MEDITERRANEAN ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT TRENDS CONTENT

Global Footprint Network 1 Global Footprint Network EDITOR Foreword Promotes a sustainable economy by Alessandro Galli advancing the Ecological Footprint, Foreword Plan Blue 2 Scott Mattoon a tool that makes sustainability measureable. Introduction 3 AUTHORS Alessandro Galli The Ecological Footprint 8 Funded by: of World Regions David Moore MAVA Foundation Established in 1994, it is a family-led, Nina Brooks Drivers of Mediterranean Ecological Katsunori Iha Footprint and biocapacity changes 10 Swiss-based philanthropic foundation over time whose mission is to engage in strong Gemma Cranston partnerships to conserve biodiversity Mapping consumption, production 13 for future generations. CONTRIBUTORS AND REVIEWER and trade activities for the Mediterranean Region Jean-Pierre Giraud In collaboration with: Steve Goldfi nger Mediterranean Ecological Footprint 17 WWF Mediterranean Martin Halle of nations Its mission is to build a future in which Pati Poblete people live in harmony with nature. Anders Reed Linking ecological assets and 20 The WWF Mediterranean initiative aims economic competitiveness at conserving the natural wealth of the Mathis Wackernagel Toward sustainable development: 22 Mediterranean and reducing human human welfare and planetary limits footprint on nature for the benefi t of all. DESIGN MaddoxDesign.net National Case Studies 24 UNESCO Venice Conclusions 28 Is developing an educational and ADVISORS training platform on the application Deanna Karapetyan Appendix A 32 of the Ecological Footprint in SEE and Hannes Kunz Calculating the Ecological Footprint Mediterranean countries, using in (Institute for Integrated Economic particular the network of MAB Biosphere Research - www.iier.ch) Appendix B 35 Reserves as special demonstration and The carbon-plus approach learning places. Paolo Lombardi (WWF Mediterranean Programme) Appendix C 36 Ecological Footprint: Frequently asked Plan Bleu André Schneider questions Plan Bleu aims to produce information (André Schneider Global Advisory SA) and knowledge in order to alert Yves de Soye Glossary of Ecological Footprint terms 38 decision-makers and other stakeholders References 40 to environmental risks and sustainable development issues in the Mediterranean, Biocapacity and Ecological Footprint Data 42 and to shape future scenarios to guide decision-making processes. GLOBAL FOOTPRINT NETWORK FOREWORD

Yes, ecological health is important—all agree—but what’s in it for our economies? This is n a world of growing ecological the question we address with the Mediterranean Footprint report. We believe that if we I overshoot—when our demands for carefully look at the resource trends, the link will be obvious. We will see that it is in each nature’s products and services exceed country’s most central self-interest to combat ecological defi cits and overreliance on fossil fuel quickly and aggressively. the planet’s ability to renew them—the winning economic strategies will be Such action does not depend on whether our global neighbors follow suit. In fact, each country’s own actions will become more urgent and valuable the less others do. those that manage biocapacity on the one hand, and reduce demand for it Let me spell out the argument: Why would it be in any individual country’s interest to address a problem that seems to be global in nature? on the other.

Mathis Wackernagel Consider the nature of the most prominent environmental challenge: Climate change. Even Those countries and cities trapped President, Global Footprint Network though climate change transcends country boundaries, the fossil fuel dependence that in energy- and resource-intensive www.footprintnetwork.org contributes to it carries growing economic risks for the emitting country—particularly for infrastructure (and economic activities) many of the Mediterranean countries paying for expensive oil-imports. Working our way out of this addiction takes time, and the longer we wait to radically rethink and retool our societies, the costlier and harder it will be. will become dangerously fragile, and will not be able to adapt in time to meet But climate change is not an issue in isolation. Rather, it is a symptom of a broader challenge: Humanity’s systematic overuse of the planet’s fi nite resources. the emerging resource constraints. But those which do, and build economies Our natural systems can only generate a fi nite amount of raw materials (fi sh, trees, crops, etc.) and absorb a fi nite amount of waste (such as carbon dioxide emissions). Global Footprint Network quantifi es this rate of output through a measure called “biocapacity.” that work with, rather than against, Biocapacity is as measurable as GDP—and, ultimately, more signifi cant, as access to basic living resources underlies every economic nature’s budget will be able to secure activity a society can undertake. the wellbeing of their people. For centuries, we have treated biocapacity as an essentially limitless fl ow. Today, though, humanity’s demand for biocapacity outstrips global supply by 50 percent. In the Mediterranean region, as this report shows, demands on biocapacity now exceed the region’s supply by more than 150 percent. PLAN BLEU FOREWORD

In 1989, Plan Bleu published a pioneering report on “Futures for the Mediterranean he “State of the Environment and Basin” which recommended a design for the Mediterranean Strategy for T Development in the Mediterranean”, Sustainable Development (MSSD). With the issuance of an update in 2005, published by Plan Bleu in 2009, attempted to entitled “A sustainable future for the Mediterranean: the Blue Plan’s environment and development outlook” the report’s recommendations were adopted by the provide answers regarding water and energy. Barcelona Convention Contracting Parties at their 14th conference in Portoroz, The promotion of water demand management Slovenia, 8-11 November 2005. and the use of related indicators, such as

Plan Bleu’s key function as the “Mediterranean Environment and Development effi ciency demand per sector and exploitation Observatory” (MEDO), draws heavily upon its expertise in sustainable index of the renewable resources, should aid development indicators. Within MEDO, 134 initial indicators were selected better inclusion of water scarcity. The main and adapted to the follow-up of the implementation of Agenda 21 in the Hugues Ravenel responses to the growth of the major Mediterranean. Of these, 34 priority indicators were subsequently chosen to Director, Plan Bleu monitor the progress made by the Mediterranean countries focusing upon the socio-economic drivers and environmental www.planbleu.org objectives defi ned for 9 MSSD priority issues including: pressures are a) to develop more sustainable energy consumption and b) encourage Improving integrated water resource and water demand management; diversifi cation of energy sources with a bigger Ensuring sustainable management of energy; share of renewable energy. Mitigating and adapting to the effects of climate change. The MSSD and the related indicators are being revised by taking into account the impact of In addition, some composite indicators such as the Human Development Index (HDI) and Ecological Footprint were considered to monitor overall progress in terms of sustainable development. climate change on the Mediterranean environment and society. All this work on indicators and MSSD The MSSD priority indicators are unable to fully describe the complexity and diversity of sustainable development issues in the Mediterranean regions. Some additional indicators were thus selected, defi ned and populated in order to is also linked to the activities of the Centre for tackle priority issues such as: water, energy, tourism, the conservation of rural and coastal areas. These analyses, widely Mediterranean Integration in Marseille and the disseminated in Plan Bleu publications and continuously updated, are nicely complemented by the analysis of Ecological priority areas of the Union for the Mediterranean. Footprint and biocapacity trends in the Mediterranean region that is included in this report.

2 INTRODUCTION MEDITERRANEAN ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT TRENDS

WHAT’S AT STAKE TRACKING HUMAN DEMAND ON

Since the rise of agriculture, the the performance of their economies are BIOCAPACITY: Mediterranean region has been shaped undermining the health of their ecological INTRODUCING THE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT by its diverse and vast ecological assets and mortgaging their long-term resources. Ecological changes, from security. Pursuing a more sustainable approach to development and economic prosperity means better understanding the choices before us. For this, governments need the forest loss to desertifi cation, have Never has the situation been so critical: knowledge and tools to manage their ecological assets as well as their demand always been part of its history, but The Mediterranean’s accessibility to for renewable resources and ecological services. The Ecological Footprint never has human pressure on the methodology offers a way to do so, globally and at the regional and country level. essential life-supporting ecological Mediterranean’s ecological assets been resources and services is increasingly at The Ecological Footprint is an accounting tool that measures one aspect of as intense as it is today. risk. At a time when the world is going sustainability: How much of the planet’s regenerative capacity humans demand to produce the resources and ecological services for their daily lives and how much Growing demands on the Mediterranean further into ecological overshoot, failure regenerative capacity they have available from existing ecological assets. It does region’s limited ecological resources and to take action is becoming a fundamental so by means of two indicators: services now threaten the foundation threat. of its social and economic well-being. ON THE DEMAND SIDE the Ecological Footprint measures the biologically productive land and sea area—the ecological assets—that a In 2008, every country in the region population requires to produce the renewable resources and ecological but one demanded more ecological services it uses. resources and services than were ON THE SUPPLY SIDE Biocapacity tracks the ecological assets available within their respective borders. available in countries, regions or at the global level and their capacity to produce renewable resources and ecological services. Simply stated, the Mediterranean region is running a severe ecological defi cit, In economic terms, assets are often defi ned as something durable that is not directly consumed, but yields a fl ow of products and services that people do consume. a situation that will only worsen unless Ecological assets are thus here defi ned as the biologically productive land and effective resource management becomes sea areas that generate the renewable resources and ecological services that central to policy-making. humans demand. They include: cropland for the provision of plant-based food and fi ber products; grazing land and cropland for animal products; fi shing grounds To achieve lasting socio-economic (marine and inland) for fi sh products; forests for timber and other forest products; success, solutions are needed that uptake land to sequester waste (CO2, primarily from fossil fuel burning); and space manage Earth’s limited ecological assets. for shelter and other urban infrastructure (see box 1). Instead, however, we see that many of the actions taken by Greece, Italy and other Mediterranean countries to improve

3 CARBON GRAZING LAND accounts for the amount of forest land represents the area of grassland used, in required to accommodate for the carbon addition to crop feeds, to raise livestock for meat, diary, hide and wool products. Footprint, meaning to sequester CO2 emissions, primarily from fossil fuels It comprises all grasslands used to burning, international trade and land use provide feed for animals, including practices, that are not uptake by oceans. cultivated pastures as well as wild grasslands and prairies.

FOREST FISHING GROUNDS represents the area of forests required to represent the area of marine and inland support the annual harvest of fuel wood, waters necessary to generate the annual pulp and timber products. primary production required to support catches of aquatic species (fish and seafood) and from aquaculture.

CROPLAND BUILT-UP LAND consists of the area required to grow all represents the area of land covered by crop products required for human human infrastructure such as consumption (food and fibre), as well transportation, housing, industrial as to grow livestock feeds, fish meals, structures and reservoirs for oil crops, and rubber. hydroelectric power generation.

Box 1: Land use categories comprising the Ecological Footprint (see Borucke et al., 2013 for additional information on the calculation methodology for each of these categories). 4 MEDITERRANEAN ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT TRENDS

A country’s Ecological Footprint of consumption is derived by tracking the ecological assets demanded to absorb its waste and to generate all the commodities it produces, imports and exports (see box 2).

All commodities (or CO2 waste) carry with them an embedded amount of bioproductive land and sea area necessary to produce (or sequester) them; international trade fl ows can thus Ecological Footprint of Consumption Ecological Footprint of Production Net Ecological Footprint of Trade be seen as fl ows of embedded Ecological Footprint. The Ecological Footprint of consumption The Ecological Footprint of production indicates the The Ecological Footprint of imports and indicates the consumption of biocapacity consumption of biocapacity resulting from production exports indicate the use of biocapacity within by a country’s inhabitants. processes within a given geographic area, such as a international trade. country or region. Embedded in trade between countries is a use of

In order to assess the total domestic demand for biocapacity, the net Ecological Footprint of trade resources and ecological services of a It is the sum of all the bioproductive areas within a country (the Ecological Footprint of imports minus the population, we use the Ecological Footprint of necessary for supporting the actual harvest of primary Ecological Footprint of exports). If the Ecological consumption (EFc). EFc accounts for both the products (cropland, pasture land, forestland and fishing Footprint embodied in exports is higher than that export of national resources and ecological grounds), the country’s built-up area (roads, factories, of imports, then a country is a net exporter of renewable resources and ecological services. services for use in other countries, and the cities), and the area needed to absorb all fossil fuel carbon import of resources and ecological services for emissions generated within the country. Conversely, a country whose Footprint of imports domestic consumption. is higher than that embodied in exports depends This measure mirrors the gross domestic product (GDP), on the renewable resources and ecological EFc is most amenable to change by individuals which represents the sum of the values of all goods and services generated by ecological assets from through changes in their consumption behavior. services produced within a country’s borders. outside its geographical boundaries.

Box 2: Tracking production, consumption and net trade with the Ecological Footprint: The Ecological Footprint associated with each country’s total consumption is calculated by summing the Footprint of its imports and its production, and subtracting the Footprint of its exports. This means that the resource use and emissions associated with producing a car that is manufactured in China, but sold and used in Italy, will contribute to Italy’s rather than China’s Ecological Footprint of consumption.

5 Both Ecological Footprint and biocapacity results are GLOBAL ECOLOGICAL OVERSHOOT 2011). In other words, in 2008 human demand on the expressed in a globally comparable, standardized unit Earth’s ecological assets was 50 percent greater than While ecological assets have long been ignored as called a “global hectare” (gha)—a hectare of biologically their capacity to keep up with this demand. irrelevant to a country’s economy, the goods and services productive land or sea area with world average that sustain a healthy human society (access to food, safe This situation is known as “ecological overshoot” and its bioproductivity in a given year (see Borucke et al., 2013 water, sanitation, manufactured goods and economic consequences can be seen in the form of climate change, for details). opportunity) all depend on the functioning of healthy water scarcity, land use change and land degradation, While the Ecological Footprint quantifi es human ecosystems. declining fi sheries, loss of biodiversity, food crises and demand, biocapacity acts as an ecological benchmark soaring energy costs. According to Global Footprint Network’s most recent and quantifi es nature’s ability to meet this demand. A National Footprint Accounts, in 2008 humanity consumed If human demand on nature continues to exceed what population’s Ecological Footprint can be compared resources and ecological services 1.5 times faster than Earth can regenerate, then substantial changes in with the biocapacity that is available—domestically or Earth could renew them—a 100 percent jump from the resource base may occur, undermining economic globally—to support that population, just as expenditure is 1961, when approximately 74 percent of the planet’s performance and human welfare. compared with income in fi nancial terms. If a population’s biocapacity was consumed (Global Footprint Network, demand for ecological assets exceeds the country’s supply, that country is defi ned as running an ecological—or more precisely, a biocapacity—defi cit. Conversely, when 20 demand for ecological assets is less than the biocapacity available within a country’s borders, the country is said to have an ecological—or biocapacity—reserve. 15 OVERSHOOT

The total Ecological Footprint of a country is a function of the average consumption pattern of each individual, 10 the effi ciency in production and resource transformation, and the number of individuals in the country. Biocapacity BIOCAPACITY = Area x Yield is determined by the available biologically productive (SUPPLY) land and sea areas and the capacity of these assets 5

Global Hectares (billions) ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT = Population x Consumption x Resource to produce resources and services useful for humans (SUPPLY) per person intensity (this is determined by the prevailing technology and 0 management practices implemented in these areas). 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Figure 1: Trends in total Ecological Footprint and biocapacity between 1961 and 2008. The increase in biocapacity is due to an increase in land bioproductivity as well as in the areas used for human purposes. However, the increase in the Earth’s productivity is not enough to compensate for the demands of a growing global population. 6 MEDITERRANEAN ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT TRENDS

Humanity crossed the threshold in Spain offer a particular example of the 1971, when the world went into global interplay between ecological constraints In this report, the Mediterranean region ecological overshoot. Recent studies and economic performance. Using the (Moore et al., 2012) project that, if we Ecological Footprint and biocapacity is defi ned as those countries that directly border continue on a “business-as-usual” path, it measures, we investigate the main drivers the Mediterranean Sea plus three countries, Jordan, will take twice the ecological assets of the of increased human pressure in the biosphere to meet our demands by the region and explore the likely implications Macedonia and Portugal, which are ecologically early 2030s. This level of overshoot is of growing ecological defi cits for the physically impossible in the long run. With Mediterranean region’s ecosystems and characterized by biomes that are typical of growing resource scarcity and exceeded economies. the Mediterranean region. Only countries with planetary boundaries, leaders need to Global Footprint Network published this be informed not only by value-added populations greater than 500,000 are included in report in October 2012 as a foundation for measures of economic activities, but also the debate on the strategies and policies Ecological Footprint results. asset balances and how they impact our required to best guarantee a sustainable quality of life. future for all in the region. Key fi ndings of Global Footprint Network launched its the report that were published in advance Mediterranean initiative to bring the in “Why Are Resource Limits Now reality of ecological constraints to the Undermining Economic Performance?” center of Mediterranean policy debate, (Global Footprint Network, 2012) might and to support decision-makers with tools be considered the fi rst discussion on this that will help them weigh policy trade-offs. critical issue. Global Footprint Network These tools will enable policy analysts now invites governments and other and decision-makers to more fully identify decision-makers to join the dialogue, and the risks that resource and ecosystem act to safeguard their economies and limitations pose to their countries’ their peoples’ well-being. economic and social well-being.

In this report, we examine the nature of and trends in the demands that residents in the Mediterranean region are placing on the Earth’s ecological assets. The chapter on Greece, Italy, Portugal and 7 THE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT OF WORLD REGIONS

In less than 50 years, humanity doubled its demand for renewable resources and ecological services (see Figure 2). At a global level, the causes are easily identifi ed. North America 1961 EU Population growth recorded a 118 percent increase from 1961 to 2008, the period 8 Other Europe studied for this report, while the world’s per capita Ecological Footprint increased by 15 Latin America percent (from 2.4 to 2.7 gha per person). 7 Middle East/Central Asia

6 Africa 5 Built-up Land Forest Land Fishing Grounds Grazing Land Cropland Carbon 4 2.0 3

2 1.5 1 Ecological Footprint (gha per capita) World biocapacity 0 1.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Population (billions)

0.5

Ecological Footprint (# of Earths) Ecological Footprint 2008 0.0 8 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2008 7 Figure 2: Humanity’s Ecological Footprint by land use type, 1961-2008. The largest component of the Ecological Footprint today is the carbon Footprint (55 percent). This component represents more than half the 6 Ecological Footprint for one-quarter of the countries tracked, and it is the largest component for approximately half the countries tracked. All Ecological Footprint and biocapacity values provided in this study are reported 5 in constant 2008 global hectare value. Details on constant gha can be found in Borucke et al., 2013. 4

These global trends, however, hide the huge variability that exists at the regional level. 3 Europe and Middle East/Central Asia experienced the largest increase in their per 2 capita Ecological Footprint (+1.2 and +1.1 gha per person, respectively), but while Europe’s population growth was relatively slow (+29 percent), population grew 330 1 Ecological Footprint (gha per capita) percent in Middle East/Central Asia. North America had a smaller increase in per capita 0 consumption (+ 0.6 gha per person) and a 63 percent growth in population. At the other 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 end of the spectrum, Africa saw its per capita Ecological Footprint decline (-0.1 gha per Population (billions) person), while its population increased by 255 percent. In the Asia-Pacifi c region, per capita Ecological Footprint increased slightly (+0.6 gha per person), while population Figure 3: Ecological Footprint and population by world’s regions in 1961 and 2008.The area within each grew by 136 percent (See Figure 3). bar represents the total Ecological Footprint for each region. 8 MEDITERRANEAN ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT TRENDS

The Mediterranean region experienced signifi cant increases in both population and per later, residents in this income group (approximately 279 million people) fell into more capita consumption. From 1961 to 2008, the region’s population grew from 242 million to Footprint ranges, suggesting a greater disparity in access to ecological resources and 478 million, a 96 percent increase, while its per capita Ecological Footprint increased by services. (Despite this increased variability, approximately 126 million people living 52 percent. Together these increases led to a 197 percent increase of the Mediterranean’s in middle-income countries in 2008 had a per capita Ecological Footprint ranging from 1.5 to 2.0 gha, evidence of a higher consumption level for more people).

Built-up Land Forest Land Fishing Grounds Grazing Land Cropland Carbon ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT (GHA PER CAPITA) 1961

1500 100

Middle income 1200 80 High income

900 60

600 40 Population (millions) 300 20 Ecological Footprint (million gha) Ecological Footprint 0 0 1960 1970 1980 1990 0.0 - 0.5 20000.5 - 1.0 20081.0 - 1.5 1.5 - 2.0 2.0 - 2.5 2.5 - 3.0 3.0 - 3.5 3.5 - 4.0 4.0 - 4.5 4.5 - 5.0 5.0 - 5.5 5.5 - 6.0

Figure 4: Mediterranean’s total Ecological Footprint, by land-use type, 1961-2008. The largest component of the Ecological Footprint today is the carbon Footprint (47 percent), followed by cropland (28 percent). In 1961, cropland was the largest component (33 percent), followed by the carbon Footprint (25 percent). ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT (GHA PER CAPITA) 2008 200 total demand for ecological resources and services during the 47-year period studied for this report (see Figure 4). The region’s income levels indicate how population and 150 per capita Footprint values go hand in hand with the Mediterranean’s growing demand for ecological resources and services (Figure 5). While Mediterranean high-income countries’ total Footprint grew primarily because of an increase in individual consumption 100 levels—that is, an increase in their per capita Footprint—middle-income countries’ growing total Footprint was driven by both an increase in per capita consumption levels and population growth. But these different patterns of change were also marked by shifts in Population (millions) 50 residents’ access to ecological assets. Growing per capita consumption trends in high- income countries was accompanied by greater equality in access to ecological resources 0 and services—by 2008, almost all residents in Mediterranean0.0 - 0.5high-income0.5 - 1.0 countries1.0 - 1.5 1.5 - 2.0 2.0 - 2.5 2.5 - 3.0 3.0 - 3.5 3.5 - 4.0 4.0 - 4.5 4.5 - 5.0 5.0 - 5.5 5.5 - 6.0 (approximately 178 million people) had a per capita Footprint ranging from 4.5 to 5.0 gha. Figure 5: Distribution of Ecological Footprint and population by national income in 1961 and 2008. Per Changes in middle-income countries brought the opposite effect, however. While in capita Footprint ranges are indicated on the x-axis, while the height of each bar is proportional to the number of people in that range. Mediterranean countries are here divided in income groups according to 1961 residents in middle-income countries (approximately 95 million people) fell into their per capita GNI values in 2008, as indicated by the World Bank. Additional information on the income two per capita Footprint ranges (0.5 to 1.0 gha and 1.5 to 2.0 gha), almost 50 years thresholds used in defi ning groups can be found in the Glossary section. 9 DRIVERS OF MEDITERRANEAN ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT AND BIOCAPACITY CHANGES OVER TIME

The Mediterranean region is characterized by its geographic, climatic and cultural diversity. Countries in the region have varying development levels and a wide range of Built-up Land Forest Land Fishing Grounds Grazing Land Cropland Carbon economic activities. A crossroads of the East and West, the region has lived and still lives ) 3.5 through a turbulent, intertwined history. But every country in the Mediterranean shares an 3.0 environmental fragility, with residents demand for ecological resources and services far exceeding the regenerative capacity of their own ecological assets. 2.5 a per capita h g From 1961 to 2008, the Mediterranean’s per capita Ecological Footprint grew by 52 ( 2.0 percent (from 2.1 to 3.1 gha), mainly because of the region’s 185 percent increase in the 1.5 carbon Footprint component. Demand on other ecological assets increased only slightly Footprint or even decreased—cropland +29 percent; forest +23 percent; grazing -6 percent; fi shing l 1.0 -54 percent. Demand for built-up land increased 20 percent (see Figure 6). ogica

l 0.5 Eco 0.0 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2008

Figure 6: Per capita Ecological Footprint within the Mediterranean region, by component, 1961-2008 (top) and the role of per capita Footprint and population in determining the total From 1961 to 2008, the Mediterranean’s per capita regional Footprint (bottom). Ecological Footprint grew by 52 percent (from 2.1 to 3.1 gha), mainly because of the region’s 185 percent Total Ecological FootprintEcological Footprint per capita Population increase in the carbon Footprint component. 3

Per capita biocapacity decreased by 16 percent—from 2 1.5 gha to 1.3 gha—from 1961 to 2008.

1 Between 1961 and 2008, the Mediterranean region’s Relative value (1961=1) ecological defi cit had increased by 230 percent. 0 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2008

10 MEDITERRANEAN ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT TRENDS

Built-up Land Forest Land Fishing Grounds Grazing Land Cropland During this time, improvements in agricultural practices and other environmental factors 2.0 slightly increased the productivity of the Mediterranean region’s ecological assets, thus contributing to an increase in the region’s total biocapacity. However, as population growth outstripped gains in productivity (Figure 7), per capita biocapacity decreased by 1.5 16 percent—from 1.5 gha to 1.3 gha—from 1961 to 2008. These changes in biocapacity, consumption and population trends had a profound impact on the region’s ability to meet its own demands. In 1961, residents in the region had 1.0 already used more resources and ecosystem services than the Mediterranean ecosystems’ could renew. Less than 50 years later, the region’s ecological defi cit had increased by 230 percent (Figure 8). 0.5 Global Hectares Per Capita Global Hectares

4 0.0 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2008

3

Figure 7: Per capita biocapacity within the Mediterranean region, by component, 1961-2008 (top) and its contributing factors (bottom). 2

1

AreaBioccapacity per capita Yield Population Global hectares per capita 3 0 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Figure 8: Mediterranean region’s per capita Ecological Footprint (red line), and biocapacity (green line). 2 The widening gap between demand and supply expanded the ecological defi cit (shaded red) 230 percent from 1961 to 2008, ever increasing the region’s ecological debt over time.

1

Relative value (1961=1) Relative value Today, the Mediterranean region’s total Ecological

0 Footprint exceeds local biocapacity by more 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2008 than 150 percent.

11 IN 2008, THE COMPONENTS Decisions made by governments and businesses have a substantial infl uence on OF THE MEDITERRANEAN’S the region’s Ecological Footprint. Citizens have no direct control over how a country Gross Fixed Capital Formation ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT Other produces its electricity, for example, or WERE: the intensity of its agricultural production. Recreation and culture Food and non- Government alcoholic beverages However, individuals’ daily activities Alcoholic beverages, are also primary Footprint drivers: tobacco and narcotics short-lived goods and services Socio-economic factors, development level and wealth, the food, goods and directly paid by households services consumed, as well as the wastes Transportation generated, all contribute to the region’s per (driven by individual behavior, Housing, water, capita Footprint. Households electricity, gas and other fuels 78 percent of the total Footprint); Figure 9 and 10 further break down the Ecological Footprint of Mediterranean consumption of ecological residents. They indicate who is demanding what and where the pressures (Ecological Figure 9: Breakdown of the per capita Ecological Footprint of an average Mediterranean resident, in 2008. resource and services due to Footprint hotspots) lie. The left chart indicates how much of the Ecological Footprint of consumption is paid for directly by household for short-lived goods (HH), how much by government, and how much is for expenditure of long-lasting goods (GFCF). long-term capital investments Among the daily consumption and service The second graph breaks down the consumption directly paid for by households (HH) into its main categories. undertaken by households, categories shaping the “household” component, those that contributed the businesses and governments most to the Ecological Footprint of the average Mediterranean resident were (Gross Fixed Capital Formation, “Food and non-alcoholic beverages” (35 Carbon Cropland Grazing Land or GFCF, 15 percent); percent of the household total), “Housing, Fishing Grounds Forest Land Built-up Land water, electricity, gas and other fuels” (19 Food and non-alcoholic beverages percent) and human “Transportation” (19 Alcoholic beverages, tobacco and narcotics Clothing and footwear services directly paid by percent). While “Food and non-alcoholic Housing, water, electricity, gas and other fuels beverages” put more demand on cropland Furnishings, household equipment and routine household maintenance government, which ultimately Health assets than it did on other land-use Transportation Communication benefi t households, that are not types, the other two household activities Recreation and culture Education caused a demand mainly on the carbon Restaurants and hotels for long-term investments, such sequestration capacity of the planet Miscellaneous goods and services Gov. as law enforcement, education, (see Figure 10). GFCF 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% public health, and defense (7 percent of the total Footprint). Figure 10: Percentage contribution to the household Ecological Footprint of an average Mediterranean resident of each category of biologically productive land, in 2008. Footprint values by land category for government consumptions as well as capital formation are also provided as reference. 12 MAPPING CONSUMPTION PRODUCTION AND TRADE ACTIVITIES FOR THE MEDITERRANEAN REGION

Evaluating a country or region’s demand reported in Figure 11 and compared with more than 50 years. From 1961 to 2008, gha of Mediterranean ecological assets for biocapacity does not completely inform the region’s biocapacity trend for the Mediterranean countries’ gap between were exported to the top ten trading us of the risks to domestic production period 1961–2008. Ecological Footprint of production and partners. Of these, the biggest exports systems, since an ecological defi cit can biocapacity more than tripled from 0.3 of biocapacity were to the Netherlands In 1961, Mediterranean biocapacity met be maintained not only through domestic gha per person (14 percent of the total (6.5 million gha), the United States (6.2 only 73 percent of the region’s demand— overuse, but also through imports and/ demand) to 1.1 gha per person (34 million gha) and the United Kingdom (5.3 its Ecological Footprint of consumption— or a reliance on the global commons percent of total demand). million gha). Netherlands’ imports were for renewable resources and ecological as a sink for carbon emissions. To more mostly composed of renewable resources services. By 2008, only 40 percent of Already by 1961, Mediterranean trade fully understand a population’s resource from cropland (50 percent) and fi shing the region’s Footprint of consumption was patterns had made the region a net importer demands, then, means to track both local grounds assets (49 percent); the carbon met by local biocapacity. of Ecological Footprint, with 13 percent of production and consumption trends, as Footprint embedded in electricity, fossil local demand (EF ) satisfi ed by resources well as trends in trade. Production activities within the C fuels and energy-intensive commodities and ecological services generated Mediterranean geographical boundaries was the biggest component of the exports Trends in the Ecological Footprint by ecological assets from outside the have demanded more resources and to United States and United Kingdom (93 embedded in Mediterranean’s production region’s geographical boundaries. The services than are regionally available for percent and 88 percent of the total). (EFP) and consumption (EFC) activities are Mediterranean’s dependence on trade continuously increased over the decades, From 1977 to 2008, growth in the so much that by 2008 the Ecological physical quantity of exports—and their Footprint embedded in net trade imports embedded Footprint—was particularly Ecological Footprint of consuptionEcological Footprint of production Biocapacity accounted for 26 percent of total Footprint strong, especially to the EU. In 2008, 4 of consumption. the Ecological Footprint embedded in exports to the top ten trading partners Comparing EF and EF indicates the net C P was approximately 88 million gha. The fl ows of Ecological Footprint embedded 3 biggest Footprint export fl ows were to in trade among countries. However, it Belgium (26 million gha), the United does not inform us of the actual imports Kingdom (17 million gha) and the United and exports fl ows and the Ecological States (11 million gha). Footprint exports 2 Footprint embedded in each of them. to Belgium were composed of carbon Figure 12 shows the detailed breakdown Footprint (50 percent) as well as cropland 1 of the Ecological Footprint embedded in (25 percent) and fi shing grounds assets (25 percent). Carbon Footprint was also Global hectares per capita Global hectares exports from the Mediterranean region to its top ten trading partners for the year the biggest component for the United 1 0 1977 and 2008 ; Figure 13 illustrates the Kingdom (90 percent of total) and the 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2008 Footprint embedded in Mediterranean’s United States (95 percent). imports from top ten trading partners and Figure 11: Mediterranean region’s Ecological Footprint of production (EFP) and consumption (EFC) compared to available biocapacity (BC), 1961-2008. EF can be said to represent the biocapacity used P its changes over the same period. for producing GDP within a country while EFC represents the biocapacity embedded in all commodities, goods and services consumed by the residents of that country. Comparing EF vs. BC indicates the extent C In 1977, resources and ecological of the total ecological defi cit, which is made up by trade, resource overuse and use of global commons as 11977 is the fi rst year that comprehensive data is services worth approximately 24 million carbon sinks. The difference between EFC and EFP indicates the Footprint embedded in net trade activities. available to run the multi-lateral trade analysis. ECOLOGICAL DEBTORS ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT FOOTPRINT IS EXPORTS IN 1977 24 MILLION GHA 0-50% larger than Biocapacity 50-100% larger than Biocapacity 100-150% larger than Biocapacity 150% larger than Biocapacity Data not available

ECOLOGICAL CREDITORS

BIOCAPACITY IS

0-50% larger than Footprint 50-100% larger than Footprint ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT 100-150% larger than Footprint EXPORTS IN 2008 150% larger than Footprint 88 MILLION GHA Data not available

ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT

Carbon Fishing Grounds Cropland

The size of the arrows is a function of the extent of the trade fl ows, and the color represents the corresponding land use type.

For ease in visualization only the main three traded Foot- print components are reported in the maps

Figure 12: Ecological Footprint exports to major trade partners of the Mediterranean region in 1977 (inset) and 2008, and the ecological defi cit (red) or reserve (green) status of those partners. UN COMTRADE and FAO bilateral trade data were used to calculate the Ecological Footprint embedded in exports. Intra-regional trade was not included in the analysis. 14 MEDITERRANEAN ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT TRENDS

The large contribution of the carbon gha) and Saudi Arabia (1.8 million gha). The same situation, however, also offers Footprint in the region’s exports, and the opportunity. The majority of the region’s The Ecological Footprint embedded in fact that export revenues are needed to ecological resource and service exports the Mediterranean’s imports increased pay for imports, suggest that the region is are now to countries that are experiencing to 142 million gha in 2008, primarily highly exposed to energy price volatility. ecological defi cits (Brazil and the Russian because of the carbon Footprint Such volatility is likely to expand with oil Federation are the primary exceptions). In component. In 2008, carbon Footprint shortages or carbon pricing. an era of tightening resource constraints, accounted for 52 percent of the total Mediterranean countries that improve At the same time, carbon Footprint imports, followed by imports of resources their resource effi ciency and sustain a exposes importing countries to risk as well: from cropland and fi shing grounds assets positive ecological trade balance would The increasing costs of imported fossil (24 percent each). Electricity, fossil benefi t from increased commodity prices fuels are already a signifi cant burden on fuels and energy-intensive commodities and improve their economic performance economies depending on importing them; (determining carbon Footprint imports) and the well-being of their populations. carbon taxes would cause even more were mostly imported from Germany stress on economies, with the greatest (19 million gha), China (15 million gha) impact on those countries with a high and the Russian Federation (11 million carbon Footprint demand. gha), while renewable resources were imported primarily from Belgium (7.5 The Ecological Footprint embedded in million gha), Netherlands (7 million gha) imports to the Mediterranean from the and Germany (6 million gha). region’s top ten trading partners also changed signifi cantly from 1977 to As the region increased its Ecological 2008, from approximately 30 million Footprint imports, trade patterns shifted global hectares to approximately 142 and the Mediterranean’s major trade Between 1977 and 2008, the Ecological Footprint million gha (see Figure 13). partners moved toward larger ecological defi cits. In a few instances, trade embedded in the Mediterranean’s imports Of the 30 million global hectares imported relationships from 1977 to 2008 shifted in 1977, 38 percent was composed increased from 30 to 142 million global hectares. from countries that had ecological reserves of renewable resources from cropland (Canada, Argentina, and Saudi Arabia) assets followed by fi shing grounds assets to countries with ecological defi cits (37 percent) and carbon Footprint (25 (Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and During this same period, trade patterns shifted and percent). Renewable resources were China). imported primarily from Norway (3.7 the Mediterranean’s major trade partners moved million gha), Argentina (2.1 million gha) This situation exposes the Mediterranean and United Kingdom (2.0 million gha), region to risks: Growing dependence toward larger ecological defi cits. while electricity, fossil fuels and energy- on exporting countries that themselves intensive commodities (determining run ever larger ecological defi cits may carbon Footprint imports) were imported amplify possibilities for future resource from mainly the United States (2.1 million disruptions in the region.

15 ECOLOGICAL DEBTORS ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT FOOTPRINT IS IMPORTS IN 1977 30 MILLION GHA 0-50% larger than Biocapacity 50-100% larger than Biocapacity 100-150% larger than Biocapacity 150% larger than Biocapacity Data not available

ECOLOGICAL CREDITORS

BIOCAPACITY IS

0-50% larger than Footprint 50-100% larger than Footprint ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT 100-150% larger than Footprint IMPORTS IN 2008 150% larger than Footprint 142 MILLION GHA Data not available

ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT

Carbon Fishing Grounds Cropland

The size of the arrows is a function of the extent of the trade fl ows, and the color represents the corresponding land use type.

For ease in visualization only the main three traded Foot- print components are reported in the maps

Figure 13: Ecological Footprint imports from major trade partners of the Mediterranean region in 1977 (inset) and 2008, and the ecological defi cit (red) or reserve (green) status of those partners. UN COMTRADE and FAO bilateral trade data were used to calculate the Ecological Footprint embedded in imports. Intra-regional trade was not included in the analysis. 16 MEDITERRANEAN ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT OF NATIONS MEDITERRANEAN ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT TRENDS

In 1961, only six countries in the debtor status during this period, while were Algeria (1.6 gha), Syria (1.5 gha), and Syria (49 percent), cropland for Mediterranean region had more the other Mediterranean countries saw Morocco (1.3 gha), Montenegro (1.2 gha) Morocco (45 percent) and the Occupied ecological assets available to produce a worsening of their ecological defi cits. and the Occupied Palestinian Territories Palestinian Territories (71 percent), and the resources and services, on aggregate, Cyprus’ ecological defi cit grew by 3.1 (0.5 gha). Carbon was the main Footprint forest for Montenegro (39 percent). than their residents consumed. All other gha per capita, the largest defi cit increase component for Algeria (37 percent) countries consumed signifi cantly more in the region. Jordan reported the smallest Footprint 0-50% greater than biocapacity Biocapacity more than 150% greater than Footprint defi cit increase, at + 0.3 gha per capita. Footprint 50-100% greater than biocapacity Biocapacity 100-150% greater than Footprint than their domestic ecosystems produced Footprint 100-150% greater than biocapacity Biocapacity 50-100% greater than Footprint (see Figure 14). Footprint more than 150% greater than biocapacity Biocapacity 0-50% greater than Footprint The large variability in the per capita By 2008, the defi cit situation had spread Footprints of individual countries refl ects to every Mediterranean country but the existing socio-economic differences in the possible exception of Montenegro the region—the more affl uent a country, 1961 (data set for this country is not suffi ciently the greater its demand for ecological reliable). resources and services (and the higher its per capita consumption). On the supply Algeria experienced the largest change side, differences in per capita biocapacity in per capita ecological defi cit, moving are mainly due to biophysical and climatic from a reserve of +0.7 gha per person conditions—for example, water shortages in 1961 to an ecological defi cit of -1.1 affecting land productivity—as well as gha per person in 2008. This was due population density. to both consumption increases (causing the total Ecological Footprint to grow) In 2008, the Former Yugoslavian and population growth (which decreased Republic of Macedonia was found to the per capita biocapacity budget). have the highest per capita Ecological Only Algeria’s oil revenues allowed it to Footprint value (5.4 gha) among the maintain its ecological defi cit for the fi rst Mediterranean countries (Figure 15), 2008 few decades after independence. But followed by Slovenia (5.2 gha), Greece by the late 1980s, declining oil prices (4.9 gha), France (4.9 gha) and Spain took a toll on Algeria’s petroleum-based (4.7 gha). In all of these countries, carbon economy, diminishing its capacity to was the main Footprint component, pay for importing external ecological ranging from 46 percent (France) to 72 resources and services. As revenues percent (Macedonia TFYR) of the total and imports declined, Algeria’s value. The second highest component Ecological Footprint stabilized limiting was cropland, with a contribution ranging residents’ access to ecological resources from 15 percent (Macedonia TFYR) to 27 and services. percent (Spain). Figure 14: Ecological defi cit (red) or reserve (green) status of the Mediterranean countries in 1961 (top) Morocco, Libya, Syria, Tunisia and Turkey The fi ve countries with the smallest per and 2008 (bottom). Ecological reserve is defi ned as a domestic Ecological Footprint of consumption less also shifted from ecological creditor to than domestic biocapacity; ecological defi cit as a domestic Ecological Footprint of consumption greater than capita Ecological Footprint in 2008 domestic biocapacity. 17 Figure 15: Per capita Ecological Footprint and biocapacity values for Mediterranean countries, by land ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT BIOCAPACITY use type, in 2008. Average Ecological Footprint and biocapacity values for the Mediterranean region (in columns) as well as the world (horizontal lines) are given for comparison. The Ecological Footprint measures Built up land Built up land demand for six types of ecological assets (see box 1); this is contrasted with fi ve supply categories tracked by biocapacity. The reason for this discrepancy is that carbon dioxide sequestration (or carbon Footprint) Carbon Footprint Fish Ground is assumed to take place in forests where CO2 can be absorbed in the largest quantities. However, reliable global data sets on the extent of forest areas legally protected and dedicated to long-term carbon uptake Fish Footprint are not yet available. As such, a carbon uptake category is currently not included within the biocapacity Forest Land calculation, so forest Footprint and carbon Footprint are two demands both placed on a forest’s ecological Forest product Footprint assets. Grazing Footprint Grazing Land Cropland Footprint Cropland 6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0 World average per capita Ecological Footprint

World average 1.0 per capita Biocapacity

Global hectares per capita Global hectares 0.0 Italy Libya Israel Egypt Spain Malta Turkey Tunisia France Jordan region Cyprus Croatia Greece Albania Portugal Slovenia Lebanon Bosnia and Herzegovina Mediterranean Macedonia TFYR

18 MEDITERRANEAN ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT TRENDS

Twelve (out of 24) Mediterranean Israel (0.3 gha), Cyprus (0.2 gha), Jordan MEDITERRANEAN’S TOTAL In 2008, the fi ve countries with the countries were found to have a per (0.2 gha) and the Occupied Palestinian ECOLOGICAL DEFICIT highest total ecological defi cits were capita Ecological Footprint greater than Territories (0.1 gha). In these countries, The Mediterranean region’s total Italy (202.4 million gha), Spain (148.1 the regional average Footprint value of biocapacity was mostly comprised of Footprint in 2008, was 1.48 billion gha, million gha), France (119.3 million gha), 3.1 gha per capita; 14 Mediterranean cropland areas. or approximately 8 percent of humanity’s Turkey (88.5 million gha) and Egypt countries had a Footprint greater than the Ecological Footprint. Three countries (81.5 million gha). The fi ve countries Ten of 24 Mediterranean countries had global average of 2.7 gha per capita. alone, as reported in Table 1, contributed with the smallest ecological defi cits were a per capita biocapacity greater than more than 50 percent of the region’s total Cyprus (4.5 million gha), Bosnia and The top fi ve countries in terms of available the regional average value of 1.3 gha. Footprint: France (21 percent), Italy (18 Herzegovina (4.2 million gha), Albania per capita biocapacity were France (3.0 Four countries (France, Croatia, Slovenia percent) and Spain (14 percent). (3.0 million gha), Malta (1.6 million gha) gha), Croatia (2.9 gha), Slovenia (2.6 and Montenegro) had a per capita and the Occupied Palestinian Territories gha), Montenegro (2.0 gha) and Bosnia biocapacity greater than the world On the supply side, the region’s total (1.3 million gha). Only Montenegro had and Herzegovina (1.6 gha per capita). average value of 1.8 gha. biocapacity in 2008 was approximately an ecological reserve (0.5 million gha). Forest areas contributed the most to the 0.60 billion gha, nearly 5 percent of total national biocapacity in the Balkan the world’s biocapacity. Again, three countries while cropland was the main countries alone contributed more than component of France’s biocapacity. 50 percent of the Mediterranean’s total biocapacity: France (31 percent), Turkey At the lower end of the per capita (15 percent) and Italy (11 percent). biocapacity scale were Lebanon (0.4 gha),

ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT BIOCAPACITY ECOLOGICAL DEFICIT

COUNTRY % COUNTRY % COUNTRY %

France 21% France 31% Italy 23% Italy 18% Turkey 15% Spain 17% Spain 14% Italy 11% France 13%

Syria Turkey 12% Spain 11% Turkey 10% Algeria Morocco Occupied Egypt 9% Egypt 9% Egypt 9% Montenegro Other 26% Other 23% Other 28%

Palestinian Territories Palestinian Table 1: Top fi ve contributors to the Mediterranean region’s total Ecological Footprint, biocapacity and ecological defi cit values, in 2008. 19 LINKING ECOLOGICAL ASSETS AND ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS

Economic theory considers three primary Some are calling this new era of constraints World: Ecological Footprint Biocapacity factors of production: labor, capital and “peak everything” (Heinberg, 2007). Mediterranean: Ecological Footprint Biocapacity land. Labor refers to the use of human 4 The Mediterranean region is a particularly effort and expertise in production. Capital salient example of such transitions (Figure encompasses humanly constructed items, 16). When the Mediterranean region such as machinery and buildings, which was running a relatively small ecological 3 can facilitate further production. Land (or defi cit 50 years ago, the world was ecological assets) generates the resource still able to provide more renewable and services fl ows that are used as inputs resources and services than humanity into the production system. required. Access to ecological assets 2 Ecological assets provide the food was relatively easy during this phase, required for labor, while capital formation and Mediterranean residents could thus requires labor and natural resource rely on global resources and ecological 1 inputs. As such, any change in ecological services to satisfy their demands. assets and the resource and services fl ows Global Hectares per capita Even when the world went into ecological they generate has a direct impact on the overshoot in 1971, a decline in global economic sub-system. 0 commodity prices masked the risk of 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 During most of the 20th century, when incurring a negative ecological assets resources were relatively cheap and balance. Meanwhile, the Mediterranean’s easily available, the economies of ecological defi cit continued to grow, and Food Raw Materials most countries (in the world as well as humanity’s demand for natural resources Energy Metals and Minerals the Mediterranean region) became and services overtook the planet’s ability 400 increasingly dependent on large amounts to produce them. of renewable and nonrenewable resources 350 and ecological services. Cheap energy Since 2000, a systemic risk has become 300 made the extraction and harvesting of evident (see Figure 16). As the gap resources much more economical and led between supply and demand widens, 250 to an increase in individual consumption. more resources are being demanded and more CO is released in the atmosphere, However, as population and consumption 2 200 trends increased, the production of causing even greater pressure on resources failed to keep pace. 150 Figure 16: Trends in the per capita Ecological Now, in the early 21st century, natural Footprint (red) and biocapacity (green) of the world (solid lines) and Mediterranean region 100 resource fl ows that once seemed (dashed lines), from 1961 to 2008 (top). inexhaustible are running into limits: Food Commodity prices for selected commodities (solid lines) from 1961 to 2008, indexed to 2000, 50 and energy shortages, freshwater scarcity to 2000 indexed prices Commodity derived from World Bank commodity price data and topsoil depletion, for example, are (bottom). General price trend-line (dashed line) 0 inescapable realities, as are their costs. also provided for ease in visualization. 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 20 MEDITERRANEAN ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT TRENDS

Ecological Deficit (Reserve) Financial Deficit (surplus) ecosystems and biodiversity. The growing least partly due to ecological overshoot, [Million gha] [Billion USD] mismatch between global demand and as the economic sub-system is susceptible COUNTRY supply of ecological resources and to changes in the availability of both Albania 3.0 2.0 services has led to a gradual tightening renewable and non-renewable resources. Algeria 37.4 (34.4) of international commodity markets, Bosnia and Herzegovina 4.2 2.6 Non-renewable resources’ supply and resulting in rising prices and heightened Croatia 5.6 6.1 demand are highly inelastic. Large price volatility. Cyprus 4.5 3.9 price variations—as demonstrated by the Egypt 81.5 1.4 With consumption exceeding local international oil and mineral prices—are France 119.3 49.9 availability, dependence on biocapacity needed to balance supply and demand, Greece 37.7 51.3 from outside the region’s geographical especially for fossil fuels. Renewable Israel 26.0 (1.8) boundaries will likely continue and natural resources, in contrast, have Italy 202.4 66.3 push the region to increasingly turn historically experienced supply increase Jordan 11.1 2.0 toward international trade for access to in response to additional demand, and Lebanon 10.2 4.1 ecological resources and services. But their prices are thus highly susceptible to Libya 15.5 (35.7) as countries become more dependent on supply-demand imbalances. Macedonia TFYR 7.8 1.2 external ecosystems, they expose their Malta 1.6 0.5 Montenegro (0.5) - economies to price volatility and possible The increasing scarcity of global Morocco 19.6 4.5 supply disruption. Access to ecological renewable resources—as well as the Portugal 30.0 31.9 resources and services become subject not increased price of fossil resources used for their extraction—caused prices Slovenia 5.3 3.8 only to “physical limits” (the total amount Spain 148.1 154.5 to reach historic highs in 2008. As globally available) but also “economic Syria 17.4 (0.5) global renewable resource availability limits” (the ability of countries to purchase Tunisia 8.3 1.7 diminishes and oil prices keep climbing, these resources and services). Turkey 88.5 41.5 this volatility will increase, with severe Over the last fi ve decades, many of the implications for the trade balance Table 2: Ecological assets balance and current account balance for each Mediterranean country, in world’s limited resources have become of many Mediterranean countries. 2008. Ecological assets balance values are calculated as total Ecological Footprint of consumption minus more expensive (World Bank, 2012). total biocapacity. Current account balance values are drawn from the World Bank (2011). No data were available for the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Prices have become highly reactive to The degree of dependence on external supply-demand imbalances. During the ecological assets for imports of resources income (or GDP levels) by liquidating ecological services, as well as weakened Russian droughts and wildfi res of 2010, makes responding to important price their ecological or fi nancial assets, or fi nancially through large debts, will a drop in grain production led to a 70 hikes challenging and could further both. Table 2 shows the ecological assets face growing diffi culties in accessing percent increase in wheat prices over a negatively affect a country’s capacity to balance and the current account balance the required resources and services. single month. The drought experienced by maintain its economic output. Over the for each Mediterranean country in 2008. This might have crippling effects for its the U.S. Midwest in the summer of 2012 past few decades, economic success Results show that ecological defi cits are future economic performance. To ensure will also likely impact prices. Such price or has translated into higher resource coupled with fi scal defi cits (indicated long-term economic prosperity and supply shocks can cause severe economic consumption levels that are no longer by the negative account balance) in the competitiveness, decisions are needed imbalances in countries and sometimes sustainable. Countries’ efforts to drive majority of the Mediterranean countries. that recognize ecological assets—both lead to social unrest. The high volatility their competitive advantage could lead to Any economic actor who is both highly dependence on and access to—as among of commodity prices in recent years is at a race to disaster, as they maintain their dependent on external resources and the key drivers of economic success. 21 TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: HUMAN WELFARE AND PLANETARY LIMITS

Mediterranean countries’ ability to above the median value to have “High France, Greece, Israel, Italy, Malta, harvest local primary resources and Human Development.” Portugal, Slovenia and Spain) had Very import commodities from the global High Human Development (above 75th Human development in the According to Global Footprint Network market has played an important role in percentile). No data were available for calculations, there were 1.8 global HumanMediterranean development region in the increased Mediter- guaranteeing their citizens a high degree the Occupied Palestinian Territories. ranean region increased from 1980 to hectares per person of biocapacity from 1980 to 2008—from of well-being. However, in a world of 2008—from Medium to Very High. In available on the planet in 2008 (this During the same period, the Medium to Very High. In 2008, growing ecological overshoot, neither 2008, Mediterranean countries were amount should also provide for wild Mediterranean’s per capita Ecological continued access to primary resources classifiMediterranean ed as follow: countries species which are in competition with Footprint increased by 7 percent (reaching nor long-term improvements in human were classifi ed as follows: human demands). Therefore, a minimum the value of 3.1 gha in 2008), causing · Medium Human Development: welfare are guaranteed. Countries condition for global sustainability would the average regional consumption habits Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, that pursue a path toward sustainable be a per capita Ecological Footprint of to move away from the sustainable Syria, Tunisia MEDIUM and Turkey;HUMAN development will be best positioned to · High Human Development: less than 1.8 gha on average (and consumption quadrant. In 2008, only DEVELOPMENT meet their future needs. Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, less if the population increases). Future six Mediterranean countries (Algeria, Croatia, Lebanon,Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Jordan, Macedonia Morocco, Caring for the Earth, published in generations’ ability to meet their Egypt, Montenegro, Morocco, Syria TFYR andSyria, Montenegro; Tunisia and Turkey; 1991 by IUCN, WWF and UNEP, own demands is compromised if this and Tunisia) had a Footprint of less than · Very High Human Develop- ment: Cyprus, France, Greece, Israel, defi ned sustainable development as a biocapacity budget is exceeded. the global average available per capita HIGH HUMAN biocapacity of 1.8 global hectares. Italy, Malta, Portugal, Slovenia and commitment to “improving the quality of UNDP’s latest Human Development Spain. DEVELOPMENT human life while living within the carrying Report (UNDP, 2011) estimates that The Mediterranean region has made Albania, Bosnia and capacity of supporting ecosystems.” Only Algeria, Egypt, Montenegro, human development in the Mediterranean noticeable progress the last 30 years Herzegovina, Croatia, Lebanon, One way to assess countries’ progress region increased greatly from 1980 in implementing policies that enable Morocco, Syria and Tunisia had a Foot- print of lessLibya, than Macedonia the global TFYR average and toward sustainability (represented by the to 2008—from Medium (the regional residents to improve the quality of their lower-right “sustainable consumption” availableMontenegro; per capita biocapacity of 1.8 average HDI value in 1980 was 0.58) to life. But this has come at the cost of global hectares. quadrant of Figure 17) is by using the Very High (regional HDI value in 2008 growing ecological overshoot. Ecological Footprint and biocapacity was 0.75). VERY HIGH HUMAN Exceeding the regenerative capacity of metrics to measure supply of and demand DEVELOPMENT on supporting ecosystems, and the United In 2008, seven Mediterranean countries the global ecological assets compromises Cyprus, France, Greece, Israel, Nations Development Programme’s (Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Syria, future generations’ ability to meet their (UNDP) Human Development Index Tunisia and Turkey) were classifi ed as own demands. With the apparent increase Italy, Malta, Portugal, Slovenia (HDI) to measure quality of life. having Medium Human Development, in resource shortages, even current and Spain. that is a value of HDI between the 25th generations might be unable to replicate The HDI index is comprised of three and 50th percentile of all countries; the improvements in human welfare seen Only Algeria, Egypt, Montenegro, elements: Education, health, and living seven countries (Albania, Bosnia and in the recent past. If rapid progress is not Morocco, Syria and Tunisia had standards, with each component weighted Herzegovina, Croatia, Lebanon, Libya, made toward living within the means of equally. Education is approximated by Macedonia TFYR and Montenegro) the planet, governments will not be able a Footprint of less than the global years of schooling; health is approximated were classifi ed as having High Human to safeguard recent achievements and average available per capita by life expectancy; living standards are Development, that is a value of HDI move toward sustainable development. biocapacity of 1.8 global hectares. approximated by Gross National Income between the 50th and 75th percentile of per capita. UNDP considers countries all countries; and nine countries (Cyprus, 22 MEDITERRANEAN ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT TRENDS

12 Low HD High HD

Medium HD 10 Very high HD

8

6 MK SI GR FR CY IT HV ES MT 4 PT IL LY TR LB BA

JO Ecological Footprint (global hectares per person) EG TN AL 2 World biocapacity (2008) 2 SY DZ World’s S ustainable MA PS Development Quadrant 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

United Nations Human Development Index

Figure 17: Human Development Index (x-axis) and per capita Ecological Footprint (y-axis) for Mediterranean countries. HDI and Footprint positions in 2008 are highlighted with blue dots. The Mediterranean region’s overall trend from 1980 to 2008 is shown with the red dotted line. A low average Ecological Footprint and a high HDI score are the necessary minimum conditions for globally replicable sustainable human development (indicated by the bottom-right quadrant). 23 NATIONAL CASE STUDIES

Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain have historically GREECE ITALY contributed a large share of the economic output of the Mediterranean region (in 2008, the group had a EF-consumptionEF-production Biocapacity EF-consumptionEF-production Biocapacity 6 6 combined GDP of over US $2.2 trillion, compared with the region’s total GDP of $4.8 trillion). These same four 5 5 countries were also responsible for 40 percent of the 4 4 Mediterranean’s total Ecological Footprint, with Italy and Spain having the highest total ecological defi cits in the 3 3 region in 2008. 2 2 Global hectares per capita Among the group, Greece had both the highest per Global hectares per capita 1 1 capita Ecological Footprint of consumption (4.9 gha) and 0 0 the highest per capita biocapacity (1.6 gha) in 2008 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2008 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2008 (Figure 18). It was followed by Spain (4.7 gha), Italy PORTUGAL SPAIN (4.5 gha) and Portugal (4.1 gha) in Footprint size, and by Spain (1.5 gha), Portugal (1.3 gha) and Italy (1.1 gha) in EF-consumptionEF-production Biocapacity EF-consumptionEF-production Biocapacity available biocapacity. 6 6 All countries in the group had large ecological defi cits 5 5 from 1961 to 2008; by 2008, Greece, Italy, and Spain 4 4 all had similar-sized per capita defi cits (approximately 3.3 3 3 gha), while Portugal had the smallest (2.8 gha). Portugal was also the sole country in the group to signifi cantly 2 2 Global hectares per capita narrow its ecological defi cit in the last decade, from 3.4 Global hectares per capita 1 1 gha per capita in 1998 to 2.8 gha per capita in 2008 0 0 (-18 percent). 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2008 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2008 Biocapacity from local assets was found to contribute Figure 18: Ecological Footprint of production (EFP) and consumption activities (EFC) compared to available biocapacity (BC), for Greece, Italy, less to each country’s total ecological resource and Portugal and Spain, 1961-2008. service demand than the regional average (40 percent) in 2008: 32 percent of the total Ecological Footprint of consumption in Greece, 31 percent in Portugal and Spain, relatively high reliance on local production activities to Ecological Footprint of consumption, and to 34 percent of and 25 percent in Italy. meet the demand for ecological resources and services Portugal’s. This indicates a higher degree of dependence of their residents. The Footprint embedded in net trade on ecological resources and services from outside national Among the group, Greece and Spain had the highest per activities contributed the least to the Ecological Footprint geographical borders compared to Greece and Spain. capita Ecological Footprint of production (3.5 gha and of consumption (28 percent in Greece and 22 percent in The gap between Ecological Footprint of production and 3.7 gha, respectively) and the gap between this latter Spain). biocapacity contributed to 37 percent (Italy) and 34 and biocapacity contributed to 40 percent (Greece) and percent (Portugal) of the total Ecological Footprint. 47 percent (Spain) of the total demand. This indicates a Conversely, the Ecological Footprint embedded in trade activities contributed to 37 percent of Italy’s total 24 MEDITERRANEAN ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT TRENDS

A FOCUS ON TRADE FLOWS Figure 19: Flow of resources through a country’s economy. Inputs to a country’s economy can be The fl ow of resources through a country’s in the form of local production or imports. Outputs from a country’s economy can be in the form of PRODUCTION EXPORTS economy is illustrated by Figure 19, exports or internal consumption. The sum of the where the size of the economy can be inputs is equal to the sum of outputs; from the viewed as either the sum of inputs or Ecological Footprint point of view this relationship can be expressed as EF + EF = EF + EF . the sum of outputs, which are equal. P I C E Inputs into the economy take the form of imports and domestic production, while ECONOMY outputs are either exported or consumed domestically. Over the last fi ve decades, growing populations and consumption levels have caused Greece, Italy, Portugal IMPORTS CONSUMPTION and Spain to increasingly turn to imports of ecological resources and services to fuel economic growth. As of 2008, the Ecological Footprint embedded in imports constituted approximately half of Africa Middle-East/Central Asia the total Footprint inputs to their domestic North America economies, with values ranging from EU Other Europe 40 percent (Greece and Spain) to 46 percent (Italy and Portugal). At the same 80 Latin America Domestic Production time, the Ecological Footprint embedded 70 in exports contributed less than one-fi fth of the total Footprint outputs, with values 60 ranging from 11 percent (Italy) to 17 percent (Portugal). 50

40

30 Figure 20: Percentage contribution to total resource and services inputs (in global hectares) to countries’ economy from Ecological Footprint 20 of production and the Footprint embedded in imports, by region in 2008. Each region is shaded 10 according to its ecological defi cit situation, from

dark red (large defi cit) to dark green (large Percentage of resource inputs from imports 0 reserve). GreeceItaly Portugal Spain

25 Several of the trading partners on which Greece, Italy, IDENTIFYING FOOTPRINT HOTSPOTS consumption profi le of all four countries, the breakdown Portugal and Spain rely for essential inputs are themselves Events since 2008 have highlighted structural weaknesses provided in Figure 22 indicates that this category had a experiencing growing resource constraints. As Figure 20 in the group’s economies. However, while the fi nancial lower contribution toward the total Footprint in Italy and illustrates, the EU was the largest source of imports in 2008. risks of Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain have become Spain than the regional average (18 percent versus 27 But the large ecological defi cit of this region suggests that evident to analysts, the rapid growth of their ecological percent). In Spain, this was largely counterbalanced by these trade fl ows cannot be easily maintained long-term, defi cits has remained largely unnoticed. the greater contribution to the Ecological Footprint from risking price volatility or supply disruptions for importing “Recreation and culture” and government consumption countries. Figure 22 highlights the group’s consumption patterns (Gov.) categories; a greater contribution from the in 2008 by showing the Ecological Footprint of an Spain’s relatively low reliance on imports, and a trade “Restaurants and hotels” category was found in Italy. average resident broken down into its main categories of pattern with a greater weighting toward ecological consumption. Portugal’s low contribution from the “Housing, water, creditor regions (such as Latin America), makes it the least electricity, gas and other fuels” consumption category exposed of the group to such shocks. Italy appears to While “Food and non-alcoholic beverages” dominated the was anomalous, whereas it exceeded the regional have the greatest exposure, with a relatively high reliance on imports and a trade pattern that includes a large percentage of imports from the ecological debtor Asia- Africa Middle-East/Central Asia Pacifi c region. North America Exporters of resources and services are also vulnerable. EU Other Europe Volatile commodity prices can impede effective revenue Latin America Domestic Consumption management. The greatest risk, however, is to those countries whose Footprint of production highly exceeds the local biocapacity, increasing the likelihood of a 100 gradual reduction in the bioproductive capacity of their ecological assets. This situation is common for all four 80 countries in the group, and particularly relevant in Spain.

Figure 21 shows that all four countries predominantly 60 export embedded Footprint to the EU, with Greece also exporting 13 percent of the production of its ecological 40 assets to the Asia-Pacifi c region. Spain has the greatest fraction of resource outputs going to exports rather than to domestic consumption; this suggests that the country is 20 best placed to take advantage of higher resource prices,

but it also exposes Spain to a worsening trade balance Percentage of resource outputs going to exports 0 should the country experience sudden drops in its ability GreeceItaly Portugal Spain to produce resources.

Figure 21: Percentage of total resource and services outputs (in global hectares) from the economy going to domestic consumption (EFC) and exports (EFE) by region, in 2008. Each region is shaded according to its ecological defi cit situation, from dark red (large defi cit) to dark green (large remainder). The vast majority of resource outputs go to support domestic consumption in all four countries, with little being exported. 26 MEDITERRANEAN ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT TRENDS

average in the “Alcoholic beverages, tobacco and Household - food and non-alcoholic beverages Household - recreation and culture narcotics” category. Greece saw a large contribution to Household - transportation Household - other Household its Ecological Footprint from private and public investment (GFCF), and a correspondingly low contribution from Household - housing, water, electricity, gas and other fuels Government government consumption. Household - alcoholic beverages, tobacco and narcotics Gross Fixed Capital Formation The “Transportation” category was a signifi cant contributor to all four countries’ Ecological Footprint.

MEDITERRANEAN REGION Examination of the group’s specifi c areas of ecological resource dependence identifi es Footprint hotspots and indicates potential areas of intervention for government and private sector decision-makers. With differences

among Greece, Italy, Portugal and PORTUGAL ITALY GREECE SPAIN Spain, the analysis identifi ed “Food and non-alcoholic beverages”, personal “Transportation” and “Housing, water, electricity, gas and other fuels” as the consumption categories with the highest Ecological Footprint, which would benefi t from timing government and businesses actions. Figure 22: Breakdown of the per capita Ecological Footprint of an average resident in Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain, in 2008, as a percentage of the Mediterranean average. The chart indicates how much of the Ecological Footprint of consumption is paid for directly by government (Gov.), how much is for expenditure of long-lasting goods (GFCF) and how much is directly paid for by household for short-lived goods within 6 main consumption categories. 27 CONCLUSIONS

Global Footprint Network’s Ecological Key fi ndings show the socio- INCOME AND FOOTPRINT SIZE Footprint Initiative in the Mediterranean economic implications of resource The higher the income of a country, the Region is based on a simple premise: constraints in the Mediterranean greater was its demand for ecological Human societies and economies depend and the precarious position of resources and services. Three countries “Global Footprint Network, on the biosphere’s many resources and individual countries and the alone contributed more than 50 percent life-supporting ecological services. As region as a whole: of the region’s total Ecological Footprint MAVA Foundation, Plan Bleu, demand on these ecological resources and services increases, accelerating in 2008: France (21 percent), Italy (18 percent) and Spain (14 percent). WWF Mediterranean and global ecological overshoot and pushing more countries into large ecological DEMAND OUTSTRIPS defi cits, economic success can no longer BIOCAPACITY IS UNEQUALLY UNESCO Offi ce in Venice be secured without carefully managing SUPPLY DISTRIBUTED and tracking the demand on, and From 1961 to 2008, the Three countries alone provided more call on governments and availability of, the regenerative capacity Mediterranean’s per capita than 50 percent of the biocapacity of the of Earth’s ecological assets. Tools are Ecological Footprint grew by 52 region: France (31 percent), Turkey (15 international institutions to thus needed to illustrate the scale of percent (from 2.1 to 3.1 gha) while percent) and Italy (11 percent). change we are witnessing, and to per capita biocapacity decreased consider Ecological Footprint provide a platform for weighing the policy by 16 percent (from 1.5 gha to PER CAPITA ECOLOGICAL options that will help nations remain 1.3 gha). In less than 50 years, the FOOTPRINT RANKINGS and biocapacity to assess the competitive in an increasingly resource- Mediterranean region nearly tripled The Former Yugoslavian Republic of constrained world. its demands for ecological resources Macedonia had the region’s largest per state of ecological assets, and This report aimed at providing an and services, and increased its capita Ecological Footprint (5.4 gha) in overview of the ecological demand and ecological defi cit by 230 percent. 2008, followed by Slovenia (5.2 gha) to measure progress towards supply situation for the Mediterranean and Greece (4.9 gha). The smallest per SUPPLY AND DEMAND capita Footprint were found in Morocco region and its countries—their ecological TODAY (1.3 gha), Montenegro (1.2 gha) and the sustainable development bank statements—through use of the As of 2008, the region’s Ecological Occupied Palestinian Territories (0.5 gha). Ecological Footprint and biocapacity Footprint exceeds its local biocapacity and green economy in the indicators. Global Footprint Network has by more than 150 percent, and the published this report and its executive ecological defi cit situation had spread Mediterranean region.” summary, “Why Are Resource Limits Now to every Mediterranean country Undermining Economic Performance?”, (Montenegro is a possible exception, to stimulate a deeper investigation into but data is incomplete). the implications of growing ecological defi cits for the Mediterranean region’s ecosystems and economies.

28 PER CAPITA BIOCAPACITY ONE EXCEPTION TO REGIONAL The Mediterranean region has been Mediterranean countries manage their RANKINGS TRENDS running an ecological defi cit for more supply of and demand on biocapacity France (3.0 gha), Croatia (2.9 gha) Portugal is the sole country in the than 50 years, with its Ecological Footprint will be central to their long-term ability to and Slovenia (2.6 gha) had the most Mediterranean region to have signifi cantly increasingly exceeding biocapacity. With remain economically competitive and to per capita biocapacity available, while narrowed its ecological defi cit in recent local ecological constraints, economic provide for the well-being of their people. Cyprus (0.2 gha), Jordan (0.2 gha) years (an 18 percent decrease between growth has therefore depended ever more on importing biocapacity. The and the Occupied Palestinian Territories 1998 and 2008). But the country’s per disparity between demand and supply— (0.1 gha) had the least. The disparity in capita defi cit (2.8 gha) is still higher than the ecological defi cit—has made the per capita biocapacity is mainly due to the regional average (1.9 gha). economic stability of the Mediterranean biophysical and climatic conditions—for region and countries highly dependent example, water shortages affecting land HUMAN DEVELOPMENT on the availability of healthy global productivity—as well as population density. Human development (as measured ecological assets, and the fi nancial by the HDI) has signifi cantly increased capacity to pay for these assets. INDIVIDUAL COUNTRY TRENDS in the Mediterranean region over the Algeria experienced the most signifi cant last 30 years. But this has come at the However, Global Footprint Network’s change, moving from the largest cost of growing ecological defi cits, as an data show that global ecological overshoot also increased during the ecological reserve in the region in increasing per capita Footprint has 47-year period analyzed for this study. 1961 to an ecological defi cit in 2008. caused regional consumption habits to By 2008, humanity was using 52 percent Morocco, Libya, Syria, Tunisia and Turkey exceed minimum conditions for more resources and ecological services also shifted from ecological creditor to global sustainability. than were available globally. A global debtor status during this period, while the competition for biocapacity is heating up. other Mediterranean countries saw an FOOTPRINT HOTSPOTS AND increase in their ecological defi cits. Cyprus MITIGATION OPPORTUNITIES These trends have led Mediterranean economies into a particularly vulnerable experienced the largest defi cit increase, “Food and non-alcoholic beverages”, position, as the region’s ongoing and Jordan the smallest. “Transportation” and “Housing, water, economic crisis further constrains its electricity, gas and other fuels” are ability to meet resource and ecological REGION’S BIGGEST the consumption categories most service needs. ECOLOGICAL DEBTORS contributing to the Ecological Footprint In 2008, the fi ve Mediterranean countries of Mediterranean’s residents. Actions How can the region address these risks? with the highest total ecological defi cits and policies are needed in these priority Even in this resource-constrained world, were Italy, Spain, France, Turkey and areas to improve effi ciency in the use of countries can remain economically Egypt. Italy alone, with an ecological ecological assets and to start reversing successful. Indeed, with the right tools, leaders can choose strategies that both defi cit of more than 200 million global ecological defi cits. reverse the trends of shrinking supply hectares, contributed to almost a and growing demand and help their quarter of the Mediterranean’s total populations thrive in this new era. But how ecological defi cit. ALBANIA (AL) ALGERIA (DZ) BOSNIA HERZEGOVINA (BA) CROATIA (HR) 6 6 6 6

5 5 5 5

4 4 4 4

3 3 3 3

2 2 2 2 Global Hectares per capita Global Hectares capita per Global Hectares per capita 1 1 1 Global Hectares per capita 1

0 0 0 0 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

CYPRUS (CY) EGYPT (EG) FRANCE (FR) GREECE (GR) 6 6 6 6

5 5 5 5

4 4 4 4

3 3 3 3

2 2 2 2 Global Hectares per capita Global Hectares capita per Global Hectares per capita 1 1 1 Global Hectares per capita 1

0 0 0 0 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

ISRAEL (IL) ITALY (IT) JORDAN (JO) LEBANON (LB) 6 6 6 6

5 5 5 5

4 4 4 4

3 3 3 3

2 2 2 2 Global Hectares per capita Global Hectares capita per Global Hectares per capita 1 1 1 Global Hectares per capita 1

0 0 0 0 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Figure 23: Per capita Ecological Footprint (red line), biocapacity (green line), ecological defi cit (shaded red) and ecological reserve (shaded green) for 24 Mediterranean countries studied in this report (all countries with populations greater than 500,000 directly bordering the Mediterranean Sea plus Jordan, Macedonia and Portugal, which are ecologically characterized by Mediterranean biomes). For comparison, all country graphs have the same scale; for more details and country-specifi c information, see individual country factsheet at http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/country_fact_sheets.

30 MEDITERRANEAN ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT TRENDS

LIBYA (LY) FYR OF MACEDONIA (MK) MALTA (MT) MONTENEGRO (ME) 6 6 6 6

5 5 5 5

4 4 4 4

3 3 3 3

2 2 2 2 Global Hectares per capita Global Hectares per capita Global Hectares capita per Global Hectares per capita 1 1 1 1

0 0 0 0 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

MOROCCO (MA) OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN PORTUGAL (PT) SLOVENIA (SI) 6 6 TERRITORIES (PS) 6 6

5 5 5 5

4 4 4 4

3 3 3 3

2 2 2 2 Global Hectares per capita Global Hectares capita per Global Hectares per capita 1 1 1 Global Hectares per capita 1

0 0 0 0 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

TURKEY (TR) SPAIN (ES) SYRIA (SY) TUNISIA (TN) 6 6 6 6

5 5 5 5

4 4 4 4

3 3 3 3

2 2 2 2 Global Hectares per capita Global Hectares per capita Global Hectares capita per Global Hectares per capita 1 1 1 1

0 0 0 0 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Ecological Footprint Biocapacity

31 APPENDIX A: CALCULATING THE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT

The National Footprint Accounts track The Ecological Footprint calculates Annual demand for manufactured or countries’ use of ecological services and the combined demand for ecological derivative products (e.g., fl our or wood resources as well as the biocapacity resources and services wherever they pulp), is converted into primary product available in each country. As with are located and presents them as the where D is the annual demand of a equivalents (e.g., wheat or roundwood) any resource accounts, they are static, global average area needed to support product and Y is the annual yield of the through the use of extraction rates. These quantitative descriptions of outcomes, a specifi c human activity. This quantity same product (Monfreda et al., 2004; quantities of primary product equivalents for any given year in the past for which is expressed in units of global hectares, Galli et al., 2007). Yield is expressed are then translated into an Ecological data exist. The detailed calculation defi ned as hectares of bioproductive in global hectares. In practice, global Footprint. The Ecological Footprint also methodology of the most updated area with world average bioproductivity. hectares are estimated with the help of two embodies the energy required for the Accounts—the National Footprint By expressing all results in a common factors: The yield factors (that compare manufacturing process. Accounts 2011 Edition—is described unit, biocapacity and Footprints can be national average yield per hectare to in Borucke et al. (2013). The National directly compared across land use types world average yield in the same land Footprint Accounts 2011 Edition and countries. category) and the equivalence factors CONSUMPTION, PRODUCTION, AND calculates the Ecological Footprint and (which capture the relative productivity TRADE Demand for resource production and biocapacity for about 150 countries and among the various land and sea area waste assimilation are translated into The National Footprint Accounts calculate regions, from 1961 to 2008. A short types). global hectares by dividing the total the Footprint of a population from a description of the methodology and number of perspectives. Most commonly amount of a resource consumed by the Therefore, the formula of the Ecological the data needs is also provided below. reported is the Ecological Footprint of yield per hectare, or dividing the waste Footprint becomes: consumption of a population, typically ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT emitted by the absorptive capacity per just called the Ecological Footprint. The The National Footprint Accounts 2011 hectare. Yields are calculated based on Ecological Footprint of consumption for a Edition track human demand for resources various international statistics, primarily given country measures the biocapacity and ecological services in terms of six those from the United Nations Food demanded by the fi nal consumption of all major land use types (cropland, grazing and Agriculture Organization (FAO where P is the amount of a product the residents of the country. This includes land, forest land, carbon Footprint, fi shing ResourceSTAT Statistical Databases). harvested or waste emitted (equal to their household consumption as well grounds, and built-up land). With the Yields are mutually exclusive: If two crops D above), YN is the national average as their collective consumption, such as exception of built-up land and forest for are grown at the same time on the same yield for P, and YF and EQF are the schools, roads, fi re brigades, etc., which carbon dioxide uptake, the Ecological hectare, one portion of the hectare is yield factor and equivalence factor, serve the household, but may not be Footprint of each major land use type is assigned to one crop, and the remainder respectively, for the country and land directly paid for by the households. calculated by summing the contributions of to the other. This avoids double counting. use type in question. The yield factor is the ratio of national- to world-average a variety of specifi c products. Built-up land This follows the same logic as measuring In contrast, a country’s primary production yields. It is calculated as the annual refl ects the bioproductivity compromised the size of a farm: Each hectare is only Ecological Footprint is the sum of the availability of usable products and varies by infrastructure and hydropower. Forest counted once, even though it might Footprints for all resources harvested by country and year. Equivalence factors land for carbon dioxide uptake represents provide multiple services. and waste generated within the country’s translate the area supplied or demanded the carbon absorptive capacity of a geographical borders. This includes all The Ecological Footprint, in its most of a specifi c land use type (e.g., world world average hectare of forest needed the area within a country necessary for basic form, is calculated by the following average cropland, grazing land, etc.) to absorb anthropogenic CO emissions, supporting the actual harvest of primary 2 equation: into units of world average biologically after having considered the ocean products (cropland, grazing land, forest productive area (global hectares) sequestration capacity (also called the land, and fi shing grounds), the country’s and vary by land use type and year. carbon Footprint). infrastructure and hydropower (built-up 32 MEDITERRANEAN ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT TRENDS land), and the area needed to absorb capacity is occupied by infrastructure Center for Global Trade Analysis. The by combining the Ecological Footprint fossil fuel carbon dioxide emissions (built-up land). In short, it measures the GTAP 7 Data Base contains data for 113 of household consumption, government generated within the country (carbon ability of available terrestrial and aquatic global regions and 57 industry sectors. consumption, and gross fi xed capital with Footprint). areas to provide ecological resources Environmentally extended input-output the results from the National Footprint and services. A country’s biocapacity for analysis for the Ecological Footprint Accounts by land use type. The difference between the production any land use type is calculated as: requires three key calculations in order to and consumption Footprint is trade, shown obtain results by industry sectors and fi nal by the following equation: demand: (1) Leontief inverse, (2) physical where BC is the biocapacity, A is the intensity for Ecological Footprint, and (3) area available for a given land use type, total Footprint intensity. and YF and EQF are the yield factor and where EF is the Ecological Footprint The Leontief inverse calculation provides C equivalence factor, respectively, for the of consumption, EFP is the Ecological the direct and indirect requirements of country land use type in question. Footprint of production, and EFI and any industry supplied by other industries to deliver one unit of output for fi nal EFE are the Footprints of imported and exported commodity fl ows, respectively. ENVIRONMENTALLY EXTENDED demand. The physical intensity for the INPUT-OUTPUT ANALYSIS FOR THE Ecological Footprint is calculated by ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT dividing the Ecological Footprint by each BIOCAPACITY land use type reported in the National Two sets of data are utilized to link Greece, A national biocapacity calculation starts Footprint Accounts by the total output Italy, Portugal and Spain’s Ecological with the total amount of bioproductive for fi nal demand, including imports. This Footprint with economic activities: (1) land—or ecological assets¬—available. represents the direct required Footprint per National Footprint Accounts and (2) “Bioproductive” refers to land and water unit of currency spent. The total Footprint national input-output tables presented in that supports signifi cant photosynthetic intensity provides the direct and indirect basic prices. activity and accumulation of biomass, Footprints of industrial sectors to provide ignoring barren areas of low, dispersed Monetary input-output tables were fi rst one unit of production to fi nal demand— productivity. This is not to say that areas proposed by Wassily Leontief in the including the entire supply chain. This such as the Sahara Desert, Antarctica, or early 20th century. The use of input- total Footprint intensity is calculated by Alpine mountaintops do not support life; output analysis to support physical fl ow multiplying the physical intensity by the their production is simply too widespread accounting gained early acceptance Leontief inverse. to be directly harvestable by humans. for energy and pollution analysis in the Results are then presented according to the Biocapacity is an aggregated measure of 1970s. Environmentally Extended Input- fi nal demand categories such as household the amount of land available, weighted Output (EEIO) models have been utilized consumption, government consumption, by the productivity of that land. It for material and energy fl ow accounting and gross fi xed capital formation. The represents the ability of the biosphere to and land use accounting to forecast household consumption results can be produce crops, livestock (pasture), timber trends and measure eco-effi ciency. further disaggregated according to the products (forest), and fi sh, as well as to For the analysis in this report, we utilize the Classifi cation of Individual Consumption uptake carbon dioxide in forests. It also by Purpose (COICOP). A Consumption includes how much of this regenerative Global Trade, Assistance, and Production (GTAP) data from Purdue University Land Use Matrix (CLUM) can be created 33 Dataset Source Data Sescription Dataset Source Data Sescription

Production of primary FAO ProdSTAT Data on physical quantities (tonnes) Cropland yields FAO ProdSTAT World average yield for 164 agricultural products of primary products produced in primary crop products each of the considered countries National yield factors for cropland Calculated by Global Footprint Country specifi c yield factors for Production of crop-based Feed from general marketed crops Data on physical quantities (tonnes) Network based on cropland yields cropland feeds used to feed animals data is directly drawn from the SUA/ of feeds, by type of crops, available and country specifi c unharvested FBS from FAOSTAT to feed livestock percentages Data on crops grown specifi cally for fodder is drawn directly from the FAO ProdSTAT Grazing land yields Chad Monfreda (personal World average yield for grass communication), 2008. SAGE, production. It represents the average University of Wisconsin, Madison above ground edible net primary Production of seeds Data on crops used as seeds is Data on physical quantities (tonnes) production for grassland available calculated by Global Footprint of seed for consumption by ruminants Network based on data from the FAO ProdSTAT Fish yields Calculated by Global Footprint Net- World-average yields for fi sh work based on several data sources species. They are based on the Import and Export of primary FAO TradeSTAT Data on physical quantities (tonnes) including: annual marine primary and derived agricultural and of products imported and exported • Sustainable catch value production equivalent livestock products by each of the considered countries (Gulland, 1971) • Trophic levels of fi sh species Import and Export of COMTRADE Data on physical quantities (kg) of (Fishbase Database available at non-agricultural commodities products imported and exported by www.fi shbase.org) each of the considered countries • Data on discard factors, effi ciency transfer, and carbon content of Livestock crop consumption Calculated by Global Footprint Data on crop-based feed for live- fi sh per tonne wet weight (Pauly Network based upon the following stock (tonnes of dry matter per year), and Christensen, 1995) datasets: split into different crop categories • FAO Production for primary Forest yields World average forest yield calcu- World average forest yield. It is Livestock lated by Global Footprint Network based on the forests’ Net Annual • Haberl et al., 2007. based on national Net Annual Increment of biomass. Increment (NAI) of biomass. NAI Production of primary forestry FAO ForeSTAT Data on physical quantities (tonnes data is drawn from two sources: NAI is defi ned as the average an- products as well as import and and m3) of products (timber and • Temperate and Boreal Forest nual volume over a given reference export of primary and derived wood fuel) produced, imported and Resource Assessment – TBFRA period of gross increment less that forestry products exported by each country (UNECE and FAO 2000) of neutral losses on all trees to a • Global Fiber Supply Model – minimum diameter of 0 cm (d.b.h.) Production of primary fi shery FAO FishSTAT Data on physical quantities (tonnes) GFSM (FAO, 1998) products as well as import and of marine and inland fi sh species export of primary and derived landed as well as import and export fi shery products of fi sh commodities Carbon Uptake Calculated by Global Footprint Net- World average carbon uptake ca- work based on data on terrestrial pacity. Though different ecosystems Carbon dioxide emissions by sector International Energy Agency (IEA) carbon sequestration (IPCC 2006) Data on total amounts of CO2 land yield have the capacity to sequester CO2, emitted by each sector of a and the ocean sequestration carbon uptake land is currently as- country’s economy percentage (Khatiwala et al., 2009) sumed to be forest land only by the Further details can be found in Ecological Footprint methodology Built-up/infrastructure areas A combination of data sources is used, Built-up areas by infrastructure (Borucke et al., 2013) in the following order of preference: type and country. Except for data 1. CORINE Land Cover drawn from CORINE for European Equivalence Calculated by Global Footprint Net- EQF for crop, grazing, forest 2. FAO ResourceSTAT countries, all other data sources only work based on data on land cover and marine land. Based upon 3. Global Agro-Ecological Zones provide total area values Factors (EQF and agricultural suitability the suitability of land as measured (GAEZ) Model Data on agricultural suitability is by the Global Agro-Ecological 4. Global Land Cover (GLC) 2000 obtained from the Global Agro-Eco- Zones model 5. Global Land Use Database from logical Zones (GAEZ) model (FAO the Center for Sustainability and and IIASA, 2000). the Global Environment (SAGE) at University of Wisconsin Land cover data drawn from the FAO ResourceSTAT database APPENDIX B: THE CARBON-PLUS APPROACH

Trends in Figure 2 illustrate the rapid ignore the impossibility of infi nite growth growth of human demand for ecological and remain entangled in ideological assets: Human demand is primarily made debates over the “affordability of of, though not limited to, demand for sustainability.” Clear metrics are needed the biosphere’s capacity to sequester to change these ideological debates into carbon. Earth’s natural carbon cycle discussions based on empirical facts, and Global Footprint Network argues that is out of balance. CO2 molecules are the Ecological Footprint could be one of being released into the atmosphere them. Understanding what the real risks a “carbon plus” view is necessary to faster than they can be sequestered, are will then facilitate building consensus and a larger surface of photosynthetic over the actions needed to address them. lands is now required to absorb the understand the signifi cance of current Former French President Nicolas extra CO responsible for this imbalance 2 Sarkozy’s “Commission on the (Kitzes et al., 2009). Demand for carbon Measurement of Economic Performance environmental trends and to take a sequestration is growing unabated—as and Social Progress” (also known as global population grows, standards of the “Stiglitz Commission”) emphasized living improve and demand for energy comprehensive, more effective approach the importance of complementing GDP and energy-intensive products increases with physical indicators for monitoring (Krausmann et al, 2009). environmental sustainability. Their report that tackles the full palette of human However, while signifi cant, carbon highlighted the Ecological Footprint and sequestration accounted for just over half one of its most signifi cant components, the demands on the biosphere’s of total world-average demand on the carbon Footprint. planet’s ecological assets in 2008. The While the Stiglitz Commission favored world’s appetite for water, food, timber, regenerative capacity. a focus only on the Carbon Footprint— marine and many other resources is also due to current carbon interest and the highly relevant to the overall health of the already established carbon accounting biosphere. Climate change is currently practices—for the reasons above Global seen as the most impending environmental Footprint Network argues that a “carbon issue, but it is just one of the many plus” view is necessary to understand symptoms of humanity’s overconsumption the signifi cance of current environmental of Earth’s ecological assets. trends and to take a comprehensive, Solving the sustainability challenge more effective approach that tackles the therefore requires a holistic approach, one full palette of human demands on the that can tackle multiple issues concurrently. biosphere’s regenerative capacity. Without a way of measuring the status (and human rate of use) of our ecological assets, it is easy for policy-makers to APPENDIX C: ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINIT: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

How is the Ecological Footprint copies of sample calculation sheets can be calculate Ecological Footprint and with each country’s total consumption calculated? obtained from www.footprintnetwork.org. biocapacity values (Borucke et al., 2013). by summing the Footprint of its imports The Ecological Footprint measures the and its production, and subtracting the amount of biologically productive land Footprint analyses can be conducted at What is included in the Ecological Footprint of its exports. This means that the and water area required to produce the any scale. There is growing recognition Footprint? What is excluded? resource use and emissions associated resources an individual, population or of the need to standardize sub-national To avoid exaggerating human demand with producing a car that is manufactured activity consumes and to absorb the waste Footprint applications in order to on nature, the Ecological Footprint in Japan, but sold and used in Italy, will it generates, given prevailing technology increase comparability across studies includes only those aspects of resource contribute to Italy’s rather than Japan’s and resource management. and time. Methods and approaches consumption and waste production consumption Footprint. for which the planet has regenerative for calculating the Footprint of National consumption Footprints can be municipalities, organizations and capacity, and where data exists that This area is expressed in global hectares allow this demand to be expressed in distorted when the resources used and products are being aligned through a (hectares with world-average biological terms of productive area. For example, waste generated in making products global Ecological Footprint standards productivity). Footprint calculations use toxic releases are not accounted for in for export are not fully documented for initiative. For more information on yield factors to normalize countries’ Ecological Footprint accounts. Nor are every country. Inaccuracies in reported Ecological Footprint standards see www. biological productivity to world freshwater withdrawals, although the trade can signifi cantly affect the Footprint averages (e.g., comparing tonnes of footprintstandards.org. energy used to pump or treat water is estimates for countries where trade fl ows wheat per UK hectare versus per world included. are large relative to total consumption. average hectare) and equivalence What is a global hectare (gha)? However, this does not affect the total factors to take into account differences A productivity-weighted area used to Ecological Footprint accounts provide global Footprint. in world average productivity among report both the biocapacity of Earth, snapshots of past resource demand How does the Ecological Footprint land types (e.g., world average forest and the demand on biocapacity (the and availability. They do not predict the Ecological Footprint). The global hectare account for the use of fossil fuels? versus world average cropland). future. Thus, while the Footprint does Fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural is normalized to the area-weighted not estimate future losses caused by gas are extracted from Earth’s crust and average productivity of biologically Footprint and biocapacity results for current degradation of ecosystems, if this are not renewable in ecological time countries are calculated annually productive land and water in a given degradation persists it may be refl ected spans. When these fuels burn, carbon by Global Footprint Network. year. Because different land types have in future accounts as a reduction in dioxide is emitted into the atmosphere. different productivity, a global hectare biocapacity. Collaborations with national governments There are two ways in which this CO2 are invited, and serve to improve the of cropland, for example, would occupy can be stored: human technological data and methodology used for the a smaller physical area than the much Footprint accounts also do not indicate sequestration of these emissions, such the intensity with which a biologically National Footprint Accounts. To date, less biologically productive pasture land, as deep-well injection, or natural productive area is being used. Being Switzerland has completed a review, and as more pasture would be needed to sequestration. Natural sequestration a biophysical measure, it also does occurs when ecosystems absorb CO and Belgium, Ecuador, Finland, Germany, provide the same biocapacity as one 2 not evaluate the essential social and store it either in standing biomass, such as Ireland, Japan and the UAE have hectare of cropland. In the National economic dimensions of sustainability. trees, or in soil. partially reviewed or are reviewing their Footprint Accounts 2011 Edition, a constant 2008 global hectare value—a accounts. The continuing methodological How is international trade taken The carbon Footprint of the Ecological hectare normalized to have world- development of the National Footprint into account? Footprint is calculated by estimating average bioproductivity in a single Accounts is overseen by a formal review The National Footprint Accounts calculate how much natural sequestration would committee. A detailed methods paper and reference year (2008)—was used to the Ecological Footprint associated be necessary to maintain a constant How does the Ecological Foot- concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. may result in depletion of ecosystems resources and technological innovation print account for carbon emissions After subtracting the amount of CO2 and overloading of waste sinks. This (for example, if the paper industry absorbed by the oceans, Ecological absorbed by the oceans versus ecosystem stress may negatively affect doubles the overall effi ciency of paper Footprint accounts calculate the area uptake by forests? biodiversity. However, the Footprint does production, the footprint per tonne of The National Footprint Accounts calculate required to absorb and retain the not measure this latter impact directly, nor paper will halve). the carbon Footprint component of the remaining carbon based on the average does it specify how much overshoot must Ecological Footprint by considering sequestration rate of the world’s forests. be reduced if negative impacts are to be Ecological Footprint Accounts capture sequestration from the world’s oceans CO sequestered by artifi cial means avoided. these changes once they occur and 2 and forests. would also be subtracted from the can determine the extent to which these Ecological Footprint total, but at present, Annual ocean uptake values are taken Does the Ecological Footprint say innovations have succeeded in bringing this quantity is negligible. from Khatiwala et al. (2009) and used what is a “fair” or “equitable” use human demand within the capacity of of resources? the planet’s ecosystems. If there is a with the anthropogenic carbon emissions The Footprint documents what has suffi cient increase in ecological supply Expressing CO emissions in terms of taken from CDIAC (2011). There is a 2 happened in the past. It can quantitatively and a reduction in human demand due to an equivalent bioproductive area does relatively constant percentage uptake for oceans, varying between 28 per cent describe the ecological resources used by technological advances or other factors, not imply that carbon sequestration in an individual or a population, but it does National Footprint Accounts will show this biomass is the key to resolving global and 35 per cent over the period 1961– 2008. The remaining CO requires land not prescribe what they should be using. as the elimination of global overshoot. climate change. On the contrary, it 2 based sequestration. Due to the limited Resource allocation is a policy issue, shows that the biosphere has insuffi cient based on societal beliefs about what capacity to offset current rates of availability of large-scale datasets, the calculation assumes the world average is or is not equitable. While Footprint anthropogenic CO emissions. The 2 sequestration rate for uptake of carbon accounting can determine the average contribution of CO emissions to the 2 dioxide into forests. The carbon Footprint, biocapacity that is available per person, total Ecological Footprint is based on an as calculated within the Ecological it does not stipulate how this biocapacity estimate of world average forest yields. For additional information about Footprint methodology, is thus a measure should be allocated among individuals This sequestration capacity may change of the area of world average forest land or countries. However, it does provide a current Ecological Footprint over time. As forests mature, their CO context for such discussions. 2 that is necessary to sequester the carbon methodology, data sources, sequestration rates tend to decline. If dioxide emissions that are not absorbed assumptions and results, please these forests are degraded or cleared, into the world’s oceans. How relevant is the Ecological they may become net emitters of CO2. Footprint if the supply of renewable refer to Borucke et al., 2013: Does the Ecological Footprint take resources can be increased and “Accounting for demand and Carbon emissions from some sources into account other species? advances in technology can slow the supply of the Biosphere’s other than fossil fuel combustion are The Ecological Footprint compares human depletion of non-renewable resources? incorporated in the National Footprint demand on biodiversity with the natural The Ecological Footprint measures the regenerative capacity: the National Accounts at the global level. These world’s capacity to meet this demand. current state of resource use and waste Footprint Accounts’ underlying include fugitive emissions from the fl aring It thus serves as an indicator of human generation. It asks: In a given year, did of gas in oil and natural gas production, pressure on local and global ecosystems. human demands on ecosystems exceed methodology and framework”. carbon released by chemical reactions In 2008, humanity’s demand exceeded the ability of ecosystems to meet these Ecological Indicators, 24, 518-533. in cement production and emissions from the biosphere’s regeneration rate by demands? Footprint analysis refl ects both tropical forest fi res. more than 50 percent. This overshoot increases in the productivity of renewable GLOSSARY OF ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT TERMS

ASSETS Footprint should not be confused with the CONSUMPTION ECOLOGICAL DEFICIT Durable capital that is either owned or “Carbon Footprint” indicator used in the COMPONENTS (or biocapacity defi cit) able to be used in production, whether climate change debate. This latter indicates (also consumption categories) he difference between the biocapacity and natural, manufactured, or human. Assets the tonnes of carbon (or tonnes of carbon Ecological Footprint analyses can allocate the Ecological Footprint of consumption of are not directly consumed, but yield prod- per euro) that are directly and indirectly total Footprint among consumption com- a region or country. An ecological defi cit ucts and/or services that people do con- caused by an activity or are accumulated ponents, typically Food, Shelter, Mobility, occurs when the Ecological Footprint of a sume. Ecological assets are defi ned as the over the life stages of a product, rather Goods, and Services—often with further population exceeds the biocapacity pro- biologically productive land and sea areas than demand on bioproductive area (see resolution into sub-components. Consistent duced by the ecological assets available that generate the renewable resources and Galli et al., 2012 for details). categorization across studies allows for in the country where that population lives. ecological services that humans demand. comparison of the Footprint of individual If there is a regional or national ecological COMPETITIVENESS consumption components across regions, defi cit, it means that the region is importing BIOCAPACITY The ability of a country to maintain and and the relative contribution of each cat- biocapacity through trade or liquidating The ability of ecological assets to produce secure its prosperity. egory to the region’s overall Footprint. regional ecological assets. In contrast, eco- useful biological materials and ecological logical overshoot cannot be compensated through trade. services such as absorbing CO2 emissions CONSUMPTION COUNTRY INCOME CATEGORIES generated by humans, using current man- Use of goods or services. The term con- Countries are assigned to high-, middle- or ECOLOGICAL RESERVE agement schemes and extraction technolo- sumption has two different meanings, low-income categories based on World (or Biocapacity reserve): gies. Biocapacity is measured in global depending on context. As commonly used Bank income thresholds; for this report, Again determined by the comparison hectares. Useful biological materials are in Footprint analyses, it refers to the use of the 2008 Gross National Income (GNI) between the biocapacity and the Ecologi- defi ned as those materials that the human goods or services. A consumed good or per person was used as threshold. This is cal Footprint of consumption of a region economy actually demanded in a given service embodies all the resources, includ- calculated by dividing the gross national or country, an ecological reserve exists year. Biocapacity includes only biologi- ing energy, necessary to provide it to the income of each country (converted to when the biocapacity of a region exceeds cally productive land: cropland, forest, fi sh- consumer (aka embedded Footprint). In US dollars using the World Bank Atlas its population’s Ecological Footprint of ing grounds, grazing land, built-up land; full life-cycle accounting, everything used method), by the mid-year population (for consumption. Ecological reserve is thus the deserts, glaciers, and the open ocean are along the production chain is taken into ac- more information see The World Bank, converse of ecological defi cit. Although a excluded. count, including any losses along the way. 2012). The categories are: Low income: country in ecological reserve may still im- For example, consumed food includes not ≤US$1,026 GNI per person; Middle in- port natural resources, over-use individual CARBON FOOTPRINT only the plant or animal matter people eat come: US$1,026 -12,475 GNI per person components of domestic resources, and When used in Ecological Footprint studies, or waste in the household, but also that lost (combines World Bank categories of lower emit carbon dioxide to the global com- it indicates the demand on biocapacity during processing or harvest, as well as all middle and upper middle income); High mons, an ecological reserve indicates that required to sequester (through photosyn- the energy used to grow, harvest, process income: ≥US$12,475 GNI per person. a country may be capable of maintaining thesis) the carbon dioxide (CO ) emissions and transport the food. 2 its current lifestyle utilizing only domesti- from fossil fuel combustion. Although fossil As used in Input Output analysis, consump- CURRENT ACCOUNT BALANCE cally available ecological assets. fuels are extracted from Earth’s crust and tion has a strict technical meaning. Two It indicates the difference between a coun- are not regenerated in human time scales, types of consumption are distinguished: try’s savings and its investment. When the their use demands ecological services if intermediate and fi nal. According to balance is positive (Current account sur- ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT plus), it measures the portion of a country’s A measure of the biologically productive the resultant CO2 is not to accumulate in (economic) System of National Accounts the atmosphere. The Ecological Footprint terminology, intermediate consumption saving invested abroad; conversely, when land and sea area—the ecological as- therefore includes a carbon Footprint com- refers to the use of goods and services by the balance is negative (Current account sets—that a population requires to produce ponent, which represents the biocapacity a business in providing goods and services defi cit), it measures the portion of domestic the renewable resources and ecological (typically that of unharvested forests) need- to other businesses. Final consumption investment fi nanced by foreigners’ savings. services it uses. ed to absorb that fraction of fossil CO2 that refers to non-productive use of goods and is not absorbed by the ocean. The carbon services by households, the government, Footprint component of the Ecological the capital sector, and foreign entities. ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT OF country’s Ecological Footprint of produc- throughout the world. The use of global dustrial activities along production chains, CONSUMPTION tion but are not included in its Ecological hectares recognizes that different types of or to assign these impacts to fi nal demand The Ecological Footprint of consumption Footprint of consumption; rather, they are land have a different ability to produce categories. In Ecological Footprint studies, is the most commonly reported type of included in the Ecological Footprint of con- useful goods and services for humans. One IO analysis is used to apportion Ecologi- Ecological Footprint. It is the area used to sumption of the country that imports hectare of cropland can produce a greater cal Footprints among production activities, support a defi ned population’s consump- the t-shirts. quantity of useful and valuable food prod- or among categories of fi nal demand (or tion. The Ecological Footprint of consump- ucts than a single hectare of grazing land, consumption categories). tion (in global hectares) includes the area ECOLOGICAL OVERSHOOT for example. By converting both cropland needed to produce the materials con- Global ecological overshoot occurs when and pasture into global hectares, they can NATIONAL FOOTPRINT ACCOUNTS sumed and the area needed to absorb the humanity’s demand on the natural world be compared on an equal basis. Addition- The central data set that calculates the waste. The consumption Footprint of a na- exceeds the biosphere’s supply, or regen- al information on the global hectares and Ecological Footprints and biocapacities of tion is calculated in the National Footprint erative capacity. Such overshoot leads to a the way they are calculated is provided in the world, and roughly 150 nations and Accounts as a nation’s primary production depletion of Earth’s life-supporting natural Borucke et al., (2013). territories from 1961 to the present (gen- Footprint plus the Footprint of imports capital and a build-up of waste. At the erally with a three-year lag due to data minus the Footprint of exports, and is thus, global level, ecological defi cit and over- HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX availability). The ongoing development, strictly speaking, a Footprint of apparent shoot are the same, since there is no net-import (HDI) maintenance and upgrades of the Na- consumption. The national average or per of resources to the planet. Local overshoot oc- HDI is a summary composite index that tional Footprint Accounts are coordinated capita Ecological Footprint of consumption curs when a local ecosystem is exploited more measures a country’s average achieve- by Global Footprint Network and its 70+ is equal to a country’s Ecological Footprint rapidly than it can renew itself. ments in three basic aspects of human de- partners. of consumption divided by its population. velopment: Health—Life expectancy at birth EMBEDDED FOOTPRINT (number of years a newborn infant would NET ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT OF The Ecological Footprint embedded in a live if prevailing patterns of mortality at the OF TRADE PRODUCTION product represents the amount of eco- time of birth were to stay the same through- Embedded in trade among countries is a In contrast to the Ecological Footprint logical assets demanded to produce that out the child’s life); Knowledge—The adult use of ecological resources and services of consumption, a nation’s Ecological product. In the trade Footprint analysis, the literacy rate and the combined primary, needed to produce traded commodi- Footprint of production is the sum of the Footprint embedded in a traded products secondary and tertiary gross enrolment ties (their embedded Footprint); the net Footprints for all of the resources harvested represent the amount of global hectares ratio; and Standard of living—GDP per Ecological Footprint of trade is defi ned as and all of the waste generated within the needed to produce such product and/ capita (PPP US$). the Ecological Footprint of imports minus defi ned geographical region. It repre- the Ecological Footprint of exports. When or sequester the CO2 released during its sents the amount of ecological demand processing in the country of production. INPUT-OUTPUT ANALYSIS the Footprint embodied in exports is higher associated with generating the country’s Input-Output (IO) analysis is a math- than that of imports, then a country is a net national income. The Footprint of produc- GLOBAL HECTARES (GHA) ematical tool widely used in economics to Footprint exporter; conversely, a country tion includes all the area within a country A global hectare is defi ned as a hectare analyze the fl ows of goods and services in which Footprint of imports is higher than necessary for supporting the actual harvest with world-average productivity for all between sectors in an economy, using data that of exports is a net Footprint importer. of primary products (cropland, pasture biologically productive land and water in from IO tables. IO analysis assumes that land, forestland and fi shing grounds), the a given year. Biologically productive land everything produced by one industry is country’s built-up area (roads, factories, includes areas such as cropland, forest, consumed either by other industries or by cities), and the area needed to absorb all and fi shing grounds, and excludes deserts, fi nal consumers, and that these consump- fossil fuel carbon emissions generated by glaciers, and the open ocean. Global tion fl ows can be tracked. If the relevant production activities within the country’s hectares are the common, standardized data are available, IO analyses can be geographical boundaries. For example, unit used for reporting Ecological Footprint used to track both physical and fi nancial if a country grows cotton for export, the and biocapacity across time and for areas fl ows. Combined economic-environment ecological resources and services required models use IO analysis to trace the direct to produce such cotton are included in that and indirect environmental impacts of in- REFERENCES

Abdullatif, L., Alam, T., 2011. The UAE Daniels, P., Hyslop, S. 2006. Almanac Galli, A., Wiedmann, T., Ercin, E., and Fisheries Working Papers, No. Ecological Footprint Initiative: Summary of World History. Washington, D.C.: Knoblauch, D., Ewing, B., Giljum, S. 52, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi. report 2007-2010. Available at: http:// National Geographic Society. 2012. Integrating Ecological, Carbon org/10.1787/5kg0t00nrthc-en awsassets.panda.org/downloads/ and Water footprint into a “Footprint DeFries, R.S., Foley, J.A., Asner, G.P., Khatiwala, S. et al., 2009. en_fi nal_report_ecological_footprint.pdf Family” of indicators: Defi nition and role 2004. Land-use choices: balancing Reconstruction of the history of in tracking human pressure on the planet. Barnard, L., Cooney, H., Edwards, C., human needs and ecosystem function. anthropogenic CO2 concentrations in Ecological Indicators, 16, 100-112. Etherington, K., Imwold, D., Jackson, H., Front. Ecol. Environ., 2 (5), 249–257. the ocean. Nature, 462, 346-350. Lord, M., Nally, J., Savage, A., Taylor, Global Footprint Network, Diamond, J. 2006. Collapse: How Kitzes, J., A. Galli, S.M. Rizk, A. M. 2010. All of History. Elanora Heights, 2011. National Footprint Accounts Societies Choose to Succeed or Fail. Reed and M. Wackernagel. 2008. Australia: Millenium House. 2011 Edition. Available at: www. London: Penguin Books. Guidebook to the National Footprint footprintnetwork.org. Barnosky, A.D., Hadly, E.A., DG Environment, 2008. Potential of Accounts: 2008 Edition. Oakland: Bascompte, J., Berlow, E.L., et al., 2012. the Ecological Footprint for monitoring Global Footprint Network, 2011. Global Footprint Network. Approaching a state shift in Earth’s Resource Constraints and Economic environmental impact from natural Kitzes, J., Galli, A, Bagliani, M., Barrett, biosphere. Nature, 486, 52-58. Performance in Eastern Europe and resource use. Available on-line: http:// J., et al., 2009. A Research Agenda for Central Asia. Report to UNDP Bratislava, Blainey, G. 2005. A Short History of ec.europa.eu/ environment/natres/ Improving National Ecological Footprint Global Footprint Network, Oakland, and the 20th Century. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee studies.htm Accounts. Ecological Economics, 68 (7), UNDP, Bratislava. Available at: http:// Publisher. 1991– 2007. Dobbs, R., Oppenheim, J., Thompson, www.undp.org/ Borucke, M., Moore, D., Cranston, G., F., Brinkman, M., Zornes, M. 2011. Krausmann, F., Gingrich, S., Global Footprint Network, Gracey, K., Iha, K., Larson, J., Lazarus, E., Resource Revolution: Meeting the Eisenmenger, N., Erb, K.H., Haberl, H., 2012. Why Are Recourse Limits Now Morales, J.C., Wackernagel, M., Galli, World’s energy, material, food and Fischer-Kowalski, M., 2009. Growth Undermining Economic Performance? A. 2013. Accounting for demand and water needs. McKinsey & Company. in global materials use, GDP and Available at: www.footprintnetwork.org/ supply of the Biosphere’s regenerative population during the 20th century. Eurostat 2006. http://epp.eurostat. med capacity: the National Footprint ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS- Ecological Economics, 68(10), Accounts’ underlying methodology and AU-06-001/EN/KS-AU-06-001-EN.PDF Heinberg, R. 2007. Peak Everything: 2696–2705. framework. Ecological Indicators, 24, Waking Up to the Century of Decline in Monfreda, C., Wackernagel, M., 518-533. Also available at: http://www. Ewing B., S. Goldfi nger, A. Oursler, Earth’s Resources. Forest Row: Clairview Deumling, D., 2004. Establishing footprintnetwork.org/images/uploads/ A. Reed, D. Moore, M. Wackernagel. Books Ltd. national natural capital accounts based Methods_Paper_2011.pdf 2010. The Ecological Footprint Atlas 2010. Oakland: Global Footprint Hoekstra, A.Y., 2009. Human on detailed Ecological Footprint and Butchart, S.H.M., Walpole, M., Collen, Network. appropriation of natural capital: a biological capacity assessments. Land B., van Strien, A., et al., 2010. Global comparison of ecological footprint and Use Policy, 21(3), 231-246. biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Galli, A., Kitzes, J., Wermer, P., water footprint analysis. Ecological Moore, D., Galli, A., Cranston, G.R., Science, 328, 1164–1168. Wackernagel, M., Niccolucci, V., Economics, 68, 1963–1974. Tiezzi, E., 2007. An Exploration of the Reed, A. 2012. Projecting future human Costanza, R. 1997. The value of the Mathematics behind the Ecological Huchet-Bourdon, M., 2011. demand on the Earth’s regenerative world’s ecosystem services and natural Footprint. International Journal of Agricultural Commodity Price Volatility: capacity. Ecological Indicators, 16, 3-10. capital. Nature, 387, 253-260. Ecodynamics, 2(4), 250-257. An Overview. OECD Food, Agriculture 40 MEDITERRANEAN ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT TRENDS

Robinson, J., Bradley, M., Busby, Mediterranean, UNEP/MAP, Athens, at http://data.worldbank.org/ P., Connor, D., et al., 2006. Climate October 2009. data-catalog/commodity-price-data Change and Sustainable Development: [Accessed May 2012]. UNEP/MAP-Plan Bleu , Benoit Realizing the Opportunity. Ambio, 35(1), Guillaume (dir.), Comeau Aline (dir.) 2-8. (2005). A sustainable future for Rockström, R., Steffen, W., Noone, the Mediterranean: the Blue Plan’s K., Persson, A., et al., 2009. A safe environment and development outlook. operating space for humanity. Nature, Earthscan 461, 472-475. Wackernagel, M., B. Schulz, D. Sen, A. 2001. Development as freedom. Deumling, A. Callejas Linares, M. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Jenkins, V. Kapos, C. Monfreda, J. Loh, N. Myers, R. Norgaard and J. Randers. Turner, G.H., 2008. A comparison of 2002. Tracking the ecological overshoot The Limits to Growth with 30 years of of the human economy. Proc. Natl. Acad. reality. Global Environmental Change, Sci., 99(14), 9266-9271. 18, 397-411. Wackernagel, M., L. Onisto, P. UNDP (United Nations Development Bello, Al. C. Linares, I. S. L. Falfán, J. Programme), 2011. Human Development M. García, A. I. S. Guerrero, Ma. G. Report 2011. Sustainability and Equity: S. Guerrero. 1999a. National natural A Better Future for All. Published for the capital accounting with the ecological United Nations Development Programme footprint concept. Ecological Economics, (UNDP). 29, 375-390. UNEP (United Nations Environment Wackernagel, M., Lewan, L., Programme), 2007. GEO4 Global Hansson, C.B., 1999b. Evaluating the Environment Outlook: environment for use of natural capital with the ecological development. Progress Press Ltd, Malta. footprint. Ambio, 28, 604–612. UNEP Mediterranean Strategy for World Bank, 2011. World Sustainable development: a framework Development Indicators & Global for environmental sustainability and Development Finance (World shared prosperity. Mediterranean Action Plan (MAP), Mediterranean Commission Bank, Washington, DC, December on Sustainable Development (MCSD), 2011. Available at: http://databank. 2006 worldbank.org. UNEP/MAP-Plan Bleu State of the World Bank, 2012. Commodity Price Environment and Development in the Data (a.k.a. Pink Sheet). Available

41 ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT COMPONENTS

Total Per capita Fishing Ecological Ecological Cropland Grazing land Forest ground Carbon Built up COUNTRY Population Footprint Footprint Footprint Footprint Footprint Footprint Footprint Footprint

[-] [million gha] [gha per capita] [gha per capita] [gha per capita] [gha per capita] [gha per capita] [gha per capita] [gha per capita] Albania 3,181,000 5.76 1.81 0.71 0.21 0.09 0.02 0.71 0.06 Algeria 34,428,000 56.74 1.65 0.51 0.35 0.13 0.02 0.62 0.02 Bosnia and Herzegovina 3,774,000 10.34 2.74 0.78 0.22 0.48 0.04 1.16 0.05 Croatia 4,418,000 18.53 4.19 1.02 0.13 0.66 0.07 1.89 0.43 Cyprus 1,077,000 4.78 4.44 1.19 0.23 0.41 0.07 2.54 0.00 Egypt 78,323,000 132.80 1.70 0.66 0.07 0.16 0.03 0.59 0.18 France 62,098,000 304.96 4.91 1.25 0.39 0.60 0.18 2.24 0.25 Greece 11,292,000 55.57 4.92 1.26 0.53 0.38 0.13 2.53 0.11 Israel 7,092,000 28.07 3.96 0.86 0.36 0.33 0.01 2.33 0.06 Italy 59,891,000 271.00 4.52 1.03 0.40 0.46 0.14 2.39 0.10 Jordan 5,849,000 12.46 2.13 0.66 0.41 0.18 0.05 0.74 0.09 Lebanon 4,167,000 11.87 2.85 0.66 0.48 0.28 0.05 1.33 0.05 Libya 6,150,000 19.60 3.19 0.65 0.54 0.12 0.04 1.82 0.02 Macedonia TFYR 2,053,000 11.01 5.36 0.79 0.21 0.33 0.07 3.87 0.09 Malta 414,000 1.81 4.38 0.77 0.76 0.31 - 2.55 - Montenegro 629,000 0.77 1.22 0.31 0.32 0.48 0.11 - - Morocco 31,321,000 41.45 1.32 0.60 0.21 0.06 0.05 0.37 0.03 Occupied Palestinian Territories 3,827,000 1.77 0.46 0.33 0.05 - 0.00 0.09 - Portugal 10,635,000 43.78 4.12 0.96 - 0.14 0.95 2.01 0.05 Slovenia 2,018,000 10.52 5.21 0.94 0.25 0.61 0.04 3.22 0.15 Spain 45,146,000 214.00 4.74 1.26 0.31 0.35 0.38 2.39 0.06 Syria 19,694,000 28.64 1.45 0.48 0.16 0.05 0.01 0.71 0.04 Tunisia 10,247,000 18.08 1.76 0.65 0.12 0.21 0.10 0.66 0.03 Turkey 70,924,000 181.20 2.55 0.92 0.08 0.28 0.03 1.17 0.07

42 BIOCAPACITY COMPONENTS

Ecological Ecological Total Per capita Cropland Grazing land Forest land Fishing grounds Built-up land COUNTRY defi cit (reserve) defi cit (reserve) biocapacity biocapacity

[million gha] [gha per capita] [million gha] [gha per capita] [gha per capita] [gha per capita] [gha per capita] [gha per capita] [gha per capita]

Albania 2.96 0.93 2.81 0.88 0.41 0.13 0.20 0.08 0.06 Algeria 37.40 1.09 19.34 0.56 0.19 0.31 0.02 0.01 0.02 Bosnia and Herzegovina 4.16 1.10 6.17 1.64 0.41 0.26 0.91 0.00 0.05 Croatia 5.61 1.27 12.92 2.92 0.87 0.17 1.14 0.32 0.43 Cyprus 4.52 4.20 0.26 0.24 0.13 - 0.05 0.06 0.00 Egypt 81.54 1.04 51.26 0.65 0.45 - 0.00 0.02 0.18 France 119.27 1.92 185.69 2.99 1.47 0.24 0.87 0.16 0.25 Greece 37.66 3.34 17.90 1.59 1.03 0.09 0.14 0.22 0.11 Israel 26.01 3.67 2.06 0.29 0.17 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.06 Italy 202.40 3.38 68.59 1.15 0.62 0.06 0.30 0.06 0.10 Jordan 11.07 1.89 1.39 0.24 0.09 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.09 Lebanon 10.22 2.45 1.64 0.39 0.22 0.05 0.06 0.01 0.05 Libya 15.52 2.52 4.08 0.66 0.15 0.23 0.02 0.24 0.02 Macedonia TFYR 7.82 3.81 3.19 1.55 0.53 0.22 0.70 0.01 0.09 Malta 1.62 3.92 0.19 0.46 0.10 - - 0.37 - Montenegro (0.51) (0.81) 1.28 2.03 0.13 0.45 1.26 0.19 - Morocco 19.64 0.63 21.82 0.70 0.30 0.18 0.09 0.10 0.03 Occupied Palestinian Territories 1.26 0.33 0.50 0.13 0.11 0.02 0.00 - - Portugal 30.02 2.82 13.76 1.29 0.29 0.24 0.64 0.07 0.05 Slovenia 5.28 2.62 5.23 2.59 0.37 0.23 1.84 0.00 0.15 Spain 148.13 3.28 65.87 1.46 0.98 0.11 0.25 0.06 0.06 Syria 17.39 0.88 11.26 0.57 0.37 0.11 0.04 0.00 0.04 Tunisia 8.26 0.81 9.82 0.96 0.53 0.09 0.05 0.25 0.03 Turkey 88.47 1.25 92.73 1.31 0.74 0.13 0.32 0.05 0.07

43 Global Footprint Network is an international science and policy institute working to advance sustainability through use of the Ecological Footprint, a resource accounting tool that measures how much nature we have, how much we use, U.S. OFFICE 312 Clay Street, Suite 300 and who uses what. By making ecological limits central to decision making, we Oakland, CA 94607-3510 USA are working to end overshoot and create a society where all people can live 1 (510) 839 8879 well, within the means of our one planet. Global Footprint Network has offi ces EUROPE OFFICE in Oakland (California, USA), Brussels (Belgium), Zurich (Switzerland), Geneva International Environment House 2 7-9 chemin de Balexert (Switzerland), and Washington, DC (USA). 1219 Chatelaine (Geneva) SWITZERLAND T: +41 22 797 41 08 [email protected] www.footprintnetwork.org