The Ecological Footprint and Natural Wealthassets.panda.org/downloads/asialpr2005.pdfThe Ecological...

of 29 /29
C ountries in Asia and the Pacific have made a firm commitment to sustainable development. We want a better quality of life for all, while safeguarding the Earth’s capacity to support life in all its diversity and respecting the limits of the planet’s natural resources. How can we achieve this in the face of growing populations and changing consumption patterns, both within the region and the world? As a first step to answering this question, we need to know where we are today. How does the Asia-Pacific region’s current demand for ecological resources compare to the region’s (and the planet’s) supply? How does it compare to other regions? How do countries in the region differ from one another in both demand for and supply of ecological resources? We can begin to address the sustainability challenge by exploring the implications of our current and proposed future development paths for regional and global ecosystems. The results of the Ecological Footprint analysis presented in this report are an invitation to look harder at humanity’s and the Asia-Pacific region’s critical dilemma. It is also a poignant reminder that consumptive lifestyles in North America and Europe, largely based on cheap fuel and exporting environmental costs, cannot be maintained nor extended worldwide without causing additional life-threatening damage to the global environment and increasing social inequity. This report is a call for action, not just for the policy community, but for the scientific and business com- munities as well. It echoes what the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment found: that the health of natural systems has a profound impact on our quality of life, but 60 percent of the ecosystem services that support life on Earth are being degraded or used unsustainably. This report provides a frank assessment of what is at stake for Asia and the Pacific and for the rest of the world. The Millennium Development Goals will not be achieved if we do not address sustainability in development. Many still believe that the environment is some kind of separate luxury item that can be addressed after economic development. This is the opposite of the truth. The environment is the base of all human activities, and the ultimate source of all our wealth. Poverty, environment and consumption are all linked. How much nature does it take to support us? This is a question we can no longer afford to ignore. To pose a hypothetical question: “How many planets would it take if everybody in Asia and the Pacific consumed like an average American or European?” We have only one planet, yet all people want, and have the right to, fulfilling lives. The challenge for high income countries is to radically reduce footprint while maintaining quality of life. For lasting improvements in their quality of life, lower income countries are facing the complementary challenge of finding new paths to development that can provide best living conditions without liquidating their ecological wealth. The Asia-Pacific region is in a unique position to shape the development model for the whole world in the coming decades. I support this report’s attempt to establish a quantitative link between ecosystem health and human prosperity, and I welcome forward-thinking initiatives and actions such as this one by WWF. Professor Emil Salim Former Indonesian Minister of State ASIA-PACIFIC 2005 The Ecological Footprint and Natural Wealth

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of The Ecological Footprint and Natural Wealthassets.panda.org/downloads/asialpr2005.pdfThe Ecological...

  • Countries in Asia and the Pacific have made a firmcommitment to sustainable development. We wanta better quality of life for all, while safeguarding theEarths capacity to support life in all its diversity andrespecting the limits of the planets natural resources. Howcan we achieve this in the face of growing populations andchanging consumption patterns, both within the regionand the world?

    As a first step to answering this question, we need toknow where we are today. How does the Asia-Pacificregions current demand for ecological resources compareto the regions (and the planets) supply? How does itcompare to other regions? How do countries in the regiondiffer from one another in both demand for and supply ofecological resources? We can begin to address thesustainability challenge by exploring the implications of ourcurrent and proposed future development paths forregional and global ecosystems.

    The results of the Ecological Footprint analysispresented in this report are an invitation to look harder athumanitys and the Asia-Pacific regions critical dilemma. Itis also a poignant reminder that consumptive lifestyles inNorth America and Europe, largely based on cheap fueland exporting environmental costs, cannot be maintained

    nor extended worldwide without causing additional life-threatening damage to the global environment and increasing social inequity.

    This report is a call for action, not just for the policycommunity, but for the scientific and business com-munities as well. It echoes what the Millennium EcosystemAssessment found: that the health of natural systems hasa profound impact on our quality of life, but 60 percent ofthe ecosystem services that support life on Earth are beingdegraded or used unsustainably. This report provides afrank assessment of what is at stake for Asia and thePacific and for the rest of the world. The MillenniumDevelopment Goals will not be achieved if we do notaddress sustainability in development.

    Many still believe that the environment is some kind ofseparate luxury item that can be addressed after economicdevelopment. This is the opposite of the truth. Theenvironment is the base of all human activities, and theultimate source of all our wealth. Poverty, environment andconsumption are all linked. How much nature does it taketo support us? This is a question we can no longer affordto ignore.

    To pose a hypothetical question: How many planetswould it take if everybody in Asia and the Pacific

    consumed like an average American or European? Wehave only one planet, yet all people want, and have theright to, fulfilling lives. The challenge for high incomecountries is to radically reduce footprint while maintainingquality of life. For lasting improvements in their quality oflife, lower income countries are facing the complementarychallenge of finding new paths to development that canprovide best living conditions without liquidating theirecological wealth.

    The Asia-Pacific region is in a unique position to shapethe development model for the whole world in the comingdecades. I support this reports attempt to establish aquantitative link between ecosystem health and humanprosperity, and I welcome forward-thinking initiatives andactions such as this one by WWF.

    Professor Emil SalimFormer Indonesian Minister of State

    AS IA -PAC IF IC 2005The Ecological Footprint and Natural Wealth

  • Asia-Pacific Region 2005: The Ecological Footprint and Natural Wealth 1

    Measuring Progress Towards Sustainability 3

    The Global Context 4

    The Living Planet Index 6

    Asia-Pacifics Ecological Footprint 8

    Country Profiles 10

    Living on One Planet 12

    Asia-Pacific: Transformation to Sustainability 14

    Table: Asia-Pacifics Ecological Footprint and Biocapacity 18

    FAQs 20

    Technical Notes 21

    References and Data Sources 26

    AUTHORSMathis Wackernagel1

    Justin Kitzes1

    Deborah Cheng1

    Steven Goldfinger1

    James Espinas1

    Dan Moran2

    Chad Monfreda3

    Jonathan Loh4

    Dermot OGorman4

    Idy Wong5

    CONTRIBUTORSTom CromptonBabar Naseem KhanSam LeeLin LiAnil ManandharDr T R ManoharanDennis PamlinJamie PittockPeter RamshawWill ReidheadGordon ShepherdTien-ake TiyapongpattanaEd TongsonPaul ToniPip WalshAngie WooChunquan ZhuXinqing Zou

    1. GLOBAL FOOTPRINTNETWORK3270 Lakeshore AvenueOakland CA 94610, USAwww.footprintnetwork.org

    2. LUND/LUSEMPO Box 170SE-221 00 Lund, Swedenwww.lumes.lu.se

    3. SAGEUniversity of Wisconsin1710 University AvenueMadison WI 53726, USAwww.sage.wisc.edu

    4. WWF INTERNATIONALAvenue du Mont-Blanc1196 GlandSwitzerlandwww.panda.org

    5. KADOORIE FARM ANDBOTANIC GARDENLam Kam RoadTai PoHong Kong, Chinawww.kfbg.org

    Published in December 2005 by WWFWorld Wide Fund For Nature (formerly WorldWildlife Fund).

    Any reproduction in full or in partof this publication must mentionthe title and credit the above-mentioned publisher as thecopyright owner.

    text and graphics 2005 WWFAll rights reserved

    ISBN: 2-88085-269-2

    A BANSON Production17E Sturton StreetCambridge CB1 2QG, UK

    Editors: Christine HawkinsAngela JamesonDiagrams and maps: David Burles John-Paul ShirreffsDesign: John-Paul Shirreffs

    Printed in Switzerland byRopress on Aconda VerdSilk FSC, 40% recycled

    fibre and 60% virgin wood fibre, atleast 50% of which is certified inaccordance with the rules of FSC,using vegetable-oil-based inks.SGS-COC-0474. 1996 ForestStewardship Council AC

    WWF(also known as World WildlifeFund in the USA and Canada)is one of the worlds largest andmost experienced independentconservation organizations,with almost 5 million supportersand a global network active in100 countries. WWFs missionis to stop the degradation ofthe planets natural environmentand to build a future in whichhumans live in harmony with nature.

    GLOBAL FOOTPRINTNETWORKpromotes a sustainableeconomy by advancing theEcological Footprint, a tool that makes sustainabilitymeasurable. Together with its partners, the Networkcoordinates research, developsmethodological standards, andprovides decision makers withrobust resource accounts tohelp the human economyoperate within the Earthsecological limits.

    KADOORIE FARM ANDBOTANIC GARDENKFBG exists to increase theawareness of our relationshipwith the environment and bringabout positive change in theworld through conservation and education.

    C O N T E N T S

    NOTE ON ASIA-PACIFICThroughout this report, except where otherwise stated, Asia-Pacific refersto: Australia; Bangladesh; Cambodia; China; India; Indonesia; Japan; Korea,DPR; Korea, Rep; Lao PDR; Malaysia; Mongolia; Myanmar; Nepal; NewZealand; Pakistan; Papua New Guinea; Philippines; Sri Lanka; Thailand; andViet Nam.

    The material and the geographical designations in this report do not implythe expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of WWF concerningthe legal status of any country, territory, or area, or concerning thedelimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

    GlobalFootprintNetwork

  • 3ASIA-PACIFIC 2005: THE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT

    As a planet, we are living beyond our ecological means. Althoughthe global economy and population continue to grow, our planetremains the same size.

    Over 30 years ago, the report Limits to Growth created aninternational controversy when its computer-generated scenariossuggested that the human economy would soon exceed theEarths carrying capacity, leading to a decrease in industrial outputand a decline in well-being in the mid-21st century.

    Overshoot is no longer an hypothesis but a reality. As shown inWWFs Living Planet Report, humanitys annual demand forresources is now exceeding the Earths regenerative capacity bymore than 20 per cent. Humanity can maintain this overdraft onlyby liquidating the planets natural resources.

    The Asia-Pacific region will play an increasingly central role inaddressing overshoot as the regions population and economycontinue to grow in a world with limited resources. The statisticsreinforce this notion: more than 50 per cent of the worldspopulation live in Asia and the Pacific, and the regions use ofworld ecological capacity is expanding rapidly, growing from 15per cent in 1961 to 40 per cent in 2001.

    Increasing human demand presents many challenges for Asiaand the Pacific. The region is not alone in meeting growingecological demand by relying on ecological capacity outside its

    borders and, simultaneously, drawing down its own stocks of ecological assets. Reversing these trends means shifting to sustainable development improving the quality of human life while remaining within the carrying capacity of our supporting ecosystems.

    Reducing pressure on ecosystems, however, is only possible if done in fair and just ways the alternative is increasing local,regional, and global conflict. The resource crunch may not be feltyet in the wealthy centres of the Asia-Pacific region, whereresource consumption is still increasing. Many of the 5.2 billionpeople living in low- and middle-income countries, including 3.3billion in Asia and the Pacific, however, have been facing aninvoluntary decline in their quality of life. Addressing this growingsocial disparity is critical to achieving the Millennium DevelopmentGoals, improving global security and ensuring the well-being of all.

    But in an increasingly globalized economy, responsibility for re-shaping Asian growth trajectories to address environmentalconstraints must also be borne internationally. Those countries in North America and Europe which have the highest per capitafootprints today, bear a particular moral responsibility to assist ineffecting the transitions to a more sustainable economy.

    Time is critical. The sooner the Asia-Pacific region begins torigorously manage the use of its ecological resources, the less

    expensive the future investment required to maintain these assets will be. Prompt action also reduces the risk that criticalecosystems will be eroded beyond the point at which they caneasily recover. If overshoot continues and both the Asia-Pacificregions and the worlds ecological debt keeps accumulating,choices narrow. A vicious cycle ensues, with continuing resourceuse becoming ever more dependent on the liquidation ofshrinking ecological assets.

    There are opportunities to break out of this downward spiral.The right kind of investments can encourage innovations forsustainability in the areas of food, health, nature management,transportation and shelter. A green-energy future and resourceefficient urban design will play an increasing important role inachieving a thriving Asia-Pacific region.

    As we embark on this path of sustainable development, weneed ways to know how far we have come and how far we stillneed to go. The measurement tools presented in this report areone way to help all our countries determine if our actions arebringing us closer to these essential goals.

    M E A S U R I N G P R O G R E S S T O W A R D S S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y

    Figure 1: Humanitys Ecological Footprint, which measurespeoples use of renewable natural resources, is shown incomparison with the total biologically productive capacity of theEarth. In 2001, humanitys Ecological Footprint was 2.5 timeslarger than in 1961, and exceeded the Earths biological capacityby about 20 per cent. This overshoot is possible only for alimited period of time.

    Figure 2: The per person Ecological Footprint of the Asia-Pacificregion has risen by more than 130 per cent since 1961, nowrequiring 1.3 global hectares of biologically productive area perperson. With a supply of only 0.7 global hectares per person,the region is now seeing growing imports of ecological capacity,damaged ecosystems and an increasing portion of thepopoulation living in degraded environments.

    Fig. 2: ASIA-PACIFICS ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT, 19612001

    Fig. 1: HUMANITYS ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT, 19612001

    Rat

    io o

    f Eco

    logi

    cal F

    ootp

    rint

    to b

    iolo

    gica

    l cap

    acity

    1970 197519651960 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

    Rat

    io o

    f Eco

    logi

    cal F

    ootp

    rint

    to b

    iolo

    gica

    l cap

    acity

    1970 197519651960 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

    2.00

    1.75

    1.50

    1.25

    1.0

    0.75

    0.50

    0.25

    0

    2.00

    1.75

    1.50

    1.25

    1.0

    0.75

    0.50

    0.25

    0

    Planets Biological Capacity Asia-Pacifics Biological Capacity

  • Fig. 3: ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT PERPERSON, by country, 2001

    Built-up landFood, fibre and timber

    Energy

    ASIA-PACIFIC Rest of world

    UN

    ITE

    D A

    RA

    B E

    MIR

    ATE

    S

    UN

    ITE

    D S

    TATE

    S O

    F A

    ME

    RIC

    A

    KU

    WA

    IT

    AU

    STR

    ALI

    A

    SW

    ED

    EN

    FIN

    LAN

    D

    ES

    TON

    IA

    CA

    NA

    DA

    DE

    NM

    AR

    K

    IRE

    LAN

    D

    NO

    RW

    AY

    FRA

    NC

    E

    GR

    EE

    CE

    NE

    W Z

    EA

    LAN

    D

    UN

    ITE

    D K

    ING

    DO

    M

    ISR

    AE

    L

    SW

    ITZ

    ER

    LAN

    D

    PO

    RTU

    GA

    L

    CZ

    EC

    H R

    EP.

    BE

    LGIU

    M/L

    UX

    EM

    BO

    UR

    G

    GE

    RM

    AN

    Y

    SPA

    IN

    NE

    THE

    RLA

    ND

    S

    AU

    STR

    IA

    LATV

    IA

    RU

    SS

    IAN

    FE

    DE

    RAT

    ION

    SA

    UD

    I AR

    AB

    IA

    JAPA

    N

    LITH

    UA

    NIA

    SLO

    VE

    NIA

    ITA

    LY

    PO

    LAN

    D

    SLO

    VAK

    IA

    HU

    NG

    AR

    Y

    KO

    RE

    A, R

    EP.

    UK

    RA

    INE

    BE

    LAR

    US

    TUR

    KM

    EN

    ISTA

    N

    LIB

    YA

    MA

    LAY

    SIA

    CR

    OAT

    IA

    KA

    ZA

    KH

    STA

    N

    SO

    UTH

    AFR

    ICA

    , RE

    P.

    RO

    MA

    NIA

    BU

    LGA

    RIA

    CH

    ILE

    UR

    UG

    UAY

    BE

    LIZ

    E

    JAM

    AIC

    A

    AR

    GE

    NTI

    NA

    SE

    RB

    IA A

    ND

    MO

    NTE

    NE

    GR

    O

    ME

    XIC

    O

    MA

    UR

    ITIU

    S

    VE

    NE

    ZU

    ELA

    TRIN

    IDA

    D A

    ND

    TO

    BA

    GO

    MA

    CE

    DO

    NIA

    , FY

    R

    BO

    SN

    IA A

    ND

    HE

    RZ

    EG

    OV

    INA

    LEB

    AN

    ON

    PAR

    AG

    UAY

    BR

    AZ

    IL

    IRA

    N

    CO

    STA

    RIC

    A

    TUR

    KE

    Y

    MO

    NG

    OLI

    A

    UZ

    BE

    KIS

    TAN

    SY

    RIA

    JOR

    DA

    N

    EC

    UA

    DO

    R

    PAN

    AM

    A

    GA

    BO

    N

    THA

    ILA

    ND

    DO

    MIN

    ICA

    N R

    EP.

    NA

    MIB

    IA

    0

    4

    2

    8

    10

    9

    7

    5

    3

    1

    6

    Glo

    bal

    hec

    tare

    s

    1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 20001995

    Fig. 4: HUMANITYS ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT,19612001

    Bill

    ion

    glob

    al h

    ecta

    res

    14

    0

    6

    12

    10

    8

    2

    4

    Built-up land

    Energy

    Food, fibre and timber

    10

    0

    6

    4

    8

    2

    Fig. 5: ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT BY REGION,2001

    Glo

    bal

    hec

    tare

    s p

    er p

    erso

    n

    319 390 337 520 334 3 407Population (millions)

    810

    North AmericaWestern EuropeCentral and Eastern EuropeLatin America and the CaribbeanMiddle East and Central AsiaAsia-PacificAfrica

    The Ecological Footprint measures humanitysdemand on nature. The footprint of a countryis the total area required to produce the food,fibre and timber that it consumes, absorb itswaste and provide space for its infrastructure.A nation consumes resources and ecologicalservices from all over the world and itsfootprint is the sum of these areas, whereverthey are located on the planet.

    In 2001, the global Ecological Footprintwas 13.5 billion global hectares, or 2.2 global hectares per person (a global hectare is a hectare whose biologicalproductivity equals the global average).

    This demand on nature can be comparedwith the Earths biocapacity, a measure ofnatures ability to produce resources from itsbiologically productive area. In 2001, theEarths biocapacity was 11.3 billion globalhectares, a quarter of the planets surface, or1.8 global hectares per person.

    The global Ecological Footprint decreaseswith a smaller population size, lowerconsumption per person, and higher resourceefficiency. The Earths biocapacity increaseswith a larger biologically productive area andhigher productivity per unit area.

    In 2001, humanitys Ecological Footprint

    exceeded global biocapacity by 0.4 globalhectares per person, or 21 per cent. Thisglobal overshoot began in the 1980s and hasbeen growing ever since (see Figure 1). Inovershoot, natures capital is being spentfaster than it is being regenerated. Ifcontinued, overshoot may permanently reduce ecological capacity.

    Figure 3: The Ecological Footprint per personfor countries with populations over 1 million.

    Figure 4: Humanitys Ecological Footprintgrew by about 160 per cent from 1961 to2001, faster than population, which doubledover the same period.

    Figure 5: Ecological Footprint by region in2001. The height of each bar is proportionalto each regions average footprint perperson, the width is proportional to itspopulation, and the area of the bar isproportional to the regions total footprint.

    THE GLOBAL CONTEXT: HUMANITYS ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT

    4 ASIA-PACIFIC 2005: THE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT

  • 2001 world average biocapacity per person: 1.8 global hectares, with nothing set aside for wild species

    World average Ecological Footprint

    EG

    YP

    T

    CH

    INA

    ALB

    AN

    IA

    AZ

    ER

    BA

    IJA

    N

    ALG

    ER

    IA

    UG

    AN

    DA

    KO

    RE

    A, D

    PR

    CU

    BA

    TUN

    ISIA

    HO

    ND

    UR

    AS

    CH

    AD

    CO

    LOM

    BIA

    PAP

    UA

    NE

    W G

    UIN

    EA

    BO

    TSW

    AN

    A

    GU

    ATE

    MA

    LA

    BO

    LIV

    IA

    SE

    NE

    GA

    L

    EL

    SA

    LVA

    DO

    R

    NIG

    ER

    IA

    PH

    ILIP

    PIN

    ES

    IND

    ON

    ES

    IA

    MO

    LDO

    VA, R

    EP.

    MA

    UR

    ITA

    NIA

    NIC

    AR

    AG

    UA

    MA

    LI

    GA

    MB

    IA

    NIG

    ER

    BU

    RK

    INA

    FA

    SO

    GH

    AN

    A

    CA

    MB

    OD

    IA

    SW

    AZ

    ILA

    ND

    IRA

    Q

    KY

    RG

    YZ

    STA

    N

    SR

    I LA

    NK

    A

    CE

    NTR

    AL

    AFR

    ICA

    N R

    EP.

    ZIM

    BA

    BW

    E

    BE

    NIN

    SU

    DA

    N

    LAO

    PD

    R

    AR

    ME

    NIA

    GU

    INE

    A

    PE

    RU

    MYA

    NM

    AR

    TOG

    O

    TAN

    ZA

    NIA

    , UN

    ITE

    D R

    EP.

    CA

    ME

    RO

    ON

    MO

    RO

    CC

    O

    KE

    NYA

    C

    TE D

    IVO

    IRE

    SIE

    RR

    A L

    EO

    NE

    CO

    NG

    O

    AN

    GO

    LA

    MA

    DA

    GA

    SC

    AR

    IND

    IA

    VIE

    T N

    AM

    ZA

    MB

    IA

    GE

    OR

    GIA

    GU

    INE

    A-B

    ISS

    AU

    LIB

    ER

    IA

    RW

    AN

    DA

    ETH

    IOP

    IA

    BU

    RU

    ND

    I

    CO

    NG

    O, D

    EM

    . RE

    P.

    YE

    ME

    N

    PAK

    ISTA

    N

    MA

    LAW

    I

    ER

    ITR

    EA

    MO

    ZA

    MB

    IQU

    E

    LES

    OTH

    O

    NE

    PAL

    BA

    NG

    LAD

    ES

    H

    TAJI

    KIS

    TAN

    HA

    ITI

    SO

    MA

    LIA

    AFG

    HA

    NIS

    TAN

    ASIA-PACIFIC 2005: THE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT 5

    Map 1: GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION OFECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT INTENSITY

    The Ecological Footprint intensity map showshow resource consumption is distributedaround the world. Intensity increases withgreater population densities, higher per capitaconsumption, or lower resource efficiencies.

    Global hectares used per square kilometre of Earths surface, 2001

    more than 1 000

    500 1 000

    100 500

    10 100

    1 10

    less than 1

    insufficient data

  • T H E L I V I N G P L A N E T I N D E X

    6 ASIA-PACIFIC 2005: THE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT

    The Living Planet Index (LPI) is an indicatorof the state of the worlds biodiversity andnatural ecosystems. It is calculated as theaverage of three separate indices that tracktrends in the populations of vertebratespecies living in terrestrial, freshwater andmarine ecosystems around the world (Loh et al. 2005).

    The LPI currently incorporates data onapproximately 3,000 population trends formore than 1,100 species from around theworld. The terrestrial index measureschanges in the abundance of 562 forest,grassland, savannah, desert and tundraspecies. The freshwater index comprises

    populations of 323 species from lakes, riversand wetland ecosystems. The marine indextracks 267 species from marine and coastalecosystems worldwide.

    Between 1970 and 2000, the LPI fell bysome 40 per cent, the terrestrial index byabout 30 per cent (Figure 6), the freshwaterindex by about 50 per cent (Figure 7), and themarine index by around 30 per cent (Figure8). These downward trends can be comparedwith increases in the global EcologicalFootprint, which grew by 70 per cent, and inthe worlds human population, which grew by65 per cent, over the same time period.

    Map 2 (right) shows remaining wilderness

    areas using distance from human settlements,roads, or other infrastructure as a proxy. Itassumes that the degree of disturbance ortransformation of natural landscapes byhumans increases with the ease of accessfrom places where people live. The greaterthe density of population centres or roadnetworks, the lower the wilderness value.After the rapid development of previousdecades, wilderness areas in the Asia-Pacificregion are now largely restricted to parts ofcentral Australia, Indonesia, Mongolia andPapua New Guinea.

    Figure 6: The terrestrial species indexshows a decline of about 30 per cent in 562species of mammals, birds and reptilesliving in terrestrial ecosystems.

    Figure 7: The freshwater species index showsa decline of approximately 50 per cent in 323vertebrate species found in rivers, lakes andwetland ecosystems.

    Figure 8: The marine species index shows adecline of about 30 per cent in 267 species ofmammals, birds, reptiles and fish occurring inthe worlds ocean and coastal ecosystems.

    Fig. 7: FRESHWATER SPECIESPOPULATION INDEX, 19702000

    LIVING PLANETINDEX

    FRESHWATER INDEX

    1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

    1.4

    1.2

    1.0

    0.8

    0.6

    0.4

    0.2

    0

    Fig. 8: MARINE SPECIESPOPULATION INDEX, 19702000

    Fig. 6: TERRESTRIAL SPECIESPOPULATION INDEX, 19702000

    Ind

    ex (1

    970=

    1.0)

    LIVING PLANET INDEX

    TERRESTIAL INDEX

    1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

    1.4

    1.2

    1.0

    0.8

    0.6

    0.4

    0.2

    0

    Ind

    ex (1

    970=

    1.0) MARINE INDEX

    LIVING PLANET INDEX

    1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

    1.4

    1.2

    1.0

    0.8

    0.6

    0.4

    0.2

    0In

    dex

    (197

    0=1.

    0)

  • 7ASIA-PACIFIC 2005: THE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT

    TRENDS IN SELECTED SPECIES POPULATIONS, ASIA-PACIFIC, 19702000

    Trichosurus vulpecula

    1970 2000

    Gyps bengalensis1970 2000

    Lipotes vexillifer1970 2000

    1970 2000Crocodylus

    novaeguineae

    Chelonia mydas1970 2000

    D

    Eudyptes pachyrhynchus

    1970 2000

    Map 2: REMAINING WILDERNESS

    The wilderness value of any point is a measureof its distance from the nearest humansettlements, roads or other infrastructure.

    Panthera tigris1970 2000 Lutra lutra

    1970 2000

    Gadus macrocephalus

    1970 2000

    Terrestrial Species Location Oriental white-backed vulture Keoladeo National

    (Gyps bengalensis) Park, India

    Tiger (Panthera tigris) India, all states

    Common brush-tailed possum Tasmania(Trichosurus vulpecula)

    Freshwater Species Location Baiji (Lipotes vexillifer) Yangtze River, China

    Otter (Lutra lutra) Korea

    New Guinea crocodile Papua New Guinea(Crocodylus novaeguineae)

    Marine Species Location Green turtle (Chelonia mydas) Turtle Islands, Sabah

    Fiordland penguin Southern New (Eudyptes pachyrhynchus) Zealand

    Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus) Aleutian Islands, Bering Sea

  • 8 ASIA-PACIFIC 2005: THE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT

    The large population and rapidly increasinglevels of consumption in Asia and the Pacificmake the region a significant contributor tothe global Ecological Footprint. With 55 percent of world population, the Asia-Pacificregions footprint occupies 40 per cent ofavailable world biocapacity.

    Today, the footprint of the Asia-Pacificregion is 1.7 times as large as its ownbiological capacity. This means that, at itscurrent rate of consumption, the region needsmore than one and a half times its own landand sea space to support its resource

    demands. This compares with the situation in1961, when the regions total resourcedemand was 76 per cent of local biocapacity.

    The Asia-Pacific region compensates itsdeficit in two ways: firstly, by importingresources and using the ecological productionof other countries and the global commons;and, secondly, by liquidating the regionsnatural capital.

    Notwithstanding the global significance ofthe overall Asian footprint, on a per capitabasis the average footprint of an Asian residentis still far smaller than the average footprint of

    people living in Europe or North America.Moreover, in many Asian countries, the

    per capita footprint is relatively stable thegrowth in footprint being attributable largely to population growth. In light of humanitysfootprint having exceeded global limits, areaswith high per capita footprints like Europe,North America, Australia and Japan will haveto find ways to reduce their own footprints and all need to build active partnerships fordeveloping ways of improving the quality of all peoples lives, while moving out of global overshoot.

    Figure 9: The height of each bar isproportional to a nations footprint perperson, the width is proportional to itspopulation, and the area is proportional tothe countrys total footprint.

    Figure 10: The Asia-Pacific regionspopulation and Ecological Footprint perperson both continue to grow rapidly. In2001, the Ecological Footprint of Asia andthe Pacific represents 40 per cent of theplanets available biocapacity, more thandouble its share in 1961.

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

    Fig. 9: ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION

    8

    7

    6

    5

    4

    3

    2

    1

    0

    Glo

    bal

    hec

    tare

    s p

    er p

    erso

    n

    Austr

    alia (

    19.4

    )

    New

    Zeala

    nd (3

    .8)

    Japa

    n (12

    7.3)

    Kore

    a, Re

    publi

    c (47

    .1)

    Thail

    and

    (61.6

    )

    China

    (1,2

    92.6

    )

    Kore

    a, DP

    R (22

    .4)

    Papu

    a New

    Guin

    ea (5

    .5)

    Indon

    esia

    (214.

    4)Ph

    ilippin

    es (7

    7.2)

    Sri L

    anka

    (18.

    8)

    Lao

    PDR

    (5.4)

    Mya

    nmar

    (48.

    2)

    Cam

    bodia

    (13.

    5)

    India

    (1,03

    3.4)

    Viet N

    am (7

    9.2)

    Pakis

    tan

    (146.

    3)

    Nepa

    l (24.

    1)Ba

    nglad

    esh

    (140.

    9)

    Width of bar is proportional to population (shown in millions)

    Mala

    ysia

    (23.5

    )

    Mon

    golia

    (2.5

    )

    60

    50

    40

    30

    20

    10

    0

    Per

    cent

    age

    1970 197519651960 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

    Fig. 10: ASIA-PACIFICS USE OF WORLD BIOCAPACITY 19612001

    Asia-Pacific use of world biocapacity

    Asia-Pacific share of world population

  • 9ASIA-PACIFIC 2005: THE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT

    Map 3: BIOCAPACITY, CHINA,2001 (selected countries)

    1

    2

    3

    45

    67

    8

    9

    101112

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    EXPORT OF

    Map 4: EXPORT OF BIOCAPACITY, THAILAND,2001 (selected countries)

    1

    2

    3

    23

    5

    67

    8

    9

    104

    12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    2211

    24

    25

    Map 5: EXPORT OF BIOCAPACITY, JAPAN,2001 (selected countries)

    1

    2

    3

    115

    67

    8

    9

    104 12

    13

    14

    15

    16

    17

    18

    19

    20

    21

    22

    23

    24

    25

    EXPORT

    From China Japan Thailand

    To

    1 Australia 2.5 2.1 1.4

    2 Brazil 0.9 0.7 0.2

    3 Canada 2.8 1.8 0.8

    4 China 6.5 6.5

    5 Egypt 0.5 0.2 0.2

    6 France 3.0 1.7 0.9

    7 Germany 7.3 4.3 1.7

    8 India 1.4 0.5 0.5

    9 Indonesia 1.6 1.8 1.5

    10 Italy 2.7 1.3 0.7

    11 Japan 25.1 10.6

    12 Korea, Rep. 7.1 6.9 1.3

    13 Malaysia 2.2 3.0 2.9

    EXPORT

    From China Japan Thailand

    To

    14 Mexico 1.3 1.1 0.5

    15 Netherlands 4.7 3.2 2.2

    16 New Zealand 0.3 0.3 0.2

    17 Nigeria 0.5 0.1 0.4

    18 Russian Fed. 1.3 0.2 0.1

    19 Saudi Arabia 0.8 1.0 0.4

    20 Singapore 4.3 4.0 5.6

    21 South Africa 0.9 0.4 0.3

    22 Spain 1.7 0.8 0.6

    23 Thailand 1.9 3.3

    24 UK 6.2 3.3 2.5

    25 USA 43.2 33.6 14.1

    Numbers refer to map locations only.

    Table 1: EXPORT OF BIOCAPACITY FROM THREE ASIA-PACIFIC COUNTRIES2001, million ghaThe maps show flows in biocapacity particularly to the high income countries of Europe, Japanand North America. While some of this biocapacity comes directly from the exporting country,significant amounts originate in other countries, many in the developing world.

  • 10

    Many nations of the Asia-Pacific region haveexperienced dynamic change over the last 40 years overall the most successful globally in reducingpoverty. But while per capita GDP increased, so hasthe regions demand on nature. The examples givenhere illustrate the range of environmental trends andchallenges within the region, where the footprintranges from 0.5 global hectares per Bangladeshi to 7.7 global hectares per Australian.

    In the Asia-Pacific region, 13 countries arecurrently running ecological deficits, with theirfootprints greater than their biocapacity, and sixcountries, including Australia, Japan and the Republicof Korea, have per person footprints exceeding worldaverage available biocapacity per person.

    The graphs show trends in per person EcologicalFootprint (green), biocapacity (red) and GDP (purple) forthe world and for nine countries in the Asia-Pacific regionfrom 1961 to 2001. Greater economic activity will increasethe Ecological Footprint unless value creation decouplesfrom resource use. As populations grow, the availablebiocapacity per person diminishes the downward trendof per capita biocapacity in the Asia-Pacific region andthe world is driven mostly by population growth.

    C O U N T R Y P R O F I L E S

    Table 2: GROWTH IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION,19912001, national totals for selected countries

    Population GDP Ecological

    Footprint

    World 15% 32% 13%

    Australia 13% 47% 22%

    China 10% 158% 23%

    India 20% 78% 18%

    Indonesia 16% 44% 15%

    Japan 3% 12% 7%

    Korea, DPR 11% n.a. -25%

    Korea, Rep. 9% 71% 37%

    Philippines 23% 40% 40%

    Thailand 12% 46% 16%

    Fig. 11: WORLD, 19612001 In 1961, the Earths biocapacity was more than double itsglobal footprint. Forty years later, the footprint exceededavailable biocapacity by 21 per cent and the worldspopulation has more than doubled in the period, from 3 billion in 1961 to over 6 billion in 2001.

    Fig. 14: REPUBLIC OF KOREA, 19612001The trend of the Republic of Koreas footprint closely followsthat of its GDP. Like Thailand, the Republic of Korea wasseriously affected by the Asian financial crisis in the late 1990s. The population has grown from 26 million in 1961 to 47 million in 2001.

    Fig. 12: AUSTRALIA, 19612001Although Australias national biocapacity exceeds its footprint,the average Australians footprint is far greater than the averagebiocapacity available worldwide (1.8 gha per person). Since 1961Australias ecological remainder has shrunk by nearly 50 per centas the population has risen from 10 million to 20 million.

    1970 197519651960 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

    Glo

    bal

    hec

    tare

    s p

    er p

    erso

    n

    GDP (right-hand scale)

    Biocapacity(left-hand scale)

    Ecological Footprint(left-hand scale)

    Per p

    erson GD

    P (U

    S $ '000)

    5

    4

    3

    2

    1

    0

    40

    35

    30

    25

    20

    15

    10

    5

    0

    1970 197519651960 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

    Glo

    bal

    hec

    tare

    s p

    er p

    erso

    n

    GDP (right-hand scale)

    Biocapacity(left-hand scale)

    Ecological Footprint (left-hand scale)

    Per p

    erson GD

    P (U

    S $ '000)

    50

    40

    30

    20

    10

    0

    40

    35

    30

    25

    20

    15

    10

    5

    0

    1970 197519651960 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

    Glo

    bal

    hec

    tare

    s p

    er p

    erso

    n

    GDP (right-hand scale)

    Biocapacity(left-hand scale)

    Ecological Footprint(left-hand scale)

    5

    4

    3

    2

    1

    0

    40

    35

    30

    25

    20

    15

    10

    5

    0

    Per p

    erson GD

    P (U

    S $ '000)

    Fig. 13: JAPAN, 19612001Japans per person footprint is almost six times its biocapacityand more than double the world average. Although its footprintfell by 30 per cent in the early 1970s, demand is growing oncemore. The population increased by a third between 1961 and2001, but demographers are forecasting a shrinking population.

    1970 197519651960 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000G

    lob

    al h

    ecta

    res

    per

    per

    son

    GDP (right-hand scale)

    Biocapacity(left-hand scale)

    Ecological Footprint(left-hand scale)

    Per p

    erson GD

    P (U

    S $ '000)

    5

    4

    3

    2

    1

    0

    40

    35

    30

    25

    20

    15

    10

    5

    0

    ASIA-PACIFIC 2005: THE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT

  • Fig. 20: THAILAND, 19612001The dramatic increase in Thailands footprint from the mid-1980s to mid-1990s reflects the countrys rapid economicgrowth. The effects of the 199798 Asian financial crisis arereflected in the footprint. Thailands population increased from 27 million in 1961 to 62 million in 2001.

    Fig. 15: CHINA, 19612001Since 1961 China has grown faster than any other country in the region, nearly doubling its population and its per personfootprint. In recent years the population, which has almostdoubled to 1.3 billion, and footprint have remained relativelyconstant, though GDP continues to grow.

    Fig. 16: INDIA, 19612001While Indias per person footprint has remained relativelyconstant over the last 40 years, available biocapacity perperson has fallen as its population almost doubled to over 1 billion. The consumption patterns of its large middle classcould shape the regions footprint in the future.

    Fig. 17: INDONESIA, 19612001Indonesia is an example of a country that has experiencedrapid economic growth without an increase in its per personfootprint. Indonesia was severely affected by the 199798financial crisis as evidenced in the trend in GDP and itsfootprint. By 1961, its population had grown to 217 million.

    Fig. 18: KOREA, DPR, 19612001As its ability to import biocapacity from abroad ended in the early 1990s, the footprint of Korea DPR declined sharply,with dramatic consequences for its population. Per person GDP data are not available, but poverty levels are increasing.Over the last four decades, population nearly doubled.

    Fig. 19: PHILIPPINES, 19612001Large fluctuations in Ecological Footprint, biocapacity, and GDP reflect the political and economic instability of the Philippines as well as inconsistencies in data reporting.The population of the Philippines has more than doubled since 1961 from 28 million to 79 million.

    1970 197519651960 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

    Glo

    bal

    hec

    tare

    s p

    er p

    erso

    n

    GDP(right-hand scale)

    Biocapacity (left-hand scale)

    Ecological Footprint (left-hand scale)

    Per p

    erson GD

    P (U

    S $ '000)

    2.5

    2

    1.5

    1

    0.5

    0

    2.5

    2.0

    1.5

    1

    0.5

    0

    1970 197519651960 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

    Glo

    bal

    hec

    tare

    s p

    er p

    erso

    n

    GDP (right-hand scale)

    Biocapacity (left-hand scale)

    Ecological Footprint (left-hand scale)

    2.5

    2

    1.5

    1

    0.5

    0

    Per p

    erson GD

    P (U

    S $ '000)

    2.5

    2.0

    1.5

    1

    0.5

    0

    1970 197519651960 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

    Glo

    bal

    hec

    tare

    s p

    er p

    erso

    n

    GDP (right-hand scale)

    Biocapacity (left-hand scale)

    Ecological Footprint (left-hand scale)

    2.5

    2

    1.5

    1

    0.5

    0

    Per p

    erson GD

    P (U

    S $ '000)

    2.5

    2.0

    1.5

    1

    0.5

    0

    1970 197519651960 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

    Glo

    bal

    hec

    tare

    s p

    er p

    erso

    n

    Biocapacity (left-hand scale)

    Ecological Footprint (left-hand scale)

    2.5

    2

    1.5

    1

    0.5

    0

    1970 197519651960 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

    Glo

    bal

    hec

    tare

    s p

    er p

    erso

    n

    GDP(right-hand scale)

    Biocapacity (left-hand scale)

    Ecological Footprint (left-hand scale)

    2.5

    2

    1.5

    1

    0.5

    0

    Per p

    erson GD

    P (U

    S $ '000)

    2.5

    2.0

    1.5

    1

    0.5

    0

    1970 197519651960 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000G

    lob

    al h

    ecta

    res

    per

    per

    son

    GDP (right-hand scale)

    Biocapacity (left-hand scale)

    Ecological Footprint (left-hand scale)

    Per p

    erson GD

    P (U

    S $ '00)

    2.5

    2

    1.5

    1

    0.5

    0

    2.5

    2.0

    1.5

    1

    0.5

    0

    11ASIA-PACIFIC 2005: THE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT

  • 12 ASIA-PACIFIC 2005: THE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT

    At the turn of the 21st century, the EcologicalFootprints of both the Asia-Pacific region andthe world exceeded their available biocapacity.As in other regions, Asia and the Pacific ispartially financing this overshoot by relying onbiological capacity from outside the region.

    At the global level, however, there are noadditional planets from which to importbiocapacity. Being in global overshootinevitably means depleting the Earthsecological capital, resulting in an overalldeterioration of global ecosystems. The currentstate of overshoot will have to be eliminated forthe world to reach sustainability. One PlanetLiving is an opportunity for countries toestablish a sustainable, prosperous future for thelong term. Some of the changes needed to meet

    this goal will involve increasing available globalbiocapacity. The balance must come fromreducing the total global footprint. Thesereductions will have to go hand in hand withlarge portions of humanity increasing theirfootprint to meet their basic needs. Living up to this double challenge requires courageousleadership right across the globe.

    Towards One Planet Living Four factors determine the gap between thefootprint and biocapacity:

    1. Biocapacity. One challenge is to increase, orat least maintain, biocapacity. This meansprotecting soil from erosion and degradation,and preserving cropland for agriculture. It

    involves protecting river basins, wetlands,and watersheds to secure freshwatersupplies, and maintaining healthy forestsand fisheries. It includes taking action toprotect ecosystems from climate changeand eliminating the use of toxic chemicalsthat degrade ecosystems.

    2. Resource efficiency in producing goodsand services. Over the past 40 years,technological progress has increased theamount of goods and services that can beproduced from a given amount of ecologicalresources. As a result, the averageEcological Footprint per person has stayedrelatively constant. Despite these importantefficiency gains, the total global Ecological

    Footprint has still grown (Pacala andSocolow 2004).

    3. Consumption of goods and services perperson. The potential for reducing per personconsumption depends in part on the personsincome level. People living at or belowsubsistence may need to increase theirabsolute consumption levels to move out ofpoverty. Wealthy individuals, however, couldcut their consumption of goods and serviceswith large footprints without seriouslycompromising the quality of their lives.

    4. Size of the population. Addressingpopulation growth will be especially criticalfor the Asia-Pacific region, which is already

    L I V I N G O N O N E P L A N E T

    WHAT IS ONE PLANET LIVING?

    One Planet Living aims to demonstrate how it is possible to make thechallenge of living on one planet achievable, affordable and attractive. It is alsothe name of a partnership between the BioRegional Development Group andWWF. One Planet Living is an initiative based on the experience of theBeddington Zero fossil Energy Development (BedZED). BedZED is asustainable housing and work space project in London. Its homes and officesare highly energy efficient: it consumes 90 per cent less heating energy thanaverage UK housing and less than half the water. Furthermore, it is designedso that all energy is generated in a renewable manner from wind, sun andbiomass. Construction materials are from local, recycled or certified well-managed sources. And although it is a compact design, residents have privategardens and conservatories. Residents find BedZED a desirable place to live,contradicting the common but erroneous assumption that a smaller EcologicalFootprint means a lower quality of life.

    A goal is to establish One Planet Living communities on every continent by2009, with projects under way or planned in Portugal, the United Kingdom,South Africa, North America and China (see www.bioregional.com).

    rainwater collection

    wind-drivenventilation withheat recovery

    photovoltaicpanel to chargeelectric cars

    low-energy lighting andappliances

    electricity

    hot waterSource: ARUP

    rainwaterstore

    water-savinglavatory

    IT wired

    septictank

    foul-watertreatment

    biomass-firedcombinedheat andpower

    How BedZED works

  • 13ASIA-PACIFIC 2005: THE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT

    Figure 21: One Planet Living living well,within the means of nature: the globalchallenge is how to move all countries intothe sustainable development quadrant(Boutaud 2002).

    home to half the worlds people. Populationgrowth can be reduced by supportingmeasures that lead to families choosing tohave fewer children. Offering women bettereducation, economic opportunities andhealth care are three proven approaches.

    Allocating biocapacity Sustainability means living well for all, withinthe means of nature. But what does it mean forindividual countries?

    One answer could be to insist that eachcountry lives, in net terms, within its ownbiological capacity. This may be too restrictive,however, since trade between nations,including trade in biocapacity, can increase thewell-being of all involved.

    A second solution could be to allocate aportion of global biocapacity to each globalcitizen. The portion could be defined as thetotal global biocapacity divided by the totalglobal population. In 2001, this amounted to1.8 global hectares per person. Living withineach individuals portion would ensureecological sustainability. High-footprintcountries would have to reduce consumption,while low-footprint countries could expandtheir footprints. Some have suggested thataccess to biocapacity could also be tradedamong nations or individuals.

    Sustainable well-being and Ecological FootprintHitherto, responses to environmentalchallenges are often couched in terms of delinking GDP growth fromenvironmental degradation. However, there is growing recognition that economicindicators like GDP provide a poor guide to human welfare. This is why increasing

    attention is being paid to alternativeindicators like green GDP.

    Although some Asian countries Chinafor example are beginning to use greenGDP indicators, there is no systematicapproach to the use of such indicators. TheUNs Human Development Index (HDI) is ameasure that captures how a given nationmeets basic living standards through lifeexpectancy, education and income. Althoughfar from perfect, it represents one index thatavoids some of the problems inherent toGDP, and for which global information isavailable. Some countries achieve higherlevels of development (as measured by HDI)with relatively low footprints (as measuredby the per person Ecological Footprint).Taking an HDI of 0.8 as the boundarybetween medium and highly developedcountries and an average portion of 1.8global hectares per person as the highestglobally replicable footprint divides Figure21 into four quadrants. Only countrieslocated in the upper right quadrant can besaid to meet the minimum requirements forsustainability. Although no Asia-Pacificcountry today is in this area, some, likeThailand, are close (see Table 3). One PlanetLiving would mean moving the average of allcountries into this sustainability quadrant(Boutaud 2002).

    Table 3: HUMAN DEVELOPMENT AND ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINTS FORSELECTED COUNTRIES, 2001

    Human Ecological Human Ecological Development Footprint Development Footprint

    Index (gha/person) Index (gha/person)Albania 0.74 1.5 Malaysia 0.79 3.0Australia 0.94 7.7 Mongolia 0.66 3.1Bangladesh 0.50 0.5 Morocco 0.61 0.9Brazil 0.78 2.2 Myanmar 0.55 0.9Cambodia 0.56 0.8 Nepal 0.50 0.6China 0.72 1.5 New Zealand 0.92 5.5Cuba 0.81 1.5 Nigeria 0.46 1.2Ethiopia 0.36 0.8 Pakistan 0.50 0.7France 0.93 5.8 Papua New Guinea 0.55 1.2Germany 0.92 4.8 Philippines 0.75 1.2India 0.59 0.8 South Africa 0.68 2.8Indonesia 0.68 1.2 Sri Lanka 0.73 1.1Italy 0.92 3.8 Sweden 0.94 7.1Japan 0.93 4.3 Thailand 0.77 1.6Korea, Republic 0.88 3.4 United States of America 0.94 9.5Lao PDR 0.53 0.9 United Kingdom 0.93 5.5Lebanon 0.75 2.2 Viet Nam 0.69 0.7Libya 0.78 3.1

    Minimum acceptable level of development

    Ecological Footprint per personSelected countries:

    8 7910 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

    1.0

    0.9

    0.8

    0.7

    0.6

    0.5

    0.4

    0.3

    0.2

    0.1

    0

    Hum

    an D

    evel

    opm

    ent

    Ind

    ex

    Fig. 21: MATCHING HUMAN DEVELOPMENT AND ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINTS,Asia-Pacific and selected countries, 2001

    Wor

    ld a

    vera

    ge b

    ioca

    paci

    ty

    avai

    labl

    e pe

    r pe

    rson

    High demand on biosphere per person,low development

    High demand on biosphere per person

    Sustainabledevelopment

    Withinbiospheres

    capacityper person,

    low development

    Asia-Pacific Africa Latin America Arab World Europe North America Other Countries in Study

  • 14 ASIA-PACIFIC 2005: THE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT

    A S I A - P A C I F I C : T R A N S F O R M A T I O N T O S U S T A I N A B I L I T YThe Asia-Pacific region wants both tocontinue to develop its economies and to becompetitive with the rest of the world inthe short and the long terms. Economicdevelopment at the expense of continueddepletion or degradation of naturalresources and the environment, however, is not sustainable. This list identifiespossible options that can reduce theregions demand on nature and improvedevelopment options for the regions 3.4 billion people. Globally, the countriesof Europe and North America must takesubstantial action to reduce their footprints. Asia-Pacific countries arerightly focused on developing theiremerging competitive economies, but they may not succeed withoutmaintaining their ecological assets.

    Regional security and global collaborationEffective management of natural resourcesand reduction of environmental degradationthat are transboundary in nature cancontribute to regionalization and improvenational security. The progress made inlifting the regions poor out of poverty needs to recognize the strong links betweenpoverty reduction and environmental quality.Tackling global environmental problems willrequire greater collaboration between statesand that countries in the region take on agreater global leadership role by: Increasing efforts to reduce poverty both

    within low-income countries andeconomically marginalized areas,especially among the rural poor, byensuring that the environmental base onwhich they depend is not depleted.

    Encouraging bilateral and multilateralinitiatives through which SouthSouthcountries, within and beyond the region,could create a sustainable axis. Under such initiatives energy efficiencysolutions from one country could go one way, with systems for renewableenergy travelling in the other, dependingon competitive advantages andsustainable strategies.

    Improving regional natural resourcemanagement, for instance throughincreased and improved regionalframeworks, such as the ASEAN Regional Action Plan on Trade in WildFauna and Flora 20052010. Thiscollaboration on policy development and law enforcement could be extendedthroughout the region and greatly increase the sustainable management of the regions wildlife trade.

    Ensuring best practice in integrated riverbasin management supports the needs of people and maintains ecosystemservices, as well as biodiversity, andpromotes collaboration between countries using a whole of river approach to water management.

    Challenging the industrial countries tosupport leaders in sustainability within theregion through different means such as public procurement, regulation andcooperation, for example by twinningsustainable cities between North andSouth that support a two-way flow of ideas and innovations.

    Using international fora to plan strategiesthat avoid technological transfers andleapfrog strategies from industrializedcountries and multinationals that leadcountries in Asia and the Pacific intounsustainable development patterns.

    Providing affordable, reliable andenvironmentally friendly energy to allEnvironmental imperatives such as tackling climate change and acid rain coupled with social and economic factorsincluding increasing fossil fuel prices, import-dependency risks and the provision of affordable energy services to the poor,provide a unique opportunity for a shift to sustainable energy. Factors that could contribute to making this change include: Switching the sectoral focus from energy

    supply to provision of energy services can unlock huge efficiency potential across the region. Much can be learnedfrom existing initiatives Japans economyis already almost three times as energyefficient as that of the United States ofAmerica and almost eight times as efficientas China.

    Internalizing environmental costs usingeconomic instruments such as sulphurand carbon emissions trading and newregulations such as improved and enforcedpollution controls and renewable energytargets will drive new markets for cleantechnologies. Asia-Pacific region is alreadymoving forward: China has the worldsmost ambitious national renewable energytarget, India is the fifth largest generator of

    wind power in the world while thePhilippines is the worlds second largestgenerator of geothermal energy.

    Advancing innovation and know-how insustainable energy technologies within theAsia-Pacific region using public-privatepartnerships. Such innovation could drawon experience within the region in suchcountries as China, India and Japan, aswell as from the rest of the world.

    New models of participation in energysector decision making, involvingcollaboration between consumerorganizations, local government, localcommunities and the private sector, canprovide new methods of governance and new business models to support the technology shift.

    Substantial and long-term investment inenergy systems that reduce the regionsdependency on expensive fossil fuelimports. This is important both forcountries that will struggle to compete onglobal markets for higher priced fuels andfor those, such as India and China, withenormous oil requirements to meet thecurrent and future demand from industryand their growing consumer societies.

    Provide accurate and relevant informationfor decision makersTrack all assets (economic, social andenvironmental) in order to better monitorconsequences of present choices. Suchoptions include: Strengthening the ability of national

  • ASIA-PACIFIC 2005: THE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT 15

    Sustainability means providing well-being for all within the means of nature. Overusingthe biosphere undermines its ability to provide resources and support a high quality oflife for all of humanity. What does this mean for nations? Should we look at a countrysEcological Footprint, its ecological deficit, or both? Is Australia ecologically sustainable?Its residents footprint is more than four times larger than what is available per personworldwide, but Australias biological capacity is about twice its footprint. Is China

    ecologically sustainable? Its average resident lives on a footprint smaller than what isavailable per person globally, but Chinas total footprint exceeds the biocapacityavailable within its own borders. If everyone in the world led the same lifestyle as theaverage Australian, the Earth would not be able to sustain humanity for very long. Norwould humanity be sustainable if all countries ran an ecological deficit like China.

    Map 6: LIVING ON LESS, LIVING ON MORE 2001

    Countries using more than three timesthe worldwide average biocapacityavailable per person

    Countries using between twice andthree times the worldwide averagebiocapacity available per person

    Countries using between the entire and twice the worldwide averagebiocapacity available per person

    Countries using between half and theentire worldwide average biocapacityavailable per person

    Countries using less than half theworldwide average biocapacityavailable per person

    Insufficient data

  • 16 ASIA-PACIFIC 2005: THE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT

    governments and regional institutions tokeep track of their demand on andavailability of biological capacity.

    Providing a better quality and quantity ofinformation in the media. Governmentsand companies will not receiveappropriate signals from citizens and consumers unless the public is well informed of the impact of theirchoices and purchasing decisions.

    Broadening the use of labelling andcertification standards, for example theForest Stewardship Council (FSC) and theMarine Stewardship Council (MSC), toallow customers to make choices aboutthe products they buy, reduce theirindividual footprints and support moresustainable resource use.

    Encouraging wide use of corporate socialresponsibility (CSR) with better corporateenvironmental reporting to show whichcompanies are making efforts to becomesustainable, and how.

    Measuring and reporting on morecomprehensive indicators of social,economic and ecological performance ingovernments to complement existingeconomic indicators such as GDP, tradebalance and rate of inflation. Examplesinclude green GDP in China, and grossdomestic happiness in Bhutan.

    Build and advance green infrastructureDesign more resource-efficient, smarter cities;transport networks and infrastructure in the

    T R A N S F O R M A T I O N T O S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y c o n t i n u e dAsia-Pacific region. This concerns particularlylarge infrastructure projects in rapidlytransforming nations, such as China and India, where retro-fitting in the future will be enormously costly and inefficient. But it is also crucially important in other countriesincluding Australia, Japan, New Zealand, theRepublic of Korea, and Singapore, where new, green, energy-efficient infrastructurecould become an asset, rather than continuingwith existing resource-consuming traps.Possibilities include: Introducing mechanisms for rating

    buildings based on building designrequirements and materials that lead to reductions in waste generation andenergy use, thereby substantiallyincreasing efficiency.

    Upgrading existing hydro-generationcapacity in dams, rather than constructingnew capacity, in countries such asAustralia, China, India, Japan and NewZealand. When new dams are built, theyshould always meet the World Commissionon Dams guidelines.

    Encouraging investment in public transportinfrastructure, in both urban and ruralareas, and making transport pricing reflectthe full social and environmental costs ofroad and air travel.

    Investing in information and communicationtechnologies to allow urban areas to beless dependent on traditional transportsystems and to bring the benefits of betteraccess to communications to poorer rural areas.

    Markets, trade and investmentGovernments should ensure that investmentsin the solutions needed for the transformationto sustainability are encouraged. Investmentsin industries that are obstacles to sustainabilityor that produce goods and servicesincompatible with a sustainable world shouldalso be discouraged, with companies trying to go beyond traditional CSR standards andtaking the lead in initiatives for sustainabledevelopment. Government measures could include: Developing systems that allow countries to

    differentiate between sustainable andunsustainable trade and investment flows.Where possible these should link tonational sustainable development strategiesand indicators such as green GDP.

    Providing incentives for financial markets tofavour long-term sustainability over short-term gains. Commercial banks, pensionfunds and insurance companies inparticular have opportunities to invest in anecologically responsible manner and divesttheir interests in unsustainable activities.

    Supporting national fiscal policy initiativesand providing regulatory and fiscalincentives to encourage full-cost pricingand moves towards a lower resource-intense society.

    Inviting the private financial sector andmultilateral agencies to support theirinvestment policies that favour sustainableinnovations and green technology. Forexample, the Asia Development Bank andcommercial banks could develop loans

    and investment strategies that encouragetransformation and promote sustainability.

    Recognize the increasing competitiveadvantage of ecological creditorsPrepare for the geopolitical shift to a divisionbetween ecological debtor and creditorcountries (see Map 7). Internationalcooperation can be enhanced by encouraginggovernments to move from short-term self-interests on common goods to long-termglobal common interests, including: Developing beyond unilateral action on

    international issues such as climatechange, biodiversity conservation ormanagement of the oceans.

    Exploring new international conventionsand treaties that build on and developfurther the existing commitments of theMillennium Development Goals, Kyoto andDoha that encourage equitable solutions tosustainability challenges.

  • 17ASIA-PACIFIC 2005: THE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT

    Countries with ecological deficits use more biocapacity than they control within theirown territories. As ecological deficits continue to increase in many countries, thepredominant geopolitical line may shift from the current division between developed anddeveloping countries. Instead, the line will fall between ecological debtors, countries thatdepend on net imports of ecological resources or on liquidating their ecological assets

    to maintain their economies, and ecological creditors, countries still endowed withecological reserves. As ecological deficits increase worldwide, both debtors andcreditors will realize the significance of ecological assets and recognize the economicadvantage of curbing their footprints.

    Map 7: ECOLOGICAL DEBTORAND CREDITOR COUNTRIES2001

    Ecological Reserve

    >one third of biocapacity

  • 18 ASIA-PACIFIC 2005: THE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT

    Table 4: E C O L O G I C A L F O O T P R I N T A N D B I O C A PA C I T Y

    2001 data Population Total Total Included in total food, fibre and timber Total Included in total energyEcological food, fibre and Cropland Forest Grazing Fishing energy CO2 from Fuelwood Nuclear HydroFootprint timber footprint land ground footprint fossil fuels

    See notes on (global (global (global (global (global (global (global (global (global (global (globalpages 2125 (millions) ha/person) ha/person) ha/person) ha/person) ha/person) ha/person) ha/person) ha/person) ha/person) ha/person) ha/person)

    NOTESWorld: Total population includes countries not listed below.0.0 = less than 0.05Totals may not add up due to roundingHigh income countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium & Luxembourg, Canada,Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Rep.

    Korea, Kuwait, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain,Sweden, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States ofAmerica.Middle income countries: Algeria, Argentina, Belarus, Belize, Bolivia, Bosniaand Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, China, Colombia, CostaRica, Croatia, Cuba, Czech Rep., Dominican Rep., Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador,

    Estonia, Gabon, Georgia, Guatemala, Hungary, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica,Jordan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Lithuania, FYR Macedonia,Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Namibia, Panama, Papua New Guinea,Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Serbia andMontenegro, Slovakia, Rep. South Africa, Sri Lanka, Syria, Thailand, Trinidadand Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela.

    WORLD 6 148.1 2.2 0.9 0.49 0.18 0.14 0.13 1.2 1.03 0.06 0.09 0.00

    High income countries 920.1 6.4 2.2 0.82 0.80 0.26 0.33 4.0 3.44 0.02 0.49 0.01Middle income countries 2 970.8 1.9 0.9 0.50 0.12 0.15 0.15 0.9 0.85 0.05 0.02 0.00Low income countries 2 226.3 0.8 0.5 0.35 0.03 0.03 0.09 0.3 0.20 0.09 0.00 0.00

    ASIA-PACIFIC 3 406.8 1.3 0.7 0.39 0.07 0.06 0.16 0.6 0.54 0.05 0.03 0.00Australia 19.4 7.7 3.0 1.09 0.77 0.78 0.34 4.4 4.34 0.07 0.00 0.01Bangladesh 140.9 0.6 0.4 0.26 0.01 0.00 0.15 0.1 0.09 0.04 0.00 0.00Cambodia 13.5 1.1 0.9 0.22 0.01 0.11 0.58 0.2 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.00China 1 292.6 1.5 0.8 0.44 0.08 0.11 0.16 0.7 0.65 0.03 0.00 0.00India 1 033.4 0.8 0.4 0.34 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.3 0.27 0.05 0.00 0.00Indonesia 214.4 1.2 0.7 0.35 0.05 0.05 0.25 0.4 0.34 0.08 0.00 0.00Japan 127.3 4.3 1.4 0.48 0.33 0.08 0.55 2.8 2.33 0.00 0.50 0.01Korea, DPR 22.4 1.5 0.5 0.33 0.05 0.00 0.11 0.9 0.88 0.05 0.00 0.00Korea, Rep. 47.1 3.4 1.3 0.54 0.24 0.00 0.54 2.0 1.54 0.01 0.46 0.00Lao PDR 5.4 1.0 0.6 0.31 0.05 0.13 0.15 0.2 0.02 0.22 0.00 0.00Malaysia 23.5 3.0 1.3 0.50 0.19 0.04 0.55 1.6 1.60 0.03 0.00 0.00Mongolia 2.5 1.9 1.0 0.18 0.13 0.70 0.00 0.8 0.83 0.02 0.00 0.00Myanmar 48.2 0.9 0.7 0.47 0.03 0.02 0.15 0.2 0.04 0.15 0.00 0.00Nepal 24.1 0.6 0.4 0.32 0.04 0.06 0.02 0.2 0.04 0.11 0.00 0.00New Zealand 3.8 5.5 4.0 0.62 1.45 1.05 0.86 1.3 1.33 0.00 0.00 0.00Pakistan 146.3 0.7 0.4 0.31 0.02 0.00 0.06 0.3 0.22 0.04 0.00 0.00Papua New Guinea 5.5 1.3 0.9 0.26 0.14 0.11 0.35 0.3 0.09 0.21 0.00 0.00Philippines 77.2 1.2 0.7 0.32 0.04 0.02 0.30 0.5 0.34 0.11 0.00 0.00Sri Lanka 18.8 1.1 0.7 0.30 0.05 0.03 0.34 0.3 0.25 0.06 0.00 0.00Thailand 61.6 1.6 0.7 0.36 0.07 0.01 0.29 0.8 0.75 0.07 0.00 0.00Viet Nam 79.2 0.8 0.5 0.31 0.05 0.01 0.10 0.2 0.14 0.07 0.00 0.00

    OTHER NATIONSBrazil 174.0 2.2 1.5 0.58 0.35 0.53 0.09 0.5 0.35 0.16 0.02 0.02Russian Federation 144.9 4.4 1.5 0.81 0.30 0.21 0.20 2.8 2.52 0.06 0.20 0.01United Kingdom 59.1 5.4 1.7 0.69 0.44 0.27 0.25 3.4 3.13 0.00 0.31 0.00United States of America 288.0 9.5 3.0 0.96 1.35 0.44 0.23 6.1 5.47 0.04 0.57 0.01

  • 19ASIA-PACIFIC 2005: THE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT

    0.07 1.8 0.53 0.27 0.81 0.13 0.4 -2% -12% 0.72 5 800 WORLD

    0.23 3.3 1.12 0.33 1.57 0.31 3.1 8% -7% 0.91 - High income countries0.07 2.0 0.51 0.30 1.07 0.13 -0.1 -5% -10% 0.68 - Middle income countries0.05 0.7 0.32 0.19 0.13 0.07 0.1 -11% -16% 0.44 - Low income countries

    0.06 0.7 0.34 0.11 0.16 0.09 0.6 6% -11% 0.66 2 365 ASIA-PACIFIC0.26 19.2 4.46 8.26 3.47 2.73 -11.5 16% -6% 0.94 20 886 Australia0.05 0.3 0.19 0.00 0.01 0.08 0.3 0% -11% 0.50 353 Bangladesh0.03 1.0 0.31 0.12 0.19 0.37 0.1 9% -3% 0.56 281 Cambodia0.07 0.8 0.35 0.12 0.17 0.05 0.8 14% -7% 0.72 899 China0.04 0.4 0.29 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.4 1% -15% 0.59 465 India0.05 1.0 0.34 0.07 0.27 0.28 0.2 4% -14% 0.68 725 Indonesia0.07 0.8 0.14 0.00 0.42 0.13 3.6 6% -6% 0.93 37 453 Japan0.05 0.7 0.23 0.00 0.30 0.10 0.8 -37% -33% n/a n/a Korea, DPR0.06 0.6 0.16 0.00 0.08 0.27 2.8 30% -12% 0.88 11 276 Korea, Rep.0.10 1.4 0.33 0.21 0.68 0.07 -0.4 -4% -12% 0.53 335 Lao PDR0.07 1.9 0.79 0.02 0.63 0.42 1.1 10% -48% 0.79 3 857 Malaysia0.04 11.8 0.25 11.04 0.47 0.00 -9.9 -33% -11% 0.66 378 Mongolia0.08 1.3 0.54 0.01 0.48 0.21 -0.4 10% 1% 0.55 n/a Myanmar0.05 0.5 0.27 0.06 0.08 0.01 0.2 -4% -12% 0.50 241 Nepal0.13 14.5 2.76 4.36 6.82 0.45 -9.0 16% -13% 0.92 18 696 New Zealand0.04 0.4 0.26 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.3 2% -18% 0.50 511 Pakistan0.12 2.6 0.33 0.05 1.15 0.90 -1.3 -8% -16% 0.55 638 Papua New Guinea0.04 0.6 0.28 0.02 0.12 0.12 0.6 -6% -22% 0.75 1 013 Philippines0.05 0.4 0.20 0.02 0.05 0.06 0.7 20% -12% 0.73 857 Sri Lanka0.06 1.0 0.59 0.01 0.19 0.14 0.6 20% -1% 0.77 2 037 Thailand0.08 0.8 0.36 0.01 0.14 0.17 0.0 14% 6% 0.69 421 Viet Nam

    0.08 10.2 0.80 1.19 8.05 0.10 -8.0 9% -10% 0.78 3 503 Brazil0.05 6.9 1.18 0.35 4.95 0.39 -2.6 -21% 1% 0.53 1 884 Russian Federation0.34 1.5 0.49 0.15 0.19 0.36 3.9 -1% -12% 0.93 21 500 United Kingdom0.45 4.9 1.76 0.28 2.01 0.36 4.7 7% -11% 0.94 39 100 United States of America

    Built-up Total Included in total biocapacity Ecological Ecological Biocapacity Human Gross 2001 data land* biocapacity Cropland Grazing Forest Fishing deficit** Footprint change change per Development domestic

    land ground per capita capita Index*** product(global (global (global (global (global (global (global (change (change (US $/person) See notes on

    ha/person) ha/person) ha/person) ha/person) ha/person) ha/person) ha/person) 1991-2001) 1991-2001) pages 2125

    Low income countries: Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Armenia, Azerbaijan,Bangladesh, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, CentralAfrican Rep., Chad, Congo, Dem. Rep. Congo, Cte dIvoire, Eritrea,Ethiopia, The Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras,India, Kenya, DPR Korea, Kyrgyzstan, Lao PDR, Lesotho, Liberia,Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Rep. Moldova, Mongolia,

    Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Rwanda,Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Swaziland, Tajikistan, United Rep.Tanzania, Togo, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia,Zimbabwe.

    * Note that built-up land is part of both Ecological Footprint and biocapacity.** If number for ecological deficit is negative, country has an ecological reserve.*** High/medium/low income country classifications for the Human

    Development Index are taken from UNDP 2003.

  • 20 ASIA-PACIFIC 2005: THE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT

    F R E Q U E N T LY A S K E D Q U E S T I O N S A B O U T T H E F O O T P R I N TWhat is included in the Ecological Footprint?What is excluded?To avoid exaggerating human demand onnature, the Ecological Footprint includes onlythose aspects of resource consumption andwaste production that are potentially sustainableand for which there are data that allow thisdemand on nature to be expressed in terms ofthe area required. Specific excludedcomponents are listed in the technical appendix.

    Ecological Footprint accounts providesnapshots of past resource demand andavailability. They do not predict the future.Thus, the Ecological Footprint does notestimate future losses caused by presentdegradation of ecosystems, althoughpersistent degradation will eventually bereflected in Ecological Footprint accounts of future years as a loss of biocapacity.

    Footprint accounts also do not indicate theintensity with which a biologically productivearea is being used and do not pinpointspecific biodiversity pressures. Finally, the Ecological Footprint does not evaluate

    the social and economic dimensions of sustainability.

    How does the Ecological Footprint accountfor fossil fuels?The Ecological Footprint measures humanityspast and present demand on nature. Althoughfossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas areextracted from the Earths crust and notregenerated in human timescales, their use stillrequires ecological services. Burning thesefuels puts pressure on the biosphere through therelease of greenhouse gases such as CO2. TheEcological Footprint includes the biocapacityneeded to sequester this CO2, less the amountabsorbed by the ocean. One global hectare canabsorb the CO2 released from consumingapproximately 1,450 litres of gasoline in a year.

    The fossil fuel footprint does not suggestthat carbon sequestration is the key toresolving global warming. Rather, it pointsout the lack of ecological capacity for copingwith excess CO2 and underlines theimportance of reducing CO2 emissions. The

    sequestration rate used in EcologicalFootprint calculations is based on an estimateof how much human-induced carbonemissions the worlds forests can currentlyremove from the atmosphere and retain.

    Energy efficiency or new renewable energytechnologies, such as wind or solar, may bethe most cost-effective way to reduce theenergy footprint (see Figure 23). As theEcological Footprint measures the currentstate of resource demand and availability,however, these technologies are only includedin the accounts according to their usage today,not their possible growth in the future.

    Are current biological yields likely to besustainable? In calculating a nations footprint, yields forforests and fisheries as reported by the Foodand Agriculture Organization of the UnitedNations (FAO) are used. These are estimates of the maximum amount of a single speciesstock that can be harvested without reducingthe stocks productivity over time. If current

    overuse leads to lower yields in thefuture, this will be reflected in futurebiocapacity assessments.

    How is international trade taken intoaccount?The Ecological Footprint accounts calculateeach countrys net consumption by adding itsimports to its production and subtracting itsexports. This means that the resources used forproducing a car that is manufactured in Japan,but sold and used in India, will contribute tothe Indian, not the Japanese, footprint.

    The resulting footprint of apparentconsumption can be distorted, since thewaste generated in making products forexport is not fully documented. This canexaggerate the footprint of countries whoseeconomies produce largely for export, and understate that of importing countries.While these misallocations may distort some national averages, they do not bias the overall global Ecological Footprint.

    Figure 22: The Asia-Pacific regions totalEcological Footprint nearly trebled from 1961to 2001. Population increased by around 17per cent over the same period.

    Figure 23: Range of footprints of renewableenergy technologies in comparison withfossil fuels.

    1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 20011996

    Fig. 22: ASIA PACIFICS ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT,19612001

    Bill

    ion

    glob

    al h

    ecta

    res

    Built-up land

    Energy

    Food, fibre, and timber

    5

    4

    3

    2

    1

    0

    Fig. 23: COMPARING THE FOOTPRINTS OF ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES

    600

    400

    800

    200

    1 000

    0

    Minimum footprintMaximum footprint

    Windturbines

    Fossilfuel

    FuelwoodBiofuelPhotovoltaicsolar cells

    Thermalsolar

    collectors

    1000

    100100

    475

    300

    800

    16830 0 0

    Glo

    bal

    hec

    tare

    s p

    er M

    W

  • 21ASIA-PACIFIC 2005: THE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT

    T E C H N I C A L N O T E S LIVING PLANET INDEX

    Data collection

    The species population data used to calculate the

    Living Planet Index were gathered from a variety of

    sources including publications in scientific journals,

    literature from non-governmental organizations, and the

    internet. All data used in constructing the index are a

    time series of either population size or a proxy of

    population size. Direct population size trends included

    total population estimates, such as counts of an entire

    species; density measures, for example the number of

    birds per kilometre of transect; and biomass or stock

    estimates, particularly for commercial fish species.

    Other proxies of population size were also used, such

    as the number of nests of marine turtle species on

    various nesting beaches.

    All population time series have at least two data

    points, and most have more. Only data collected by

    methods that are comparable across years are

    included a population estimate taken at one point in

    time would not be used with a second estimate from

    another survey of the same population at another point

    in time, unless it was clear that the second estimate

    was meant to be comparable with the first. Plants and

    invertebrates are excluded, as few population time

    series data were available. It is assumed, therefore, that

    trends in vertebrate populations are indicative of overall

    trends in global biodiversity.

    Calculation of the indices

    For each species, the ratio between its population in

    each pair of consecutive years is calculated. To

    calculate the index in a given year, the geometric mean

    of all the ratios of species populations in that year and

    the previous year is multiplied by the index value of the

    previous year. The index value is set equal to 1 in

    1970. From this baseline, the index changes from year

    to year in line with the geometric mean of all the

    changes in population of species with population data

    in both years.

    In cases where data exist for more than one

    population of a single species, or where more than one

    time series was collected for the same population, the

    geometric mean of all ratios for that species was used

    in the index calculations rather than all measurements

    for that species.

    More species population data are available from

    temperate than tropical regions of the world, and

    species richness is higher in the tropics. Thus, if the

    Living Planet Index were calculated simply as

    described above, it would be unrepresentative of global

    biodiversity. To address this issue, before carrying out

    any calculations, the data were divided into biomes

    (terrestrial, freshwater or marine) depending on the

    principal habitat of the species. Where a species

    commonly occurs in more than one biome, its

    breeding habitat was used to determine its biome.

    Within each biome, species were divided according

    to the biogeographic realm or ocean they inhabit:

    Afrotropical, Australasian, Indo-Malayan, Nearctic,

    Neotropical, or Palearctic realms for terrestrial and

    freshwater species, and Atlantic/Arctic, Indian, Pacific,

    or Southern Oceans for marine species. For some

    species, different populations occur within different

    realms or oceans, in which case the populations would

    be divided accordingly. The total numbers of species

    contributing to each realm/ocean and biome are given

    in Table 5.

    Separate indices were calculated for each

    biogeographic realm and ocean. The terrestrial and

    freshwater species indices were then calculated as the

    geometric mean of the six biogeographic realm indices

    within each biome, and the marine species index was

    calculated as the geometric mean of the four ocean

    indices. The terrestrial species index includes 562

    species of mammals, birds and reptiles found in forest,

    grassland, savannah, desert or tundra ecosystems

    worldwide. The freshwater species index comprises

    323 species of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians,

    and fish living in rivers, lakes or wetland ecosystems.

    The marine species index includes 267 species of

    mammals, birds, reptiles and fish from the worlds

    oceans, seas and coastal ecosystems.

    The Living Planet Index is the geometric mean of the

    terrestrial, freshwater and marine species indices. The

    hierarchy of indices is shown in Figure 24. Each biome

    carries equal weight within the overall Living Planet

    Index. Each realm or ocean carries equal weight within

    each biome. Each species carries equal weight within

    each realm or ocean. Each population carries equal

    weight within each species.

    ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT and BIOCAPACITY

    1. The Ecological Footprint

    The Ecological Footprint is a measure of how

    much biologically productive land and water area

    Table 5: NUMBERS OF SPECIES INCLUDED IN THE LIVING PLANET INDEX BYREALM/OCEAN AND BIOME

    Realm or ocean Terrestrial Freshwater Marine

    Afrotropical 72 12

    Australasian 15 11

    Indo-Malayan 28 19

    Nearctic 269 168

    Neotropical 19 12

    Palearctic 159 101

    Atlantic/Arctic Ocean 117

    Indian Ocean/Southeast Asia 15

    Pacific Ocean 105

    Southern Ocean 30

    World 562 323 267

    Fig. 24: HIERARCHY OF INDICES WITHIN THE LIVING PLANET INDEX

    Freshwater MarineTerrestrial

    Realm 2 Realm 3Realm 1

    Species 2 Species 3Species 1

    Population 1

    LIVING PLANET INDEX

    Population 2 Population 3

  • 22 ASIA-PACIFIC 2005: THE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT

    an individual, a city, a country, a region or humanity

    uses to produce the resources it consumes and to

    absorb the waste it generates, using prevailing

    technology and resource management schemes.

    This land and water area can be physically located

    anywhere in the world.

    This report documents national, per person

    footprints for consumption. Footprints can be

    calculated for any activity of organizations and

    populations or for urban development projects,

    services and products.

    The Ecological Footprint is measured in global

    hectares. A global hectare is 1 hectare of biologically

    productive space with world average productivity. In

    2001 (the most recent year for which consistent data

    are available), the biosphere had 11.3 billion hectares

    of biologically productive area, corresponding to

    roughly one quarter of the planets surface. These 11.3

    billion hectares include 2.3 billion hectares of water

    (ocean shelves and inland water) and 9.0 billion

    hectares of land. The land area is composed of 1.5

    billion hectares of cropland, 3.5 billion hectares of

    grazing land, 3.9 billion hectares of forest land and

    0.2 billion hectares of built-up land.

    In this report, the Ecological Footprint of

    consumption is calculated for each country. This

    includes the embodied resources contained within the

    goods and services that are consumed by people living

    in that country, as well as the associated waste.

    Resources used for the production of goods and

    services that are later exported are counted in the

    footprint of the country where the goods and services

    are finally consumed.

    The global Ecological Footprint is the area

    required to produce the material throughput of the

    human economy under current management and

    production practices. Typically expressed in global

    hectares, the Ecological Footprint can also be

    measured in number of planets, whereby one planet

    represents the biological capacity of the Earth in a

    given year. Results could also be expressed, for

    example, in Austrian or Danish hectares (hectares with

    average Austrian or Danish productivity), just as

    financial accounts can express the same total value in

    different currencies.

    Ecological Footprint and biocapacity analyses are

    based primarily on data published by the Food and

    Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO),

    the International Energy Agency (IEA), the UN

    Statistics Division (UN Commodity Trade Statistics

    Database UN Comtrade), and the Intergov-

    ernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Other

    data sources include studies in peer-reviewed science

    journals and thematic collections.

    2. Biocapacity and bioproductivity

    Biocapacity (biological capacity) is the total usable

    biological production capacity of a biologically

    productive area in a given year. Biocapacity can also

    be expressed in global hectares.

    Biologically productive area is land and sea area

    with significant photosynthetic activity and production

    of biomass. Marginal areas with patchy vegetation and

    non-productive areas are not included in biocapacity

    estimates. There are 11.3 billion global hectares of

    biologically productive land and sea area on the planet.

    The remaining three quarters of the Earths surface,

    including deserts, ice caps and deep oceans, support

    comparatively low levels of bioproductivity, too

    dispersed to be harvested.

    Bioproductivity (biological productivity) is equal to

    biological production per unit area per year. Biological

    productivity is typically measured in terms of annual

    biomass accumulation.

    Biocapacity available per person is calculated by

    dividing the 11.3 billion global hectares of biologically

    productive area by the number of people on Earth

    (6.15 billion in 2001). This ratio gives the average

    amount of biocapacity that exists on the planet per

    person: 1.8 global hectares.

    3. Assumptions underlying the calculations

    Ecological Footprint calculations are based on the

    following assumptions:

    It is possible to track the majority of the resources

    people consume and the wastes they generate.

    The majority of these resource and waste flows

    can be measured in terms of the biologically

    productive area necessary to maintain these

    flows.Those resource and waste flows that cannot

    be measured are excluded from the assessment.

    This approach tends to underestimate the true

    Ecological Footprint.

    By weighting each area in proportion to its usable

    bioproductivity, different types of areas can be

    converted from hectares to global hectares, land of

    average productivity. Usable refers to the portion of

    biomass used by humans, reflecting the

    anthropocentric assumptions of the Ecological

    Footprint measurement.

    Since these different areas represent mutually

    exclusive uses and each global hectare represents

    the same amount of biomass production potential

    for a given year, they can be added up. This is the

    case for both the aggregate human demand (the

    Ecological Footprint) and the aggregate supply

    of biocapacity.

    Human demand expressed as the Ecological

    Footprint and natures supply expressed in global

    hectares of biocapacity can be directly compared.

    Area demanded can exceed area supplied. For

    example, the footprint of forest products harvested

    from a forest at twice its regeneration rate is twice the

    size of the actual forest. Use that exceeds the

    regeneration rate of nature is called ecological

    overshoot.

    4. What is NOT counted

    The results presented tend to underestimate human

    demand on nature and overestimate the available

    biocapacity by:

    choosing more optimistic bioproductivity estimates

    when in doubt (e.g. carbon absorption)

    excluding human demands on the biosphere for

    which there are insufficient data (e.g. acid rain)

    excluding those activities that systematically erode

    natures capacity to regenerate, such as:

    - uses of materials for which the biosphere has

    no apparent significant assimilation capacity

    (e.g. plutonium, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),

    dioxins, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs))

    - processes that irreversibly damage the biosphere

    (e.g. species extinction, fossil-aquifer depletion,

    deforestation, desertification).

    The national footprint and biocapacity accounts also

    do not directly account for freshwater use and

    availability, since withdrawal of a cubic metre of

    freshwater affects biocapacity differently depending on

    local conditions. Removing one cubic metre from a wet

    area may make little difference to the local

    environment, while in arid areas every cubic metre

    removed can directly compromise ecosystem

    production. Hence, water assessments require very

    specific data on local circumstances, and such data

    are not available for global comparison. The accounts

    reflect freshwater use and availability indirectly,

    however, since this affects biocapacity through

    changes in crop and forest yields.

    For consistency and to keep the global hectares

    additive, each area is only counted once in Ecological

    Footprint and biocapacity estimates, even if an area

    provides two or more ecological services. Also, the

    accounts include the productivity of cropland at the

    level of current yields, with no deduction for possible

    degradation. If degradation takes place, however,

    this will be reflected as reductions in future

    biocapacity assessments.

    Ecological Footprint calculations avoid double

    counting counting the same area twice. Considering

    bread, for example, wheat is first farmed, then milled,

    T E C H N I C A L N O T E S c o n t i n u e d

  • 23ASIA-PACIFIC 2005: THE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT

    baked and finally eaten. Economic data can track

    these sequential processes and report the amounts of

    materials and their financial values at each stage.

    However, the same wheat grain appears throughout

    the production process before finally ending up as

    human consumption. To avoid double counting, the


Ecological Footprint - Indiana University of Pennsylvania...Ecological Footprint (continued) An Ecological Footprint is calculated be the sum of cropland, forest, grazing land, fishing
Ecological Footprint - Indiana University of Pennsylvania...Ecological Footprint (continued) An Ecological Footprint is calculated be the sum of cropland, forest, grazing land, fishing
Ecological footprint
Ecological footprint
Ecological Footprint Calculator ArminArmin Emo SunotoEmo Sunoto Ecological Footprint Calculator Team 04.
Ecological Footprint Calculator ArminArmin Emo SunotoEmo Sunoto Ecological Footprint Calculator Team 04.
Ecological Footprint Pp
Ecological Footprint Pp
Ecological Footprint Presentation
Ecological Footprint Presentation
Ecological Footprint - Personal Websites€¦ · Ecological Footprint (yes, another footprint!) An Ecological Footprint is a measure of how much productive land and water an individual,
Ecological Footprint - Personal Websites€¦ · Ecological Footprint (yes, another footprint!) An Ecological Footprint is a measure of how much productive land and water an individual,
ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT ANALYSIS - Global Footprint … · ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT ANALYSIS SAN FRANCISCO – OAKLAND ... partial ecological balance sheet for the world. ... down the standing
ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT ANALYSIS - Global Footprint … · ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT ANALYSIS SAN FRANCISCO – OAKLAND ... partial ecological balance sheet for the world. ... down the standing
ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT (Armani)
ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT (Armani)
The Ecological Footprint
The Ecological Footprint
Global Ecological footprint
Global Ecological footprint
Bio112 ecological footprint
Bio112 ecological footprint
LIVING PLANET REPORT · 2020. 5. 29. · Ecological Footprint measures people’s use of renewable natural resources. Humanity’s Ecological Footprint is shown here in number of
LIVING PLANET REPORT · 2020. 5. 29. · Ecological Footprint measures people’s use of renewable natural resources. Humanity’s Ecological Footprint is shown here in number of
Carbon footprint and Ecological Footprint
Carbon footprint and Ecological Footprint
China Ecological Footprint Report 2010 - WWFジャ …...Ecological Footprint helps us measure the human demand being placed on the planet’s natural resources. In this second report
China Ecological Footprint Report 2010 - WWFジャ …...Ecological Footprint helps us measure the human demand being placed on the planet’s natural resources. In this second report
India's Ecological Footprint
India's Ecological Footprint
ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT. What exactly is an ecological footprint?
ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT. What exactly is an ecological footprint?
Ecological Footprint of Mediterranean countries · Mediterranean’s Ecological Footprint and biocapacity, 1961-2010 •Ecological Footprint of consumption (EF C) grew by 54%, mainly
Ecological Footprint of Mediterranean countries · Mediterranean’s Ecological Footprint and biocapacity, 1961-2010 •Ecological Footprint of consumption (EF C) grew by 54%, mainly
City’s Ecological Footprint Report, vol.1 Kyoto City’s€™s Ecological Footprint Report, vol.1 Kyoto City’s Ecological Footprint Human well-being depends on natural resources
City’s Ecological Footprint Report, vol.1 Kyoto City’s€™s Ecological Footprint Report, vol.1 Kyoto City’s Ecological Footprint Human well-being depends on natural resources
Ecological footprint and data analysis.Week 6.09.MJeebweb.arizona.edu/courses/Ecol206/Ecological... · Share your ecological footprint My ecological footprint. 4 If everyone on the
Ecological footprint and data analysis.Week 6.09.MJeebweb.arizona.edu/courses/Ecol206/Ecological... · Share your ecological footprint My ecological footprint. 4 If everyone on the
Ecological Footprint Accounting and Methodology · Ecological Footprint Accounting and Methodology The Ecological Footprint is a resource accounting tool that measures the ... or
Ecological Footprint Accounting and Methodology · Ecological Footprint Accounting and Methodology The Ecological Footprint is a resource accounting tool that measures the ... or