Ecological Footprint: tracking global human pressure on ecosystems and biodiversity

Side event at COP12 Pyeongchang (Korea)

October 15, 2014

Alessandro Galli and Sebastian Winkler Global Footprint Network

The Ecological Footprint is an environmental accounting tool identifying the extent to which human activities exceed two types of ecosystem limits:

• resource production• carbon dioxide sequestration

SUPPLY = BIOCAPACITYHow much bioproductive area is available to us?

DEMAND = ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINTHow much bioproductive area

do we use?

The Accounting Framework

Source: Layke, C., Mapendembe, A., Brown, C., Walpole, M., Winn, J., 2012. Indicators from the global and sub-global Millennium Ecosystem Assessments: An analysis and next steps. Ecological Indicators, 17, 77-87.

/= PER CAPITA

ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT (DEMAND)

PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION

RESOURCE EFFICIENCY

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BIOLOGICAL DEMAND AND SUPPLY

PER CAPITABIOCAPACITY (SUPPLY)x

AREA

BIO-PRODUCTIVITY

/ POPULATION=

Five Factors

Input variable: flow of resource/service used by humansEQFYF

Y

PEF

N

From FLOW to AREA:• YN is used to convert the consumption of a

resource flow into the correspondent amount of area locally required to produce that flow

• YF is used to scale national to world average productivity for a given land use type

• EQF is used to arrive at gha.

The Ecological Footprint is a “flows” indicator; however, it is measured in terms of the bioproductive land needed to generate such flows (global hectares - gha).

Imports

Exports

Production Activities:-Agriculture- Silviculture- Farming- Fishing-Manifacturing-etc

BIOCAPACITY

Humanity’s Ecological Footprint and biocapacity, 1961 – 2008

(DEMAND)

The 2010 BIP approaches biodiversity with a Pressure-State-Benefit-Response framework and the Ecological Footprint is one of the indicators of pressure officially used (Butchart et al., 2010).

Ecological Footprint is a measure of the human pressure on ecosystems and biodiversity, and time series Ecological Footprint assessments constitute a way to measure how this pressure has changed over time.

www.twentyten.net

Butchart et al. (2010) Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines, Science 328: 1164-8

31%

78%

Ecological Footprint: Demand distribution

2008

Biocapacity: Supply distribution

2008

Source: Galli et al., 2014

Source: Galli et al., 2014

WORLD BIOCAPACITY: WHO’S BUYING & WHO’S SELLING

Source: Galli et al., 2014

2008

TRADE IN BIOCAPACITY: IMPORTS TO THE MED

2008

TRADE IN BIOCAPACITY: EXPORTS FROM THE MED

•Countries in Europe have considerably increased their trade flows. •While this has allowed income to increase and pressures on European ecosystems to decrease, it has also caused pressure to increase on ecosystems outside the EU borders.•Same path was experienced by Switzerland where reduction in agricultural intensity due to decreased agricultural subsidies was counterbalanced by increased imports.•Environmental pressure due to the demand for agricultural and livestock products was not reduced but rather displaced elsewhere:

as of 2008 about 50% of the resource and service demanded of Swiss residents was satisfied through net imports

Source: Galli et al., 2014

Source: Galli et al., 2014

DISPLACEMENT OF SWITZERLAND FOOTPRINT

Source: Tittensor et al. (2014) A mid-term analysis of progress toward international biodiversity targets. Science

• A new study indicates that on current trajectories, despite accelerating policy and management responses to the biodiversity crisis, the impacts of government efforts are unlikely to be reflected in improved trends in the state of biodiversity by 2020.

Source: WWF, GFN, ZSL, Living Planet Report 2012.Moore et al., 2012. Ecological Indicators 16, pp: 3-10.

Humanity’s Ecological Footprint and biocapacity up to 2050

NPV+:Choosing the Winning Investments

Annual deficit adds up to a global biocapacity debt

UN’s Most Moderate Scenario

Biocapacity Debt (measured in planet-years)

UN’s Most Moderate ScenarioMathis’ life

Longevity of today’s investments:Which ones are gaining or losing in value?

AND IGNORE THE SIDE-VIEW MIRRORS...Part of the problem is that we do incomplete cost-benefit analyses. We leave out factors that are very real – like the true costs of carbon pollution or the true benefits of storm water protection provided by wetlands – simply because they aren’t assigned values. Oftentimes we don’t do cost-benefit analyses at all and simply buy what’s cheapest today, ignoring operational costs and benefits. In the process, we miss some of the best long-term investment opportunities.

Which Investment to Choose?NPV! Net Present Value

In the NPV+ framework, any investment may be a “capital project;” all costs and benefits – even those where no monetary exchange occurs – are “cash flows;” and those cash flows can be evaluated using the conventional net present value (NPV) formula, which calculates the value of a long-term investment in present-day dollars.

COUNT THE UNCOUNTEDAssessing NPV+

NPV+ expands on conventional cost-benefit analysis by including unpriced factors such as the benefits of ecological resiliency and the costs of environmental degradation.

Key lessons of NPV+

(Net Present Value+)

Key Lessons from NPV+• Nature has a budget. Resource constraints will increasingly affect

economic performance.

• Net Present Value assessments, informed by the realities imposed by the biophysical context, can help distinguish between effective and dangerous real asset investments.

• By recognizing new trends, good forecasting, and including unpriced factors, NPV+ can help regional governments build resilience.

• will you build long-lasting opportunities with your investment, or are you locking yourself into a trap with your investment?

Thank you!For more information please visit:

http://www.footprintnetwork.org

Sebastian WinklerVP, Outreach and Programmes

Global Footprint Network@sebastian.winkler@footprintnetwork.org