Sustainable Futures: Ecological Footprint Presentation

8/8/2019 Sustainable Futures: Ecological Footprint Presentation

1/33

THE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT

IMPLICATIONS AND IMPERATIVESFOR THE CITY OF CAPE TOWN

DISCUSSION PAPERS WORKSHOP

Wednesday 21 January, 2009 | Tygerberg Nature Reserve

Yvonne Hansen


2/33

BACKGROUND

The first EF approximation for Cape Town Barrie Gasson (2002) Metabolic inputs and outputs

Update this approximation Data collection (food, transport, housing, goods, services)

Discussion paper Focus on policy First principles

Strengths and weaknesses

The Ecological Footprint metric provides a vehicle to both measure

and communicate/educate environmental sustainability Sustainable consumption As a policy tool, however, it requires disaggregation into

consumption categories and/or policy relevant themes


3/33

OVERVIEW

Key footprint concepts and definitions

Natural capital biological capacity appropriated carrying

capacity

Exponential growth/demand ecological overshoot / fair

Earthshare Footprint accounting: component vs compound approaches

The Ecological Footprint of Cape Town

The first approximation (2002) based on a metabolic /

component approach

A revision based on a compound/hybrid approach

New work


4/33

ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINTS

EXPLAINED The Ecological Footprint metric compares the supply of

natural capital with human demand on it

Track progress, set targets and develop policies for sustainability

Calculate the area of biologically productive land and

sea required to support a given population To produce the renewable resources consumed

Assimilate the waste generated

A measure of the extent to which human economies stay

within the regenerative capacity of the biosphere


5/33

LAND USE TYPES

Cropland Required for growing crops for food, animal feed, fibre and oils (highest

bioproductivity)

Grazing land Pasture land required to raise livestock for meat, hides, wool and dairy product

Fishing grounds

Productive freshwater and marinefishing grounds

Forest area Timber products and fuelwood

Built-up land Land for infrastructure, transportation,

housing and industry

Carbon land Biologically productive area required

to assimilate CO2 eq from fossilfuel consumption (theoretical)


6/33

CONVERTING TO GLOBAL

HECTARES Equivalence factors and yield factors are used to convert actual

areas in hectares of different land types into their equivalentnumbers of global hectares

Yield factors

Show the extent to which

the local biocapacity of agiven land use is greater/smaller than the globalbiocapacity in that land use

Equivalency factors

Translate a specific land type(i.e. cropland, pasture, forest,fishing ground) into a universalunit of biologically productive area, a global hectare (gha)

For South Africa in 2003

Equivalence Factor Yield Factor[gha/ha] [-]

Primary Cropland 2.22 0.77

Marginal Cropland 1.80 0.92

Forest 1.35 1.92

Forest AWS 1.35 1.94

Forest NAWS 1.35 1.92

Permanent Pasture 0.49 0.79

Marine 0.36 1.60

Inland Water 0.36 0.03Built 2.22 0.77

Equivalence and Yield Factors


7/33

TERMINOLOGY

Ecological Footprint (demand) Expressed in units of global hectares gha

A global hectare is a hectare that is normalized to have the worldaverage productivity of all biologically productive land and waterin a given year

Biocapacity (supply) The capacity of ecosystems to produce useful biological

materials and to absorb waste materials generated by humansusing current management schemes and extraction technologies

Overshoot When the Ecological Footprint exceeds available biocapacity

Ecological deficit or Ecological reserve (+ve)


8/33

FOOTPRINTS, BIOCAPACITY,OVERSHOOT


9/33

FAIR EARTHSHARE? A fair earthshare is the amount of land each person would get if all

the ecologically productive land on Earth were divided evenly

among the present world population

This average earthshare stands at 1.8 gha per capita and is

expected to drop to 1.44 gha per capita by 2050


10/33

ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT AND

POPULATION BY REGION (2003)


11/33

ACCOUNTING METHODS Compound

Top down

Calculates total consumption using trade flows at a Nationallevel: Production + Imports Exports

Based on international data sets published by the Food andAgriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the

International Energy Agency (IEA), the UN Statistics Division(UN Commodity Trade Statistics Database UN Comtrade), andthe Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

Component Bottom-up Summing all relevant components of a populations resource

consumption and waste production Useful as a PR tool to calculate local or regional footprints

But requires sufficiently detailed data at these geographicalscales


12/33

COMPONENTLAND USEMATRIX

Carbonland

Built-upland

Cropland Pastureland

Forestland

ProductiveSea

Food 0.3410 %

Housing

Mobility

Goods

Services

Policy relevantthemes

EF expressed

as % of total orabsolute (per capita)value


13/33

Energy Land Cropland Pasture Forest Built area Fishing Total[gha/cap]

Food 0.07 0.37 0.22 0.00 0.05 0.64

.plant-based 0.27 0.00 0.28

.animal-based 0.07 0.10 0.22 0.00 0.05 0.43

Housing 0.35 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.10

.new construction 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.08

.maintenance 0.00 0.00 0.00

.residential energy use 0.01 0.01

..electricity

..natural gas 0.34 0.34

..fuelwood 0.21 0.21

..fuel oil, kerosene, LPG, coal

Mobility 0.27 0.00 0.01 0.07

.passenger cars and trucks 0.22 0.00 0.22

.motorcycles 0.00 0.00

.buses 0.00 0.00

.passenger rail transport 0.00 0.00

.passenger air transport 0.00 0.00

.passenger boats 0.00 0.00

Goods 0.17 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.12

.appliances (not including operation energy) 0.00 0.00

.furnishing 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.17

.computers and electrical equipment (not including operation energy)

.clothing and shoes 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02

.cleaning products 0.01 0.01

.paper products 0.05 0.05

.tobacco 0.00 0.00

.other misc. goods 0.00 0.00 0.00

Services 0.12 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02.water and sewage

.telephone and cable service

.solid waste

.financial and legal 0.00 0.00

.medical 0.00 0.00 0.00

.real estate and rental lodging

.entertainment 0.00 0.00

.Government

..non-military, non-road

..military

.other misc. services 0.00 0.00

Unidentified 0.48 -0.00 0.00 0.00

Total (gha/cap) 1.46 0.38 0.23 0.12 0.05 0.05 2.29

SOUTH AFRICAS LAND USE

MATRIX

Total EF= 2.29 gha/capita

Policy relevantthemes

Energy contribution~ 64%


14/33

SA EF SUMMARY

Ecological Footprint (Demand) Biological Capacity (Supply)

Values are in 1000 global hectares

Animal Grazing 10,221 32,746 Pasture

Fish 2,157 9,355 Fishing Grounds

Forest Products 5,461 23,257 Forests

Crops 17,225 23,718 Cropland

Built up area 2,392 2,354 Infrastructure

Sequestering CO2 63,295

Total Footprint 103,157 91,430 Total Biocapacity

Ecological Reserve(Deficit): (11,727)

Net Exports (Net Imports): 45,545

Performance IndicatorsSouth Africa World

Footprint per capita (gha) 2.29 2.19

Capacity per capita (gha) 2.03 1.82

Demand to Supply Ratio: 1.13 1.21

Earths required if world lived like South Africa: 1.3 n/a


15/33

THE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT OF

CAPE TOWN

The first EF approximations for Cape Town Barrie Gasson (2002)

Metabolic inputs and outputs (Compound approach)

EF Cape Town equivalent tothe area of Western Cape

EF ~50x larger thanjuridictional area

EF ~160x larger thanbuilt footprint of CT


16/33


17/33

A COMPOUND APPROACH?

Starting point: South Africas National Footprint Accounts

Compareaverage Capetonians

consumption patternswith average SouthAfricans

Using demographic data; economic data; transportation;energy consumption; food etc.

Energy Land Cropland Pasture Forest Built area Fishing Total[gha/cap]

Food 0.07 0.37 0.22 0.00 0.05 0.64.plant-based 0.27 0.00 0.28

.animal-based 0.07 0.10 0.22 0.00 0.05 0.43

Housing 0.35 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.10

.new construction 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.08

.maintenance 0.00 0.00 0.00

.residential energy use 0.01 0.01

..electricity

..natural gas 0.34 0.34

..fuelwood 0.21 0.21

..fuel oil, kerosene, LPG, coal

Mobility 0.27 0.00 0.01 0.07.passenger cars and trucks 0.22 0.00 0.22.motorcycles 0.00 0.00

.buses 0.00 0.00

.passenger rail transport 0.00 0.00

.passenger air transport 0.00 0.00

.passenger boats 0.00 0.00Goods 0.17 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.12

.appliances(not includingoperation energy) 0.00 0.00

.furnishing 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.17

.computers and electrical equipment(not includingoperation energy)

.clothing and shoes 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02

.cleaning products 0.01 0.01

.paper products 0.05 0.05

.tobacco 0.00 0.00

.other misc. goods 0.00 0.00 0.00

Services 0.12 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02

.water and sewage

.telephone and cable service

.solid waste

.financial and legal 0.00 0.00

.medical 0.00 0.00 0.00

.real estate and rental lodging

.entertainment 0.00 0.00

.Government..non-military, non-road

..military

.other misc. services 0.00 0.00Unidentified 0.48 -0.00 0.00 0.00

Total (gha/cap) 1.46 0.38 0.23 0.12 0.05 0.05 2.29


18/33

A COMPOUND APPROACH?

Food 35%

Mobility 19% Housing 17%

Unidentified 14%

Goods 9%

Services 5%

Energy58%

Cropland 18% Pasture 12%

Forest 7%

Fishing 3%

Built land 2%

Ecological Footprint (Western Cape) = 3.34gha/cap

COMPONENT LAND USE


19/33

ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT AND

POPULATION BY REGION (2003)


20/33

EF DISTRIBUTIONBY INCOME LEVEL

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Income deciles (South Africa)

Footprint2003

globalhe

ctares

perperson

World =1.8

SA = 2.29

WC = 3.34


21/33

THE EF IN POLICY MAKING:

CARDIFF

A collaborative project tomeasure Cardiff'sEcological Footprint

This study demonstrated

where Cardiff's ecologicalfootprint was heaviest, andhighlighted areas ofconcern for the future

Objective: to maintainCardiffs EF at 2001 levels


22/33

CARDIFF EF 5.59 gha/cap


23/33

OUTCOMES: CARDIFF STUDY

The 'big hitters' : consumption of food and drink, passengertransport, energy use and production of municipal waste

Food recommendations

Shift towards fresh unprocessed foods

Increase consumption of organic foods Reduction in food waste at source

Energy recommendations

Requires dramatic shift away from fossil fuels towards renewableenergy in the domestic housing sector

Large scale energy efficiency measures in existing stock Transport recommendations

Car travel to be significantly reduced via demand management

More sustainable alternatives provided


24/33

OUTCOMES: CARDIFF STUDY

Air travel Massive impacts of air travel should be acknowledged in the

City's approach to economic development and tourism

Methods sought to offset carbon impacts

Physical developments Planning should consider lifetime ecological costs as well as

immediate impact on the footprints of waste, infrastructure,

energy and transport

Waste

Reduction at source

Policies implemented to reduce paper and card and managecompostables


25/33

CLOSURE

The Ecological Footprint metric provides a vehicle toboth measure and communicate environmentalsustainability

As a policy tool, however, it requires disaggregation intoconsumption categories and/or policy relevant themes

As one author suggests: one cannot infer much on the basis of the EF alone, neither

what is the main problem nor what might be adequate policysolutions to the problem. A decomposition type of approach isneeded, which distinguishes between population density,consumption and production of goods and services (per capita)

and unsustainable land use associated with each type of good orservice. This implies a logical and complete system of multiple,complementary indicators

The EF is one of these


26/33

A note on water

An estimate of the EF of water was included in the firstapproximation SA is a water scarce country

Policy relevant

Estimated as reservoir catchment areas

However, water is treated differently in the EF methodology Because, although freshwater is a natural resource and related to many

of the biospheres critical goods and services, it is not itself a materialmade by a biologically productive area

I.e. Ecosystems do not create water in the same manner as timber, fish,or fibre products

Therefore, the Footprint of a given quantity of water cannot becalculated with yield values in the same manner as a quantity of crop orwood product


27/33


28/33

Debtors and Creditors


29/33

How do countries compare?

EF < BioCEcological ReserveBut BioC decliningrapidlyEF stable

TanzaniaSwitzerlandMorocco

EF > BioCEcological DeficitEF increasing

BioC ~stable

EF >= BioC

Ecological DeficitBioC decreasingEF ~stable


30/33

Benefits of regional/city footprints

Main aim of EF studies has been to raise publicawareness on sustainability and consumptionissues Good visualisation tool

Aggregated sustainability indicator

However, its use to support policy making isincreasing Monitor and manage natural capital

Set targets and monitor progress, particularly wherethe EF is disaggregated into consumptioncategories/components


31/33

A Compound Approach?

To demonstrate:

Simple heuristic: Capetonians consumesapproximately 15% of the countrys resources

while accounting for only 10% of the population The exception Energy where Cape Town has a less

energy intensive economy compared to other regionsin SA (mining, minerals processing etc.)

Biocapacity not scaled


32/33

Crop Pasture Sea Forest Buil t Energy Total EF Biocapacity

EF South Africa 2006

(2003 data)

(pop: 45 Million)

0.38 0.23 0.05 0.17 0.05 1.35 2.30 2.0

EF Cape Town 2006 0.73 0.44 0.10 0.32 0.10 1.35 3.04

24% 14% 3% 11% 3% 44%

Cape Towns EF (summary)

Ecological deficit (3.0 2.0 = 1.0)

Big contributors

Energy 44%

Food 41%

And so can begin to engage policy makers


33/33

Sustainable Futures: Ecological Footprint Presentation

Documents

Transcript of Sustainable Futures: Ecological Footprint Presentation