PREVIEW
FOOTPRINT AND BIOCAPACITY ATLAS OF FRANCOPHONIE MEMBER NATIONS PREPARING ECONOMIES FOR THE “GLOBAL AUCTION”
TA B L E O F CO N T EN TS Introduction From Ecological Creditors to Debtors 2 Ecological Footprint and Biocapacity 4 in Francophone Nations Succeeding in the Global Auction
6
Country Profiles Belgium
8
RD Congo
10
Egypt
12
France
14
Greece
16
Guinea-Bissau
18
Lebanon
20
Marocco
22
Senegal
24
Togo
26
Tunisia
28
In collaboration with:
Methodology Appendix B 32
Abbreviations
32
With additional financial support from:
ISBN of the English version of the Footprint and Biocapacity Atlas of Francophonie Member Nations: 978-2-89481-120-7 II
Fatimata Dia Touré, Directrice de l’IEPF
Organisation Internationale de La Francophonie
COORDINATION
Institute de l’énergie et de l’environnement de la Francophonie (IEFP)
30
References
PUBLICATIONS DIRECTOR
promotes a sustainable economy by advancing the use of the Ecological Footprint, a resource management tool that measures how much nature we have, how much we use and who uses what. All Footprint and biocapacity data in this report are based on the National Footprint Accounts, Edition 2011. www.footprintnetwork.org
The International Organisation of the Francophonie (OIF) represents the countries that share the French language. Today, it includes 75 member states and governments (56 members and 19 observers) on five continents. It represents a unique group for whom the sharing of a common language is a starting point for political, economic and cultural cooperation between its members. www.francophonie.org
Appendix A Footprint and Biocapacity
Global Footprint Network
OIF is also involved in sustainable development cooperation through (IEEP). IEFP’s mission is to contribute to strengthening national capabilities on both institutional and individual levels and to promote partnerships in the field of energy and the environment. IEPF has been created in 1988 to reflect the commitment of heads of States and governments of Francophone countries for a concerted action on developing the energy sector in member countries. In 1996, this mission was expanded to include the environment. www.iepf.org
SCIENTIFIC TEAM
Mathis Wackernagel* David Moore* Alessandro Galli* Katsunori Iha* Gemma Cranston* Rajae Chafil, IEPF AUTHORS
Mathis Wackernagel* David Moore* Scott Mattoon* Melissa Mazzarella* Rajae Chafil, IEPF Alessandro Galli* MEMBERS OF FRANCOPHONIE’S IEPF
Fatimata Dia Touré, Director Prosper Biabo, Program Director Rajae Chafil, Program Specialist Louis-Noël Jail, Communication Jacinthe Potvin, Information Services DESIGN
MaddoxDesign.net *Global Footprint Network
F O OT P R I N T A N D B I O C A PAC I T Y ATL A S O F F R A N CO P H O N I E M E M B E R N AT I O N S
“
W
e are in a new era of resource constraints, with countries becoming increasingly dependent on resources they do not have.
As a result, more countries are competing in an accelerated race for limited global resources. We call this new dynamic “The global auction.” To remain economically competitive, countries with ecological deficits need new tools for successful policy and investment decisions. Economic planners and private investors who ignore this new reality put their assets in peril.
1
FROM ECOLOGICAL CREDITORS TO DEBTORS Even the strongest economies will not operate without fuel, water, food and fibers. Input of primary resources keeps economies on the move. During the 20th century, such inputs were easily available. Prices were falling. As a result, most countries became dependent on large amounts of natural resources they did not have—both non-renewables (such as fossil fuels) and biological resources and services (such as food, water, fibers and carbon sequestration). While resources are still relatively cheap today, growing global demand has led to a supply crunch. This new situation is reshaping the rules of competitiveness for all economies.
E C O L O G I C A L C R E D I T O R S A N D E C O L O G I C A L D E B T O R S 19 61
The Ecological Footprint represents humanity’s demand on the planet for natural resources and ecosystem services. Biocapacity tracks Earth’s supply of these same resources and services. Both Ecological Footprint and biocapacity results are expressed in a globally comparable, standardized unit called a “global hectare” (gha)—a hectare of biologically productive land or sea area with world average bioproductivity in a given year. These two indicators show a clear trend over the past 50 years: More and more countries are becoming ecological debtors—that is, their Footprint exceeds the biocapacity available within their borders. As the maps show, in 1961 most people lived in countries that had more biocapacity than their residents demanded. By 2008, 83 percent of the world population lived in countries that demanded more than what their local ecosystems could renew. 2
FRANCOPHONE NATIONS Member nations of the Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie represent a diversity of geographies, cultures, and economic possibilities. Through La Francophonie, they are united in the goal of advancing peace and sustainable development. Global Footprint Network’s initiative with La Francophonie has this same goal at heart. Its purpose is to summarize the resource situation of those nations using the Ecological Footprint and biocapacity indicators, and to identify how resource constraints carry implications for their economic performance. The full Footprint Atlas will be published in 2013.
F O OT P R I N T A N D B I O C A PAC I T Y ATL A S O F F R A N CO P H O N I E M E M B E R N AT I O N S
ECOLOGICAL DEBTORS
ECOLOGICAL CREDITORS AND ECOLOGICAL DEBTORS 2008
Footprint is 0-50% larger than biocapacity 50-100% larger than biocapacity 100-150% larger than biocapacity >150% larger than biocapacity Data not available
Countries with ecological deficits (when the Footprint exceeds local biocapacity) depend on net imports of resources, on depletion of their ecological assets, and/ or on the use of global commons (such as the sequestration of anthropogenic CO2 pollution). Dependence on imported resources exposes a country to supply disruption and price volatility. Overharvesting causes a loss of capital assets. Emitting CO2 from fossil fuel burning is largely free of direct costs for now, but fossil fuels are far from free. For instance, oil costs dwarf even the most aggressive proposed CO2 taxes.
ECOLOGICAL CREDITORS Biocapacity is
GLOBAL FOOTPRINT
0-50% larger than footprint
= 1.5
GLOBAL BIOCAPACITY
50-100% larger than footprint 100-150% larger than footprint >150% larger than footprint
ONE KEY TREND IS CLEAR:
Data not available
more and more countries are becoming ecological debtors. As the maps show, there has been a significant shift since 1961. Back then,
Ecological creditor countries use fewer resources and ecological services than are available within their borders, and therefore are endowed with a biocapacity reserve. Biocapacity reserves, in an increasingly resource-constrained world, are becoming rare and more sought after. The growing value of biocapacity gives those countries an economic advantage.
most people lived in countries that had more biocapacity than their residents demanded. In other words, they were like true farms, where the farm family is consuming less than what their farm can produce. By now 83 percent of the world population lives in countries where residents demand more than what their ecosystems can renew. Humanity’s demand is now 50 percent larger than the planet’s biocapacity, up from a 30 percent reserve in 1961. This global overshoot translates inevitably into liquidation of ecological assets.
3
ECOLOGIC AL FOOTPRINT AND BIOC APAC IT Y IN FR ANCOPHONE NATIONS 30
ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT
THE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT
Grazing Footprint
22
Cropland Footprint 20
Number
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
Hungary
Slovakia
Madagascar
Guinea
France
RD, Congo
Chad
Austria
Guinea-Bissau
Lithuania
Mauritania
0
Latvia
2
Central African Rep.
4
Forest product Footprint
Estonia
The primary lithosphere resource, fossil fuel, is most restricted by the biosphere’s finite capacity to absorb CO2 waste. Biocapacity is far more limited than oil, gas and coal availability. In fact, if humanity burned more than one fifth of the fossil fuels already found, global average temperatures would increase more than 2 degrees Celsius, a commonly recognized upper threshold for dangerous climate change (carbontracker.org).
A country’s Footprint is the sum of all the cropland, grazing land, forest and fishing grounds required to produce the food, fiber, timber, and fuel wood it consumes, to provide space for its settlements and infrastructure, and to absorb the wastes it emits (current Footprint calculations only include one waste: CO2 from fossil fuels). A country’s Footprint calculation includes its net imports—that is, when residents demand resources and ecological services from foreign ecosystems, it adds to their total and per capita Footprint. In 2008, the single largest demand humanity put on the biosphere was its carbon Footprint.
Fish Footprint 24
Congo
Human and non-human life compete for area on this planet, and is ultimately limited by the biosphere’s regenerative capacity. In addition to the scarcity of crop land, fishing grounds, forests, and the like, use of non-renewable resources from the lithosphere also faces limitations.
Carbon Footprint
26
Canada
Humanity is entering a new era of constraints, when demand exceeds the planet’s limited supplies of natural resources and other ecosystem services. While many resource and consumption trends are global, each country is in a unique situation (as demonstrated by countries’ biocapacity and Footprint trends shown for 11 countries in the appendix).
Built up land
Gabon
MATTERS
measures people’s demand on nature. It is expressed as the biologically productive land and sea area required to provide all the ecosystem services people use through the consumption of their goods and services. In 2008, humanity’s Ecological Footprint was 18 billion global hectares (gha), or 2.7 gha per person. On the supply side, the planet’s productive area, or biocapacity, was 12 billion gha, or 1.8 gha per person. This means global demand exceeded the planet’s supply by the aforementioned 50 percent (2.7 gha/1.8 gha ≈ 1.5).
global hectares per person
WHY BIOCAPACIT Y
28
F O OT P R I N T A N D B I O C A PAC I T Y ATL A S O F F R A N CO P H O N I E M E M B E R N AT I O N S
BIO C APACIT Y is influenced both by natural events and human activities. Some agricultural practices, for example, can reduce long-term biocapacity by increasing soil erosion or salinity. Climate change, whether driven by human or natural forces, can decrease forest biocapacity as drier and warmer weather increase the potential for changing species composition, yield losses, fires and pest outbreaks.
BIOC APACIT Y Built up land Fishing Ground Forest Land Grazing Land Cropland
In an era of global overshoot, the uneven distribution of biocapacity raises political and economic questions. Ecological debtor countries face increasing risk from a growing dependence on the biological capacity of others. Conversely, countries with biocapacity reserves can view their biological wealth as an asset that provides an important competitive advantage in an uncertain world.
Figure 1: Ecological Footprint and biocapacity ranked by countries’ per capita biocapacity. This comparison includes all Francophonie member countries for which sufficient data are available (typically those with populations greater than 1 million). While the average per person Footprint among members is slightly smaller than the world average, their biocapacity per person exceeds that of the world by one third.
Haiti
Lebanon
Burundi
Rwanda
Dominican Republic
Mauritius
UAE
Egypt*
Togo
Morocco
Armenia
Albania
Tunisia
Benin
Cambodia
Viet Nam
Georgia
Thailand
Switzerland
Ghana
Moldova
Belgium
Burkina Faso
Senegal
Serbia*
Macedonia TFYR
Greece
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Lao People's DR
WORLD
Cameroon
Luxembourg ***
Poland
Mozambique
Ukraine
Mali
Romania
FRANCOPHONIE
Slovenia
Bulgaria
Croatia
Global biocapacity per person (2008), including space needed for wild species.
5
SUCC EED I N G I N T H E G LO BA L AUC T I O N WHY AN AUCTION – AND WHY THE FOCUS ON REL ATIVE INCOME? We are in a world of resource limitations,
with
more
countries
wanting—and competing for—more of the planet’s limited biocapacity. In this global auction of finite goods, what matters most is not absolute ability to pay, but the relative ability compared to all the other bidding powers. If people’s relative income is decreasing in a world where all want more, their ability to compete in the auction is weakening. To
remain
competitive,
policy
makers need to pay closer attention to relative income, not just absolute
income.
For
Egyptian, a Belgian, a Nigerian or a Cambodian, get from the total global income pie? And how is this
6
For many Francophonie member countries, their residents’ absolute income may have increased on average, but their share in global income has fallen. For instance, the French resident today earns on average 35 percent less of the total global income than 30 years ago (measured in GNI according to World Bank statistics). The resident of Senegal receives on average 50 percent less of the global income than three decades earlier. This is creating a new challenge for these and other countries: Since all countries participate in increasingly interconnected economies, dropping relative incomes make it more difficult for ecological debtors to compete in the global market for the world’s limited resources.
These conflicting trends point to a structural weakening of countries’ economies. Before the global auction for biocapacity (when resources were abundant), declining relative income barely affected countries’ economies. In the era of plentiful resources, supply of goods and resources was limited only by market demands. In a world where resource costs are becoming a significant factor to economic production, biocapacity and relative income trends will become key determinants of economic success or failure.
This is the essence: for most countries, the relative income of residents’ has decreased. At the same time, biocapacity deficits have increased (or biocapacity reserves have shrunk). As countries depend more on biocapacity from outside the country, their ability to bid for these resources is diminishing.
W H AT ’ S N E X T ? La Francophonie and Global Footprint Network will launch the complete report on francophone member nations’ biocapacity and Footprints in mid-2013.
The appendix contains eleven country trends to spotlight the particular situation of those countries.
The initiative’s goal is to help policy analysts identify more specific risks and opportunities for each nation, including options for diversifying trade.
instance,
what percentage share does an
share changing over time?
Global Footprint Network’s data highlights the fundamental conflict between two major trends: Human demand for biocapacity is continuously increasing, while relative income for many countries is in decline.
To find out more, or to participate in this initiative, contact La Francophonie at: rajae.chafil@francophonie.org or Global Footprint Network at info@footprintnetwork.org.
The full report will highlight tools for measuring risks, and include strategies for action. It will discuss how to mitigate the risks of a global auction, including countries’ need to revisit their competitiveness strategies and adapt them to this new era of resource constraints. It will also outline why focusing on wealth generation, rather than income maximization, allows countries to build a foundation for a stable economy.
F O OT P R I N T A N D B I O C A PAC I T Y ATL A S O F F R A N CO P H O N I E M E M B E R N AT I O N S
B I O C A PAC I T Y A N D G LO BA L I N C O M E S H A R E ( 19 8 5 TO 2 0 07 )
Switzerland
1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0
Canada
France
Belgium
0.8 0.6 Greece 0.4 0.2
Camaroon Congo, Democratic Republic
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
B IO C APACI T Y DE F I C I T
-1
0.0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
BI O C A PAC I T Y R ESERV E
9
10
11
Figure 2: Ecological deficits go up, relative
RELATIVE INCOME SHARE Fraction of world total GNI held per country resident, on average (in billionths)
1.8
incomes come down (1985 – 2007). While the biocapacity deficits have been growing fast, per capita income of most countries compared to global income has been shrinking, weakening their position to access limited resources from around the globe. This means as countries increasingly require resources and ecological services beyond what their domestic ecosystems can provide (in net terms), their relative purchasing power is declining. Note: The y-axis shows the fraction of the world’s GDP a resident of a given country on average generates. Therefore the world’s average per person share, per definition, is at (1/world population) or currently at about 0.14 of a
12
billionths of total world GDP.
(gha/cap)
0.25
World 0.2
GLOBAL AUCTION Countries that grow a biocapacity deficit while losing relative income amplify their exposure to the global auction.
0.15
Romania Bulgaria
Tunesia
0.1
Egypt
Marocco
0.05
Cameroon
Burkina-Fasco Senegal
Mali
0
-3
-2
-1
Viet Nam 0.0
1
2
3
7
F O OT P R I N T A N D B I O C A PAC I T Y ATL A S O F F R A N CO P H O N I E M E M B E R N AT I O N S
BELGIUM Built-up Land
Forest Land
Fishing Grounds
Grazing Land
Cropland
Carbon Footprint
Population
6 5 4 3 2
Value Change (1961) (%) 6.69 6% 2.50 30% 1.32 1% 5.36 8% 2.47 40%
25,450
7,879
223%
0.63
0.94
-33%
25,100
7,800
222%
21,967
2,445
798%
10,710 1,807 7,038 2,405 0.88
9,184 2,149 5,906 1,098 0.76
17% -16% 19% 119% 16%
1970
1980
1990
0.0 1960
2000
Built-up Land
Forest Land
Fishing Grounds
Grazing Land
** HDI value from 1980, not 1961 8
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Figure BE-2: Contributing drivers of Belgium’s Ecological Footprint, 1961-2008
Cropland
Population
1.5
Biocapacity per hectare (Biocapacity density) Area Biocapacity per capita
1.5
1.2
0.9
0.6
1.2
0.9
0.3
0.0 1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
Figure BE-3: Biocapacity per capita in Belgium by component 1961-2008
* GNI fraction of world from 1970, not 1961
0.5
1
Relative value (1961=1)
7.11 3.26 1.33 5.78 3.45
1.0
Figure BE-1: Ecological Footprint per capita in Belgium by component, 1961-2008
Global Hectares Per Capita
EF per capita [gha] - EF Carbon BC per capita [gha] BC deficit per capita [gha] - deficit Forest GNI per capita [constant 2000 $US] - fraction of world [billionths] GDP per capita [constant 2000 $US] Exports per capita [constant 2000 $US] Population ['000] 0-14 15-64 >64 HDI
Relative value (1961=1)
Global Hectares Per Capita
7
0 1960
Value (2008)
Ecological Footprint per capita
1.5
8
Indicator
Ecological Footprint - Total
0.6 1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Figure BE-4: Contributing drivers of Belgium’s biocapacity, 1961-2008
F O OT P R I N T A N D B I O C A PAC I T Y ATL A S O F F R A N CO P H O N I E M E M B E R N AT I O N S
Biocapacity per capita
GDP (left axis):
Ecological Footprint per capita
Consumption
GNI (left axis)
Government
Investment
0-14 years
8
>65 years
12 1.0
30000 Gross Domestic Product Per Capita [constant 2000 $ US]
6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1960
1975
1990
2005
Figure BE-5: Belgium’s per capita biocapacity deficit, 1961-2008
25000
0.8
20000
0.6
15000 0.4 10000 0.2
5000 0 1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
0.0
10
Population [millions]
7
National GNI per capita over world total GNI [billionths]
Global Hectares Per Capita
15-64 years
GNI ratio (right axis)
8 6 4 2 0 1960
Figure BE-7: Belgium’s GDP by component, GNI, and ratio of national GNI per capita to world total GNI, 1961-2008
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Figure BE-9: Belgium’s population by age group, 1961-2010
12 Fishing Ground
Grazing Land
Cropland
Carbon
Forest 10
8
Global biocapacity per person in 2008
6
Global Hectares Per Capita
8 7 6 5
4
4 3
Ecological footprint in gha per person
Threshold for high human development
2
2
2
1 0 1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
0 0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Blue box represents global sustainable development - with high human development within globally replicable resource demands.
1.0
United Nations Human Development Index
Figure BE-6: Belgium’s per capita biocapacity deficit by contributing land-use type, 1961-2008
Figure BE-8: Ecological Footprint and HDI for all countries in 2008, with Belgium’s trend for 1980-2008
9
CO N G O, D EMO C R AT I C REPU B L I C
F O OT P R I N T A N D B I O C A PAC I T Y ATL A S O F F R A N CO P H O N I E M E M B E R N AT I O N S
Built-up Land
Forest Land
Fishing Grounds
Grazing Land
Cropland
Carbon Footprint
Population
0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 1960
0.76 0.50 3.10 -2.35 0.03
Value Change (1961) (%) 1.00 -24% 0.51 -2% 13.72 -77% -12.72 -82% -0.02 -211%
88
271
-68%
0.00
0.03
-92%
101
282
-64%
24
25
-4%
62,475 30,530 33,679 1,940 0.27
15,767 6,732 8,188 447 0.28
296% 354% 311% 334% -3%
* GNI fraction of world from 1970, not 1961 ** HDI value from 1980, not 1961 10
3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0
1970
1980
1990
0.5 1960
2000
Built-up Land
Forest Land
Fishing Grounds
Grazing Land
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Figure CD-2: Contributing drivers of RD Congo’s Ecological Footprint, 1961-2008
Cropland
Population
Biocapacity per hectare (Biocapacity density) Area Biocapacity per capita
4.0
15
Relative value (1961=1)
EF per capita [gha] - EF Forest BC per capita [gha] BC deficit per capita [gha] - deficit Crop GNI per capita [constant 2000 $US] - fraction of world [billionths] GDP per capita [constant 2000 $US] Exports per capita [constant 2000 $US] Population ['000] 0-14 15-64 >64 HDI
Value (2008)
3.5
Figure CD-1: Ecological Footprint per capita in RD Congo by component, 1961-2008
Global Hectares Per Capita
Indicator
Ecological Footprint per capita
4.0
1.0
Relative value (1961=1)
Global Hectares Per Capita
1.2
Ecological Footprint - Total
12
9
6
3
3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5
0 1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
Figure CD-3: Biocapacity per capita in RD Congo by component 19612008
0.0 1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
Figure CD-4: Contributing drivers of RD Congo’s biocapacity, 1961-2008
2005
F O OT P R I N T A N D B I O C A PAC I T Y ATL A S O F F R A N CO P H O N I E M E M B E R N AT I O N S
Biocapacity per capita
GDP (left axis):
Ecological Footprint per capita
Consumption
GNI (left axis)
Government
Investment
0-14 years
>65 years
80
15 400 Gross Domestic Product Per Capita [constant 2000 $ US]
12
9
6
3
)
( g
)
1.0
350 0.8 300 250
0.6
200 0.4
150 100
0.2
50
0 1960
1975
1990
2005
0 1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
0.0
60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1960
Figure CD-7: RD Congo’s GDP by component, GNI, and ratio of national GNI per capita to world total GNI, 1961-2008
Figure CD-5: RD Congo’s per capita biocapacity deficit, 1961-2008
70 Population [millions]
(
National GNI per capita over world total GNI [billionths]
Global Hectares Per Capita
15-64 years
GNI ratio (right axis)
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Figure CD-9: RD Congo’s population by age group, 1961-2010
12 Fishing Ground
Grazing Land
Cropland
Carbon
Forest 10
8
Global biocapacity per person in 2008
6
Global Hectares Per Capita
15
12
9
4
6
Ecological footprint in gha per person
Threshold for high human development
2
2
3
0 1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
0 0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Blue box represents global sustainable development - with high human development within globally replicable resource demands.
1.0
United Nations Human Development Index
Figure CD-6: RD Congo’s per capita biocapacity deficit by contributing land-use type, 1961-2008
Figure CD-8: Ecological Footprint and HDI for all countries in 2008, with RD Congo’s trend for 1980-2008
11
F O OT P R I N T A N D B I O C A PAC I T Y ATL A S O F F R A N CO P H O N I E M E M B E R N AT I O N S
EGYPT Built-up Land
Forest Land
Fishing Grounds
Grazing Land
Cropland
Carbon Footprint
Population
1.5
1.0
0.5
Value Change (1961) (%) 0.87 94% 0.38 74% 0.54 21% 0.34 211% 0.29 162%
1,874
438
328%
0.05
0.05
1%
1,859
438
325%
745
89
737%
78,323 25,581 51,460 4,634 0.63
28,649 12,295 14,707 900 0.41
173% 108% 250% 415% 55%
1970
1980
1990
Built-up Land
Forest Land
Fishing Grounds
Grazing Land
** HDI value from 1980, not 1961 12
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Figure EG-2: Contributing drivers of Egypt’s Ecological Footprint, 1961-2008
Cropland
Population
0.8
Biocapacity per hectare (Biocapacity density) Area Biocapacity per capita
3.0
0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.1 0.0 1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
Figure EG-3: Biocapacity per capita in Egypt by component 1961-2008
* GNI fraction of world from 1970, not 1961
3
1 1960
2000
Relative value (1961=1)
1.70 0.66 0.65 1.04 0.75
4
Figure EG-1: Ecological Footprint per capita in Egypt by component, 1961-2008
Global Hectares Per Capita
EF per capita [gha] - EF Crop BC per capita [gha] BC deficit per capita [gha] - deficit Forest GNI per capita [constant 2000 $US] - fraction of world [billionths] GDP per capita [constant 2000 $US] Exports per capita [constant 2000 $US] Population ['000] 0-14 15-64 >64 HDI
Value (2008)
5
2
0.0 1960
Indicator
Ecological Footprint per capita
6
Relative value (1961=1)
Global Hectares Per Capita
2.0
Ecological Footprint - Total
0.5 1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Figure EG-4: Contributing drivers of Egypt’s biocapacity, 1961-2008
F O OT P R I N T A N D B I O C A PAC I T Y ATL A S O F F R A N CO P H O N I E M E M B E R N AT I O N S
Biocapacity per capita
GDP (left axis):
Ecological Footprint per capita
Consumption
GNI (left axis)
Government
Investment
0-14 years
>65 years
100 (
Gross Domestic Product Per Capita [constant 2000 $ US]
1.0
0.5
0.0 1960
1975
1990
2005
Figure EG-5: Egypt’s per capita biocapacity deficit, 1961-2008
( g
)
1.0
25000
0.8
20000
0.6
15000 0.4 10000 0.2
5000 0 1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
0.0
National GNI per capita over world total GNI [billionths]
30000
1.5
)
Population [millions]
2.0
Global Hectares Per Capita
15-64 years
GNI ratio (right axis)
80
60
40
20 0 1960
Figure EG-7: Egypt’s GDP by component, GNI, and ratio of national GNI per capita to world total GNI, 1961-2008
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Figure EG-9: Egypt’s population by age group, 1961-2010
12 Fishing Ground
Grazing Land
Cropland
Carbon
Forest 10
8
Global biocapacity per person in 2008
6
Global Hectares Per Capita
2.0
1.5
4 1.0
2
0.5
0.0 1960
Ecological footprint in gha per person
Threshold for high human development
2
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
0 0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Blue box represents global sustainable development - with high human development within globally replicable resource demands.
1.0
United Nations Human Development Index
Figure EG-6: Egypt’s per capita biocapacity deficit by contributing land-use type, 1961-2008
Figure EG-8: Ecological Footprint and HDI for all countries in 2008, with Egypt’s trend for 1980-2008
13
F O OT P R I N T A N D B I O C A PAC I T Y ATL A S O F F R A N CO P H O N I E M E M B E R N AT I O N S
FRANCE Built-up Land
Forest Land
Fishing Grounds
Grazing Land
Cropland
Carbon Footprint
Population
5 4 3 2
Value Change (1961) (%) 3.48 41% 1.30 73% 2.54 18% 0.95 103% 0.87 127%
23,776
7,871
202%
0.59
0.96
-39%
23,366
7,809
199%
7,059
626
1028%
64,371 11,531 40,713 13,916 0.88
47,255 12,047 28,320 5,322 0.72
36% -4% 44% 161% 22%
1980
1990
1.0 1960
2000
Built-up Land
Forest Land
Fishing Grounds
Grazing Land
Cropland
** HDI value from 1980, not 1961 14
Population
4.0
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Biocapacity per hectare (Biocapacity density) Area Biocapacity per capita
2.0
3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0
1.5
1.0
0.5 0.0 1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
Figure FR-3: Biocapacity per capita in France by component 1961-2008
* GNI fraction of world from 1970, not 1961
1965
Figure FR-2: Contributing drivers of France’s Ecological Footprint, 1961-2008
Relative value (1961=1)
4.91 2.24 2.99 1.92 1.96
1970
Figure FR-1: Ecological Footprint per capita in France by component, 1961-2008
Global Hectares Per Capita
EF per capita [gha] - EF Carbon BC per capita [gha] BC deficit per capita [gha] - deficit Forest GNI per capita [constant 2000 $US] - fraction of world [billionths] GDP per capita [constant 2000 $US] Exports per capita [constant 2000 $US] Population ['000] 0-14 15-64 >64 HDI
Value (2008)
1.5
1 0 1960
Indicator
Ecological Footprint per capita
2.0
Relative value (1961=1)
Global Hectares Per Capita
6
Ecological Footprint - Total
0.5 1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Figure FR-4: Contributing drivers of France’s biocapacity, 1961-2008
F O OT P R I N T A N D B I O C A PAC I T Y ATL A S O F F R A N CO P H O N I E M E M B E R N AT I O N S
Biocapacity per capita
GDP (left axis):
Ecological Footprint per capita
Consumption
Government
GNI (left axis)
Investment
0-14 years
>65 years
80
6
Gross Domestic Product Per Capita [constant 2000 $ US]
25000
4 3 2 1 0 1960
1975
1990
2005
Figure FR-5: France’s per capita biocapacity deficit, 1961-2008
)
( g
)
1.0
20000
0.8
15000
0.6
10000
0.4
5000
0.2
0 1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
0.0
70 Population [millions]
5
(
National GNI per capita over world total GNI [billionths]
Global Hectares Per Capita
15-64 years
GNI ratio (right axis)
60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1960
Figure FR-7: France’s GDP by component, GNI, and ratio of national GNI per capita to world total GNI, 1961-2008
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Figure FR-9: France’s population by age group, 1961-2010
12 Fishing Ground
Grazing Land
Cropland
Carbon
Forest 10
8
Global biocapacity per person in 2008
6
Global Hectares Per Capita
6 5 4
4 3 2
Ecological footprint in gha per person
Threshold for high human development
2
2
1 0 1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
0 0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Blue box represents global sustainable development - with high human development within globally replicable resource demands.
1.0
United Nations Human Development Index
Figure FR-6: France’s per capita biocapacity deficit by contributing land-use type, 1961-2008
Figure FR-8: Ecological Footprint and HDI for all countries in 2008, with France’s trend for 1980-2008
15
F O OT P R I N T A N D B I O C A PAC I T Y ATL A S O F F R A N CO P H O N I E M E M B E R N AT I O N S
GREECE Built-up Land
Forest Land
Fishing Grounds
Grazing Land
Cropland
Carbon Footprint
Population
5 4 3 2
4.92 2.53 1.59 3.34 2.76
Value Change (1961) (%) 1.92 156% 0.31 709% 1.58 0% 0.34 883% 0.37 644%
14,172
3,782
275%
0.35
0.56
-37%
14,648
3,733
292%
3,667
168
2081%
11,237 1,655 7,597 2,658 0.86
8,398 2,208 5,438 688 0.72
34% -25% 40% 287% 20%
** HDI value from 1980, not 1961 16
2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0
1970
1980
1990
0.5 1960
2000
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Figure GR-1: Ecological Footprint per capita in Greece by component, 1961-2008
Figure GR-2: Contributing drivers of Greece’s Ecological Footprint, 19612008
Built-up Land
Population
Forest Land
Fishing Grounds
Grazing Land
Cropland
2.5
Biocapacity per hectare (Biocapacity density) Area Biocapacity per capita
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0 1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
Figure GR-3: Biocapacity per capita in Greece by component 1961-2008
* GNI fraction of world from 1970, not 1961
3.0
Relative value (1961=1)
EF per capita [gha] - EF Carbon BC per capita [gha] BC deficit per capita [gha] - deficit Forest GNI per capita [constant 2000 $US] - fraction of world [billionths] GDP per capita [constant 2000 $US] Exports per capita [constant 2000 $US] Population ['000] 0-14 15-64 >64 HDI
Value (2008)
Global Hectares Per Capita
Indicator
3.5
1 0 1960
Ecological Footprint per capita
4.0
Relative value (1961=1)
Global Hectares Per Capita
6
Ecological Footprint - Total
0.5 1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Figure GR-4: Contributing drivers of Greece’s biocapacity, 1961-2008
F O OT P R I N T A N D B I O C A PAC I T Y ATL A S O F F R A N CO P H O N I E M E M B E R N AT I O N S
Biocapacity per capita
GDP (left axis):
Ecological Footprint per capita
Consumption
GNI (left axis)
Government
Investment
0-14 years
>65 years
12
Gross Domestic Product Per Capita [constant 2000 $ US]
4 3 2 1 0 1960
1975
1990
2005
Figure GR-5: Greece’s per capita biocapacity deficit, 1961-2008
15000
1.0
12000
0.8
9000
0.6
6000
0.4
3000
0.2
0 1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
0.0
National GNI per capita over world total GNI [billionths]
5
Population [millions]
6
Global Hectares Per Capita
15-64 years
GNI ratio (right axis)
10 8 6 4 2 0 1960
Figure GR-7: Greece’s GDP by component, GNI, and ratio of national GNI per capita to world total GNI, 1961-2008
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Figure GR-9: Greece’s population by age group, 1961-2010
12 Fishing Ground
Grazing Land
Cropland
Carbon
Forest 10
8
Global biocapacity per person in 2008
6
Global Hectares Per Capita
6 5 4
4 3 2
Ecological footprint in gha per person
Threshold for high human development
2
2
1 0 1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
0 0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Blue box represents global sustainable development - with high human development within globally replicable resource demands.
1.0
United Nations Human Development Index
Figure GR-6: Greece’s per capita biocapacity deficit by contributing land-use type, 1961-2008
Figure GR-8: Ecological Footprint and HDI for all countries in 2008, with Greece’s trend for 1980-2008
17
F O OT P R I N T A N D B I O C A PAC I T Y ATL A S O F F R A N CO P H O N I E M E M B E R N AT I O N S
GUINEA - BISSAU Built-up Land
Forest Land
Fishing Grounds
Grazing Land
Cropland
Carbon Footprint
Population
1.2
0.9
0.6
0.3
0.0 1960
1.10 0.42 3.40 -2.30 0.01
Value Change (1961) (%) 1.33 -17% 0.37 12% 8.02 -58% -6.69 -66% -0.66 -101%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
158 1,454 626 839 56 0.35
* GNI fraction of world from 1970, not 1961 ** HDI value from 1980, not 1961 18
596 245 330 18 -
144% 156% 154% 210% -
1980
1990
Built-up Land
Forest Land
Fishing Grounds
Grazing Land
1.5
1.0
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Figure GW-2: Contributing drivers of Guinea-Bissau’s Ecological Footprint, 1961-2008
Cropland
Population
Biocapacity per hectare (Biocapacity density) Area Biocapacity per capita
2.5
10
8
6
4
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
2
0 1960
2.0
0.5 1960
2000
Relative value (1961=1)
EF per capita [gha] - EF Grazing BC per capita [gha] BC deficit per capita [gha] - deficit Grazing GNI per capita [constant 2000 $US] - fraction of world [billionths] GDP per capita [constant 2000 $US] Exports per capita [constant 2000 $US] Population ['000] 0-14 15-64 >64 HDI
Value (2008)
1970
Figure GW-1: Ecological Footprint per capita in Guinea-Bissau by component, 1961-2008
Global Hectares Per Capita
Indicator
Ecological Footprint per capita
2.5
Relative value (1961=1)
Global Hectares Per Capita
1.5
Ecological Footprint - Total
1970
1980
1990
2000
Figure GW-3: Biocapacity per capita in Guinea-Bissau by component 1961-2008
0.0 1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Figure GW-4: Contributing drivers of Guinea-Bissau’s biocapacity, 1961-2008
F O OT P R I N T A N D B I O C A PAC I T Y ATL A S O F F R A N CO P H O N I E M E M B E R N AT I O N S
Biocapacity per capita
GDP (left axis):
Ecological Footprint per capita
Consumption
GNI (left axis)
Government
Investment
0-14 years
>65 years
2.0 (
Gross Domestic Product Per Capita [constant 2000 $ US]
6
4
2
0 1960
1975
1990
2005
Figure GW-5: Guinea-Bissau’s per capita biocapacity deficit, 1961-2008
( g
)
1.0
200
0.8
150
0.6
100
0.4
50
0.2
0 1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
0.0
National GNI per capita over world total GNI [billionths]
250
8
)
Population [millions]
10
Global Hectares Per Capita
15-64 years
GNI ratio (right axis)
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0 1960
Figure GW-7: Guinea-Bissau’s GDP by component, GNI, and ratio of national GNI per capita to world total GNI, 1961-2008
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Figure GW-9: Guinea-Bissau’s population by age group, 1961-2010
12 Fishing Ground
Grazing Land
Cropland
Carbon
Forest 10
8
Global biocapacity per person in 2008
6
Global Hectares Per Capita
10
8
6
4
4
Ecological footprint in gha per person
Threshold for high human development
2
2
2
0 1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
0 0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Blue box represents global sustainable development - with high human development within globally replicable resource demands.
1.0
United Nations Human Development Index
Figure GW-6: Guinea-Bissau’s per capita biocapacity deficit by contributing land-use type, 1961-2008
Figure GW-8: Ecological Footprint and HDI for all countries in 2008, with Guinea-Bissau’s trend for 1980-2008
19
F O OT P R I N T A N D B I O C A PAC I T Y ATL A S O F F R A N CO P H O N I E M E M B E R N AT I O N S
Value Change (1961) (%) 1.68 69% 0.42 215% 0.47 -17% 1.21 103% 0.38 313%
5,975
-
-
0.15
-
-
5,895
-
-
1,414
-
-
4,167 1,048 2,871 357 0.73
1,967 784 1,011 112 -
112% 34% 184% 219% -
Carbon Footprint
Population
4.0
3.0
3.5
2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0
Built-up Land
1970
1980
1990
** HDI value from 1980, not 1961 20
Ecological Footprint per capita
3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5
0.5 1960
2000
Forest Land
Fishing Grounds
Grazing Land
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Figure LB-2: Contributing drivers of Lebanon’s Ecological Footprint, 1961-2008
Cropland
Population
Biocapacity per hectare (Biocapacity density) Area Biocapacity per capita
2.5
0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.1 0.0 1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
Figure LB-3: Biocapacity per capita in Lebanon by component 1961-2008
* GNI fraction of world from 1970, not 1961
Ecological Footprint - Total
1.0
0.5
Relative value (1961=1)
2.85 1.33 0.39 2.45 1.55
Fishing Grounds
Cropland
Figure LB-1: Ecological Footprint per capita in Lebanon by component, 1961-2008
Global Hectares Per Capita
EF per capita [gha] - EF Carbon BC per capita [gha] BC deficit per capita [gha] - deficit Forest GNI per capita [constant 2000 $US] - fraction of world [billionths] GDP per capita [constant 2000 $US] Exports per capita [constant 2000 $US] Population ['000] 0-14 15-64 >64 HDI
Value (2008)
Forest Land
3.5
0.0 1960
Indicator
Built-up Land Grazing Land
Relative value (1961=1)
Global Hectares Per Capita
LEBANON
0.5 1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Figure LB-4: Contributing drivers of Lebanon’s biocapacity, 1961-2008
F O OT P R I N T A N D B I O C A PAC I T Y ATL A S O F F R A N CO P H O N I E M E M B E R N AT I O N S
Biocapacity per capita
GDP (left axis):
Ecological Footprint per capita
Consumption
GNI (left axis)
Government
Investment
0-14 years
3.5
>65 years
5 1.0
Gross Domestic Product Per Capita [constant 2000 $ US]
6000
2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 1960
1975
1990
2005
Figure LB-5: Lebanon’s per capita biocapacity deficit, 1961-2008
5000
0.8
4000
0.6
3000 0.4 2000 0.2
1000 0 1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
0.0
4
Population [millions]
3.0
National GNI per capita over world total GNI [billionths]
Global Hectares Per Capita
15-64 years
GNI ratio (right axis)
3
2
1
0 1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Figure LB-9: Lebanon’s population by age group, 1961-2010
Figure LB-7: Lebanon’s GDP by component, GNI, and ratio of national GNI per capita to world total GNI, 1961-2008
12 Fishing Ground
Grazing Land
Cropland
Carbon
Forest 10
8
Global biocapacity per person in 2008
6
Global Hectares Per Capita
3.5 3.0 2.5
4
2.0 1.5
Ecological footprint in gha per person
Threshold for high human development
2
1.0
2
0.5 0.0 1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
0 0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Blue box represents global sustainable development - with high human development within globally replicable resource demands.
1.0
United Nations Human Development Index
Figure LB-6: Lebanon’s per capita biocapacity deficit by contributing land-use type, 1961-2008
Figure LB-8: Ecological Footprint and HDI for all countries in 2008, with Lebanon’s trend for 1980-2008
21
F O OT P R I N T A N D B I O C A PAC I T Y ATL A S O F F R A N CO P H O N I E M E M B E R N AT I O N S
MOROCCO Built-up Land
Forest Land
Fishing Grounds
Grazing Land
Cropland
Carbon Footprint
Population
1.2
0.9
0.6
0.3
Value Change (1961) (%) 0.94 41% 0.32 89% 1.14 -39% -0.20 0.00 -
1,706
618
176%
0.04
0.06
-35%
1,734
613
183%
603
118
411%
31,321 8,949 21,247 2,010 0.57
11,948 5,211 6,114 301 0.36
162% 72% 247% 569% 56%
* GNI fraction of world from 1970, not 1961 ** HDI value from 1980, not 1961 22
2.5 2.0
1970
1980
1990
1.0 1960
2000
Built-up Land
Forest Land
Fishing Grounds
Grazing Land
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Figure MA-2: Contributing drivers of Morocco’s Ecological Footprint, 1961-2008
Cropland
Population
Biocapacity per hectare (Biocapacity density) Area Biocapacity per capita
3.0
1.5
Relative value (1961=1)
1.32 0.60 0.70 0.63 0.34
3.0
Figure MA-1: Ecological Footprint per capita in Morocco by component, 1961-2008
Global Hectares Per Capita
EF per capita [gha] - EF Crop BC per capita [gha] BC deficit per capita [gha] - deficit Forest GNI per capita [constant 2000 $US] - fraction of world [billionths] GDP per capita [constant 2000 $US] Exports per capita [constant 2000 $US] Population ['000] 0-14 15-64 >64 HDI
Value (2008)
3.5
1.5
0.0 1960
Indicator
Ecological Footprint per capita
4.0
Relative value (1961=1)
Global Hectares Per Capita
1.5
Ecological Footprint - Total
1.2
0.9
0.6
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.3
0.0 1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
Figure MA-3: Biocapacity per capita in Morocco by component 1961-2008
0.5 1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Figure MA-4: Contributing drivers of Morocco’s biocapacity, 1961-2008
F O OT P R I N T A N D B I O C A PAC I T Y ATL A S O F F R A N CO P H O N I E M E M B E R N AT I O N S
Biocapacity per capita
GDP (left axis):
Ecological Footprint per capita
Consumption
Government
GNI (left axis)
Investment
0-14 years
15-64 years
y
1.5
y
y
35
Gross Domestic Product Per Capita [constant 2000 $ US]
1.0
0.5
0.0 1960
1975
1990
2005
Figure MA-5: Morocco’s per capita biocapacity deficit, 1961-2008
)
( g
)
1.0
0.8 1500 0.6 1000 0.4 500
0 1960
0.2
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
0.0
Figure MA-7: Morocco’s GDP by component, GNI, and ratio of national GNI per capita to world total GNI, 1961-2008
30 Population [millions]
(
2000
National GNI per capita over world total GNI [billionths]
Global Hectares Per Capita
>65 years
GNI ratio (right axis)
25 20 15 10 5 0 1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Figure MA-9: Morocco’s population by age group, 1961-2010
12 Fishing Ground
Grazing Land
Cropland
Carbon
Forest 10
8
Global biocapacity per person in 2008
6
Global Hectares Per Capita
1.5
1.2
0.9
4
0.6
Ecological footprint in gha per person
Threshold for high human development
2
2
0.3
0.0 1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
0 0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Blue box represents global sustainable development - with high human development within globally replicable resource demands.
1.0
United Nations Human Development Index
Figure MA-6: Morocco’s per capita biocapacity deficit by contributing land-use type, 1961-2008
Figure MA-8: Ecological Footprint and HDI for all countries in 2008, with Morocco’s trend for 1980-2008
23
F O OT P R I N T A N D B I O C A PAC I T Y ATL A S O F F R A N CO P H O N I E M E M B E R N AT I O N S
SENEGAL Built-up Land
Forest Land
Fishing Grounds
Grazing Land
Cropland
Carbon Footprint
Population
2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5
Value Change (1961) (%) 2.32 -34% 1.00 -31% 4.90 -71% -2.58 -0.08 -
555
-
-
0.01
0.04
-69%
557
617
-10%
161
219
-26%
11,787 5,432 6,703 316 0.45
3,131 1,278 1,691 78 0.32
276% 325% 296% 304% 41%
* GNI fraction of world from 1970, not 1961 ** HDI value from 1980, not 1961 24
1970
1980
1990
2.5 2.0 1.5
0.5 1960
2000
Built-up Land
Forest Land
Fishing Grounds
Grazing Land
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Figure SN-2: Contributing drivers of Senegal’s Ecological Footprint, 1961-2008
Cropland
Population
Biocapacity per hectare (Biocapacity density) Area Biocapacity per capita
4.0
5
Relative value (1961=1)
1.53 0.69 1.40 0.13 0.26
3.0
Figure SN-1: Ecological Footprint per capita in Senegal by component, 1961-2008
Global Hectares Per Capita
EF per capita [gha] - EF Crop BC per capita [gha] BC deficit per capita [gha] - deficit Crop GNI per capita [constant 2000 $US] - fraction of world [billionths] GDP per capita [constant 2000 $US] Exports per capita [constant 2000 $US] Population ['000] 0-14 15-64 >64 HDI
Value (2008)
3.5
1.0
0.0 1960
Indicator
Ecological Footprint per capita
4.0
Relative value (1961=1)
Global Hectares Per Capita
3.0
Ecological Footprint - Total
4
3
2
1
3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5
0 1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
Figure SN-3: Biocapacity per capita in Senegal by component 1961-2008
0.0 1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Figure SN-4: Contributing drivers of Senegal’s biocapacity, 1961-2008
F O OT P R I N T A N D B I O C A PAC I T Y ATL A S O F F R A N CO P H O N I E M E M B E R N AT I O N S
Biocapacity per capita
GDP (left axis):
Ecological Footprint per capita
Consumption
Government
GNI (left axis)
Investment
0-14 years
>65 years
15
5 800 Gross Domestic Product Per Capita [constant 2000 $ US]
4
3
2
1
)
( g
)
1.0
700 0.8 600 500
0.6
400 0.4
300 200
0.2
100
0 1960
1975
1990
2005
Figure SN-5: Senegal’s per capita biocapacity deficit, 1961-2008
0 1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
0.0
12
Population [millions]
(
National GNI per capita over world total GNI [billionths]
Global Hectares Per Capita
15-64 years
GNI ratio (right axis)
9
6
3
0 1960
Figure SN-7: Senegal’s GDP by component, GNI, and ratio of national GNI per capita to world total GNI, 1961-2008
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Figure SN-9: Senegal’s population by age group, 1961-2010
12 Fishing Ground
Grazing Land
Cropland
Carbon
Forest 10
8
Global biocapacity per person in 2008
6
Global Hectares Per Capita
5
4
3
4
2
Ecological footprint in gha per person
Threshold for high human development
2
2
1
0 1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
0 0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Blue box represents global sustainable development - with high human development within globally replicable resource demands.
1.0
United Nations Human Development Index
Figure SN-6: Senegal’s per capita biocapacity deficit by contributing land-use type, 1961-2008
Figure SN-8: Ecological Footprint and HDI for all countries in 2008, with Senegal’s trend for 1980-2008
25
F O OT P R I N T A N D B I O C A PAC I T Y ATL A S O F F R A N CO P H O N I E M E M B E R N AT I O N S
TO G O Built-up Land
Forest Land
Fishing Grounds
Grazing Land
Cropland
Carbon Footprint
Population
1.5
1.0
0.5
Value Change (1961) (%) 1.54 -33% 0.39 5% 1.52 -56% 0.02 2065% 0.60 -34%
257
194
33%
0.01
0.02
-73%
258
196
32%
82
57
44%
5,777 2,390 3,433 231 0.43
1,594 672 850 56 0.35
262% 256% 304% 310% 23%
1970
1980
1990
Built-up Land
Forest Land
Fishing Grounds
Grazing Land
** HDI value from 1980, not 1961 26
2.0 1.5
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Figure TG-2: Contributing drivers of Togo’s Ecological Footprint, 1961-2008
Cropland
Population
2.0
Biocapacity per hectare (Biocapacity density) Area Biocapacity per capita
4.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5
0.0 1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
Figure TG-3: Biocapacity per capita in Togo by component 1961-2008
* GNI fraction of world from 1970, not 1961
2.5
0.5 1960
2000
Relative value (1961=1)
1.03 0.41 0.67 0.36 0.40
3.0
Figure TG-1: Ecological Footprint per capita in Togo by component, 1961-2008
Global Hectares Per Capita
EF per capita [gha] - EF Crop BC per capita [gha] BC deficit per capita [gha] - deficit Forest GNI per capita [constant 2000 $US] - fraction of world [billionths] GDP per capita [constant 2000 $US] Exports per capita [constant 2000 $US] Population ['000] 0-14 15-64 >64 HDI
Value (2008)
3.5
1.0 0.0 1960
Indicator
Ecological Footprint per capita
4.0
Relative value (1961=1)
Global Hectares Per Capita
2.0
Ecological Footprint - Total
0.0 1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Figure TG-4: Contributing drivers of Togo’s biocapacity, 1961-2008
F O OT P R I N T A N D B I O C A PAC I T Y ATL A S O F F R A N CO P H O N I E M E M B E R N AT I O N S
Biocapacity per capita
GDP (left axis):
Ecological Footprint per capita
Consumption
GNI (left axis)
Government
Investment
0-14 years
>65 years
8
2.0
Gross Domestic Product Per Capita [constant 2000 $ US]
1.5
1.0
0.5
350 0.8 300 250
0.6
200 0.4
150 100
0.2
50
0.0 1960
1975
1990
2005
Figure TG-5: Togo’s per capita biocapacity deficit, 1961-2008
0 1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
0.0
7 Population [millions]
1.0
400
National GNI per capita over world total GNI [billionths]
Global Hectares Per Capita
15-64 years
GNI ratio (right axis)
6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Figure TG-9: Togo’s population by age group, 1961-2010
Figure TG-7: Togo’s GDP by component, GNI, and ratio of national GNI per capita to world total GNI, 1961-2008
12 Fishing Ground
Grazing Land
Cropland
Carbon
Forest 10
8
Global biocapacity per person in 2008
6
Global Hectares Per Capita
2.0
1.5
4 1.0
2
0.5
0.0 1960
Ecological footprint in gha per person
Threshold for high human development
2
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
0 0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Blue box represents global sustainable development - with high human development within globally replicable resource demands.
1.0
United Nations Human Development Index
Figure TG-6: Togo’s per capita biocapacity deficit by contributing landuse type, 1961-2008
Figure TG-8: Ecological Footprint and HDI for all countries in 2008, with Togo’s trend for 1980-2008
27
F O OT P R I N T A N D B I O C A PAC I T Y ATL A S O F F R A N CO P H O N I E M E M B E R N AT I O N S
TUNISIA Built-up Land
Forest Land
Fishing Grounds
Grazing Land
Cropland
Carbon Footprint
Population
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0 1960
1.76 0.66 0.96 0.81 0.81
Value Change (1961) (%) 0.93 90% 0.05 1143% 1.18 -19% -0.25 0.15 441%
2,857
689
314%
0.07
0.07
-2%
3,023
691
337%
1,176
162
625%
10,329 2,459 7,294 850 0.69
4,277 1,830 2,215 176 0.45
141% 34% 229% 383% 52%
1970
1980
1990
** HDI value from 1980, not 1961 28
2
0 1960
2000
Built-up Land
Forest Land
Fishing Grounds
Grazing Land
Population
1.5
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Biocapacity per hectare (Biocapacity density) Area Biocapacity per capita
2.5
1.2
0.9
0.6
0.3
0.0 1960
1965
Figure TN-2: Contributing drivers of Tunisia’s Ecological Footprint, 1961-2008
Cropland
1970
1980
1990
2000
Figure TN-3: Biocapacity per capita in Tunisia by component 1961-2008
* GNI fraction of world from 1970, not 1961
3
1
Relative value (1961=1)
EF per capita [gha] - EF Carbon BC per capita [gha] BC deficit per capita [gha] - deficit Forest GNI per capita [constant 2000 $US] - fraction of world [billionths] GDP per capita [constant 2000 $US] Exports per capita [constant 2000 $US] Population ['000] 0-14 15-64 >64 HDI
Value (2008)
4
Figure TN-1: Ecological Footprint per capita in Tunisia by component, 1961-2008
Global Hectares Per Capita
Indicator
Ecological Footprint per capita
5
Relative value (1961=1)
Global Hectares Per Capita
2.0
Ecological Footprint - Total
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5 1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Figure TN-4: Contributing drivers of Tunisia’s biocapacity, 1961-2008
F O OT P R I N T A N D B I O C A PAC I T Y ATL A S O F F R A N CO P H O N I E M E M B E R N AT I O N S
Biocapacity per capita
GDP (left axis):
Ecological Footprint per capita
Consumption
GNI (left axis)
Government
Investment
0-14 years
2.0
>65 years
12
Gross Domestic Product Per Capita [constant 2000 $ US]
1.0
0.5
0.0 1960
1975
1990
2005
Figure TN-5: Tunisia’s per capita biocapacity deficit, 1961-2008
3000
0.8
2500 0.6
2000 1500
0.4
1000 0.2 500 0 1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
0.0
10
Population [millions]
1.0
3500
1.5
National GNI per capita over world total GNI [billionths]
Global Hectares Per Capita
15-64 years
GNI ratio (right axis)
8 6 4 2 0 1960
Figure TN-7: Tunisia’s GDP by component, GNI, and ratio of national GNI per capita to world total GNI, 1961-2008
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Figure TN-9: Tunisia’s population by age group, 1961-2010
12 Fishing Ground
Grazing Land
Cropland
Carbon
Forest 10
8
Global biocapacity per person in 2008
6
Global Hectares Per Capita
2.0
1.5
4 1.0
2
0.5
0.0 1960
Ecological footprint in gha per person
Threshold for high human development
2
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
0 0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Blue box represents global sustainable development - with high human development within globally replicable resource demands.
1.0
United Nations Human Development Index
Figure TN-6: Tunisia’s per capita biocapacity deficit by contributing land-use type, 1961-2008
Figure TN-8: Ecological Footprint and HDI for all countries in 2008, with Tunisia’s trend for 1980-2008
29
APPENDIX A : C ALCUL ATING THE ECOLOGIC AL FOOTPRINT AND BIOC APACIT Y The National Footprint Accounts track countries’ use of ecological services and resources as well as the biocapacity available in each country. As with any resource accounts, they are static, quantitative descriptions of outcomes for any given year in the past for which data exist. The detailed calculation methodology of the most updated Accounts are described in Calculation Methodology for the National Footprint Accounts, 2011 Edition (www.footprintnetwork.org, 2011). The implementation of the National Footprint Accounts through database-supported templates is described in the Guidebook to the National Footprint Accounts (Kitzes et al. 2008) and the method paper by Borucke et al. (2013). Kitzes et al. (2009) outline the research agenda for improvements. The National Footprint Accounts, 2011 edition, calculate the Ecological Footprint and biocapacity for 240 countries, territories and regions, from 1961 to 2008. ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT
The National Footprint Accounts, 2011 edition, track human demand for ecological services in terms of six major land use types (cropland, grazing land, forest land, carbon Footprint, fishing grounds, and built-up land). The Ecological Footprint of each major land use type is calculated by summing the contributions of products and activities 30
competing for bioproductive space. Built-up land reflects the bioproductivity compromised by infrastructure and hydropower. Forest land for carbon dioxide uptake represents the carbon absorptive capacity of a world average hectare of forest needed to absorb human induced carbon dioxide emissions, after having considered the ocean sequestration capacity (also called the carbon Footprint). The Ecological Footprint calculates the combined demand for ecological resources wherever they are located and presents them as the global average area needed to support a specific human activity. This quantity is expressed in units of global hectares. A global hectare is defined as a biologically productive hectare with world average bioproductivity. By expressing all results in a common unit, biocapacity and Footprints can be directly compared across land use types and countries. Demand for resource production and waste assimilation are translated into global hectares by dividing the total amount of a resource consumed by the yield per hectare, or dividing the waste emitted by the absorptive capacity per hectare. Yields are calculated based on various international statistics, primarily those from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO ResourceSTAT Statistical Databases).
Yields are mutually exclusive: If two crops are grown at the same time on the same hectare, one portion of the hectare is assigned to one crop, and the remainder to the other. This avoids double counting. This follows the same logic as measuring the size of a farm: Each hectare is only counted once, even though it might provide multiple services. The Ecological Footprint, in its most basic form, is calculated by the following equation:
where D is the annual demand of a product and Y is the annual yield of the same product (Borucke et al, 2013). Yield is expressed in global hectares. In practice, global hectares are estimated with the help of two factors: The yield factors (that compare national average yield per hectare to world average yield in the same land category) and the equivalence factors (which capture the relative productivity among the various land and sea area types). Therefore, the formula of the Ecological Footprint becomes:
where P is the amount of a product harvested or waste emitted (equal to
DANNUAL above), YN is the national average yield for P, and YF and EQF are the yield factor and equivalence factor, respectively, for the country and land use type in question. The yield factor is the ratio of national-to-world-average yields. It is calculated as the annual availability of usable products and varies by country and year. Equivalence factors translate the area supplied or demanded of a specific land use type (e.g. world average cropland, grazing land, etc.) into units of world average biologically productive area expressed in global hectares. These factors vary by land use type and year. Annual demand for manufactured or derivative products (e.g. flour or wood pulp) is converted into primary product equivalents (e.g., wheat or roundwood) through the use of extraction rates. These quantities of primary product equivalents are then translated into an Ecological Footprint. The Ecological Footprint also embodies the energy required for the manufacturing process.
CONSUM PTI O N , PRODUCTION , AND TRADE
The National Footprint Accounts calculate the Footprint of a population from a number of perspectives. Most commonly reported is the Ecological Footprint of consumption of a population, typically just called Ecological Footprint. The Ecological Footprint of consumption
F O OT P R I N T A N D B I O C A PAC I T Y ATL A S O F F R A N CO P H O N I E M E M B E R N AT I O N S
for a given country measures the biocapacity demanded by the final consumption of all the residents of the country. This includes their household consumption as well as their collective consumption, such as schools, roads, fire brigades, etc., which serve the household, but may not be directly paid for by the households. In contrast, a country’s primary production Ecological Footprint is the sum of the Footprints for all resources harvested and all waste generated within the country’s geographical borders. This includes all the area within a country necessary for supporting the actual harvest of primary products (cropland, grazing land, forest land, and fishing grounds), the country’s infrastructure and hydropower (built-up land), and the area needed to absorb fossil fuel carbon dioxide emissions generated within the country (carbon Footprint). The difference between the production and consumption Footprint is trade, shown by the following equation:
where EFC is the Ecological Footprint of consumption, EFP is the Ecological Footprint of production, and EFI and EFE are the Footprints of imported and exported commodity flows, respectively.
BIOCAPACIT Y
A national biocapacity calculation starts with the total amount of bioproductive land and sea available. “Bioproductive” refers to land and water areas that supports significant photosynthetic activity and accumulation of biomass, ignoring barren areas of low, dispersed productivity. This is not to say that areas such as the Sahara Desert, Antarctica, or Alpine mountaintops do not support life; their production is simply too widespread to be directly harvestable and negligible in quantity. Biocapacity is an aggregated measure of the amount of area available, weighted by the productivity of that area. It represents the ability of the biosphere to produce crops, livestock (pasture), timber products (forest), and fish, as well as to uptake carbon dioxide in forests. It also includes how much of this regenerative capacity is occupied by infrastructure (built-up land). In short, it measures the ability of available terrestrial and aquatic areas to provide ecological services. A country’s biocapacity for any land use type is calculated as:
where BC is the biocapacity, A is the area available for a given land use type, and YF and EQF are the yield factor and equivalence factor, respectively, for the country land use type in question.
SELECTED SOURCE DATA Dataset
Source
Ecological Footprint Production of primary agricultural products
FAO ProdSTAT section of the FAOSTAT web-site: http:// faostat.fao.org/site/567/default.aspx#ancor
Production of crop-based feeds used to feed animals
Feed from general marketed crops data is directly drawn from the SUA/FBS section of FAOSTAT : http://faostat.fao.org/site/354/default.aspx
Import and Export of primary agricultural and livestock products
FAO TradeSTAT section of the FAOSTAT web-site: http://faostat.fao.org/site/535/default.aspx#ancor
Livestock crop consumption
Calculated by Global Footprint Network based upon the following datasets: • FAO Production for Livestock primary. • Haberl, et al. 2007. Quantifying and mapping the human appropriation of net primary production in earth’s terrestrial ecosystems. PNAS 104: 12
Production, import and export of primary forestry products
FAO ForeSTAT section of the FAOSTAT website: http://faostat.fao.org/site/630/default.aspx
Production, import and export of primary fishery products
FAO FishSTAT section of the FAOSTAT website: http://www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/en
Import and Export of commodities
Data available directly from the UN Commodity Trade StatisticsDatabase. http://comtrade.un.org.
Economic Trends Debt
World Bank data portal
Gross Domestic Product
lan Heston, Robert Summers and Bettina Aten, Penn World Table Version 6.3, Center for International Comparisons of Production, Income and Prices at the University of Pennsylvania, August 2009.
Demographic Trends Population by age group
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Population Division. World Population Prospects: The 2008 Revision. http://esa.un.org/unpp/index.asp 31
APPENDIX B REFERENCES
Kitzes, J., A. Galli, S.M. Rizk, A. Reed and M. Wackernagel. 2008. Guidebook to the National Footprint Accounts: 2008 Edition. Oakland: Global Footprint Network. Kitzes, J., Galli, A, Bagliani, M., Barrett, J., et al., 2009. A Research Agenda for Improving National Ecological Footprint Accounts. Ecological Economics, 68 (7), 1991– 2007. Borucke, M. et al, 2013, Accounting for demand and supply of the biosphere’s regenerative capacity: The National Footprint Accounts’ underlying methodology and framework, Ecological Indicators 24 (2013) 518–533
Abbreviations BC
Biocapacity, regenerative capacity of nature, measured in global hectares
EF
Ecological Footprint, human demand on nature, measured in global hectares
GDP
Gross Domestic Product
gha
global hectare
GNI
Gross National Income
HDI
UNDP’s Human Development Index
Country with *
slightly updated results based on 2011 edition
Country with ***
results from 2010 edition, modified in country collaboration
32
F O OT P R I N T A N D B I O C A PAC I T Y ATL A S O F F R A N CO P H O N I E M E M B E R N AT I O N S
“
W
e have entered a global auction,
with more people bidding for fewer resources. Such an auction changes the rules of competitiveness, and poses a systemic risk to many countries’ economic stability. In a time of global ecological overshoot, managing our use of natural capital is crucial for economic success.
33
U.S. OFFICE
312 Clay Street, Suite 300 Oakland, CA 94607-3510 USA
In the past, seemingly unlimited resources fueled
T: +1 (510) 839 8879
our economies. As demand for these resources
EUROPE OFFICE
and other ecological services expand, ecological
International Environment House 2 7-9 chemin de Balexert
deďŹ cits are skyrocketing. As a consequence,
1219 Chatelaine (Geneva) SWITZERLAND T: +41 22 797 41 08 info@footprintnetwork.org
it requires ever more effort to secure resources. This tightening situation increasingly affects whether
www.footprintnetwork.org
business, communities, and nations succeed. ORGANISATION INTERNATIONALE DE LA FRANCOPHONIE
19-21 avenue Bosquet 75007 Paris FRANCE T: + 33 1 44 11 12 50 www.francophonie.org www.iepf.org
Global Footprint Network and La Francophonie’s initiative documents these resource and consumption trends among member nations and outlines options for action, so all can prosper in
supported by:
Printed on 100% recycled paper.
a world of resource constraints.