDP per person has increased dramaticallyover past century. Even in the poorest region of the world, Africa,individual consumption has more than doubled over this era; inthe affluent West, consumption has risen more than six-fold.Affluence by this measure has been eagerly sought by nearly all nationalgovernments in the last 60 years, with a wide body of literature aimingto determine the link between GDP per person and true humanwelfare. However, in conjunction with the failure to find evidence ofthis link, criticism of GDP per person as a measure of affluence hasbeen increasing, with the French president commissioning leadingeconomists to explore the issue (Stiglitz et al. 2009). An increasinglyproblematic feature of GDP is that events which negatively impactthe ability of people to lead happy, fulfilling lives by degradingtheir natural environment are counted as a positive effect.In 1990, the United Nations produced the first Human DevelopmentReport, with the aim of putting peoples welfare back into nationaland global decision making (UN HDR, 1990). Mahbub ul Haq,the reports founder, described the basic purpose of developmentas enlarging individual choices: a concept echoed by Amartya Senin his book, Development as Freedom. The Human DevelopmentReport introduced a new measure, the Human Development Index(HDI), which aimed to measure human development of countriesthrough three components: income, health, and education.The Human Development Index is one of a growing body ofindicators p