Ecological Footprints and Sustainable Development

Ecological Economics 32 (2000) 359–362 www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon

COMMENTARY

FORUM: THE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT

Ecological footprints and sustainable development

Ian Moffatt

Department of En6ironmental Science, Uni6ersity of Stirling, Stirling FK94 LA, Scotland, UK

1. Introduction 2. Advantages and limitations of the ecological footprint concept The concept of the ecological footprint is well known amongst ecological economists. It repre- The ecological footprint methodology and re- sents the human impact on the Earth in a clear sults are well documented and need not be repeated manner. As its originators note, the ecological here (Rees and Wackernagel, 1994; Wackernagel footprint calculations have reinforced the view that and Rees, 1996). The most important message if everyone enjoyed a North American standard of emerging from the analysis of the Lower Fraser living then globally this would require three earths basin and of Vancouver City was that to maintain — although finding two other planets would be the lifestyle of these communities they would re- difficult (Wackernagel and Rees, 1996). Simply quire 12 and 207 times the geographical area of the stated, we are living beyond our biophysical means. home territory (Rees, 1999). Similar studies in The ecological footprint is one attempt at devel- Scotland and the Netherlands have shown that the oping a biophysically-based ecological economics, land mass required to support the population is six which approximates reality better than many eco- and 15 times, respectively (Moffatt, 1996). nomic expansionist models. This paper examines There are several advantages and limitations the ecological footprint as one contribution to the associated with the development of the ecological overall goal of making human development sus- footprint concept (Table 1). The major advantage tainable for current and future generations living in of the ecological footprint concept over some harmony with the rest of the biosphere. The follow- other indicators like environmental space (Moffatt, ing section briefly describes the advantages and 1996; McLaren et al., 1998) is that the former limitations of the ecological footprint methodol- concept gives a clear, unambiguous message often ogy. Section 3 then suggests ways in which some of in an easily digested form. The clarity of the these limitations can be overcome so as to make a message is an important function of any indicator useful contribution to the transformation of soci- for both policy makers and the general public. eties onto paths of equitable, ecologically sound Next, the calculation upon which the ecological and economically sensible sustainable develop- footprint is based is relatively easy to undertake ment. and much of the data is available at different

Table 1 course to viewing the ecological footprint The advantages and limitations of the ecological footprint through historical time. Such historical studies Advantages Limitations may unearth the processes leading to unsustainable practices at different spatial scales. More Is an areal unit a suitable measure? important, however, is the need to develop a Unambiguous A static analysis dynamic approach for exploring different scenar- message Simple to calcu- Ignores technological change ios of development (Moffatt, 1996; Lange, 1999) late into the early years of the next millennium, at Includes trade Ignores underground resources least if we wish for development to be made It is a stock Ignores flows sustainable — as in the Brundtland Report Lacks measures of equity No policy prescriptions (World Commission on Environment and Devel- opment, 1987) and the Local Agenda 21 agree- ments emerging since the Rio Conference in 1992. Third, as in many studies of sustainability spatial scales. Third, more detailed calculations the role of technological change is ignored, but do include trade within the ecological footprint. it would be worth exploring. Presumably, the If world trade were included then, under the ecological footprint could be substantially re- assumption of all areas maintaining their inhabi- duced by several practices. These would include tants’ standards of living, there would be some using environmentally friendly technologies, us- losers as well as winners. A glance at the Hu- ing current technologies more efficiently or re- man Development Index gives some empirical ducing the throughput of resources. Fourth, at support of the increasing numbers of poor present the ecological footprint does not con- within the Third World as well as pockets of sider the oceans and underground resources in- poor and a growing underclass in rich Western cluding water. Fifth, the ecological footprint democracies. Fourth, the measure is simply represents a stock measure. It would be useful stated as a stock, for example, x units of land to integrate the stock measure with the flows per capita. It is obvious that each areal unit can into or out of an area. The use of material also supply a flow of goods, information, natu- flows or integrated economic and environmental ral and manmade capital as well as pollution accounting (United Nations, 1990) linked to a into and out of the region. dynamic model of sustainable development As with most measures of sustainable devel- would help. As Daly has suggested in many opment there are several limitations to the eco- publications, reducing the throughput is an im- logical footprint. First, as a bald statement of portant aspect for achieving sustainable develop- the magnitude of the problem facing humankind ment (Daly, 1977). Sixth, even if the throughput it is clear that the simple statement of the eco- was reduced and sustainable development was logical footprint is not in itself anything more achieved, the thorny ethical problem of an equi- than an important attention grabbing device. table distribution for current and future genera- Some writers like Selman note ‘‘that it is point- tions needs to be examined. At present few less to argue for a direct equivalence between a measures include this aspect of equity in the region’s area and its ecological footprint’’ (Sel- man 1996, p. 38) and others have argued for the structure — the index of sustainable economic need to consider spatial flows of trade in the welfare (ISEW) being one exception (Daly and derivation of indicators of sustainable develop- Cobb, 1989). Finally, it offers no policy sugges- ment (Van den Bergh and Verbruggen, 1999). tions apart from either including more land, re- Second, as currently constructed, the ecological ducing population, or reducing consumption per footprint is a static measure. It is possible to head. The policy instruments required to achieve examine the dynamics of this measure by re- such desirable goals are not stated. I. Moffatt / Ecological Economics 32 (2000) 359–362 361

3. Indicators: moving towards sustainable neo-classical economists have a different view on development equity, usually Pareto optimality, than many ecological economists). Given this hypothetical situa- One of the key aspects of sustainable develop- tion decision-makers would still have the problem ment is that it makes us consider the problems of of choosing the right mix of policy instruments to intergenerational and intragenerational equity. As ensure that the chosen path was sustainable (Ma currently reported the ecological footprint merely et al., 1996). Unfortunately, making such a choice shows that current human development is unsus- is shrouded in uncertainty. This uncertainty tainable — we only have one Earth (Ward and would be present in any system of indicators used Dubos, 1972). Yet, if we are to actively engage in for forward planning and management. Accepting the processes of making development sustainable that there are uncertainties in any scenario then we need to establish indicators so that we know if there is a need for careful monitoring of the major we are moving towards or away from a sustain- indicators of sustainable development to ensure able future. We also need to consider which tra- that the implemented policies are having the de- jectories are equitable, economically and sired effect. Unfortunately, it is at this point ecologically desirable and achievable. where many of the indicators of sustainable devel- There is a plethora of indicators attempting to opment, including the ecological footprint, are at capture the economic, environmental and social their weakest. aspects of sustainable development (Moffatt, 1996; Hanley et al., 1999). Some researchers have relied on a set of indicators covering environmen- 4. Conclusions tal, social and economic aspects of reality. Others have attempted to develop a unified framework. This brief paper has described the advantages The former suggests that integrating indicators of and limitations of the ecological footprint con- economic, environmental and social aspects of cept. It has been suggested that as a method for sustainable development in one framework is use- raising awareness of our impact on the earth it is ful, although it could be argued that such integra- strikingly clear. The fact that there is a minimum tive indicators hide more than they reveal. Only a amount of land per capita to support all life few have examined current and future impacts on including humans is important. Beyond the strik- the life support systems such as long-term envi- ing message, however, there is a need to explore in ronmental damage in the ISEW (Daly and Cobb, depth the flows into and out of the area and the 1989; Moffatt and Wilson, 1994). Very few indica- equally important problems of intra- and inter- tors have examined inequalities within and be- generational equity. It is this crucial part of the tween generations (ISEW and the environmental ongoing debate that the ecological footprint or space concepts are the exception). other methods need to address. Imagine, then, that a single index of sustainable It has been argued that by combining ecological development was produced. It would be clear, footprints with more detailed methods, such as from the ecological footprint arguments, that input/output or natural resource accounting, fur- some of the Earth’s ecosystems should be set aside ther detailed work of relevance to policy makers (like some form of safe minimum standard). De- will become available. Such static approaches termining such a minimum amount of the ecosys- would still need to be made dynamic and the tem is difficult, but for the sake of this argument thorny issues surrounding intergenerational equity let us assume that this is agreed. Then a set of would have to be addressed. To develop an inter- different trajectories of unsustainable and sustain- nally consistent theory of economic ecological able development could be ‘forecast’ using dy- interactions requires a fundamentally new theory namic modelling and GIS (Moffatt, 1996; Moffatt and associated new measures of sustainable devel- et al., 2000). We could also assume that the opment. It has been suggested that one way of sustainable trajectories are equitable (although advancing the concept of sustainable development 362 I. Moffatt / Ecological Economics 32 (2000) 359–362 is to develop a dynamic simulation model and McLaren, D., Bullock, S., Yousuf, N., 1998. Tomorrows’ integrate this with GIS so that the spatial and World: Britain’s Share in a Sustainable World. Earth- scan, London. temporal problems of the unsustainable nature of Moffatt, I., 1996. Sustainable Development: Principles, Anal- practices can be measured. ysis and Policies. Parthenon Press, Carnforth. If such research were pursued in an holistic, Moffatt, I., Wilson, M.D., 1994. An index of sustainable integrated manner then the ecological footprint economic welfare for Scotland. Int. J. Sustainable Dev. concept would be greatly extended and deepened. World Ecol. 1, 264–291. More importantly such research could offer policy Moffatt, I., Hanley, N., Wilson, M.D., 2000. Measuring and modelling sustainable development (in preparation). makers and members of the public some direction Selman, P., 1996. Local Sustainability: Managing and Plan- in their heartfelt quest to make development eco- ning Ecologically Sound Practices. Chapman, London. nomically sound, socially just and ecologically Rees, W.E., Wackernagel, M., 1994. Ecological Footprints sustainable. and appropriated carrying capacity: measuring the natural capital requirements of the human economy. In: In- vesting in Natural Capital: The Ecological Economics Approach to Sustainability. Island Press, Washington. References Rees, W.E., 1999. Consuming the earth: the biophysics of sustainability. Ecol. Econ. 29 (1), 23–27. Daly, H.E., 1977. Steady State: The Economics of Biophysi- United Nations, 1990. SNA Handbook of Integrated Envi- cal and Moral Growth. Freeman, San Francisco, CA. ronmental and Economic Accounting Draft. UN, United Daly, H.E., Cobb, C., 1989. For the Common Good: Redi- Nations Statistics Office, New York, NY. recting the Economy toward the Community, the Envi- Van den Bergh, J., Verbruggen, H., 1999. Spatial sustain- ronment and a Sustainable Future. Beacon Press, ability, trade and indicators: an evaluation of the ecolog- Boston, MA. ical footprint. Ecol. Econ. 29, 61–72. Hanley, N., Moffatt, I., Faichney, R., Wilson, M., 1999. Wackernagel, M., Rees, W.E., 1996. Our Ecological Foot- Measuring sustainability: a time series of indicators for print: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. Gabriola Scotland. Ecol. Econ. 28 (1), 55–73. Press New Society Publishing, B.C. Lange, G.M., 1999. How to make progress toward integrat- Ward, B., Dubos, R., 1972. Only One Earth. Penguin Har- ing biophysical and economic assessments. Ecol. Econ. mmondsworth, London. 29, 29–32. World Commission on Environment and Development, Ma, Y., Perman, R., McGilvray, J., 1996. Natural Resource 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, and Environmental Economics. London, Longman. Oxford.