ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT ATLAS 2010 13 OCTOBER, 2010 GLOBAL FOOTPRINT NETWORK AUTHORS: Brad Ewing David Moore Steven Goldfinger Anna Oursler Anders Reed Mathis Wackernagel Designers: Nora Padula Anna Oursler Brad Ewing Suggested Citation: Ewing B., D. Moore, S. Goldfinger, A. Oursler, A. Reed, and M. Wackernagel. 2010. The Ecological Footprint Atlas 2010. Oakland: Global Footprint Network. The Ecological Footprint Atlas 2010 builds on previous versions of the Atlas from 2008 and 2009. The designations employed and the presentation of materials in theThe Ecological Footprint Atlas 2010 do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of Global Footprint Network or its partner organizations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city, or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. For further information, please contact: Global Footprint Network 312 Clay Street, Suite 300 Oakland, CA 94607-3510 USA Phone: +1.510.839.8879 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.footprintnetwork.org Published in October 2010 by Global Footprint Network, Oakland, California, United States of America. © text and graphics: 2010 Global Footprint Network. All rights reserved. Any reproduction in full or in part of this pub- lication must mention the title and credit the aforementioned publisher as the copyright owner. TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword 5 Rethinking Wealth in a Resource-Constrained World /5 The Role of Metrics /5 Seizing the Opportunity /6 National Footprint Accounts 8 Ecological Footprint and Biocapacity /8 History of the Ecological Footprint, Biocapacity, and the National Footprint Accounts /9 Linking the National Footprint Accounts with Ecosystem Services /10 Calculation Methodology: National Footprint Accounts 11 Ecological Footprint Assessment /11 Consumption, Production, and Trade /12 Land Area Types of the National Footprint Accounts /13 Cropland Grazing land Forest for timber and fuelwood Fishing ground Built-up land Forest for carbon dioxide uptake Normalizing Bioproductive Areas – From Hectares to Global Hectares /14 Methodology Updates between the 2008 and 2010 Edition of National Footprint Accounts 15 General Updates /15 Cropland Updates /15 Grazing Land/Livestock Updates /15 Fishing Grounds Updates /16 Forest Land Updates /16 Carbon Uptake Land Updates /16 Land Cover Updates /16 Global Results from the National Footprint Accounts 18 The Global Context /18 Human Development and the Ecological Footprint /21 Factors in Determining Biocapacity and Ecological Footprint /23 Population Affluence: Consumption Per Person Technology: Resource and Waste Intensity Ecological Footprint of Income Groups /26 Ecological Footprint by Land Use Type and Income Group /27 World Maps /32 Regional Results from the National Footprint Accounts 39 Africa /40 Asia /48 Europe /56 Latin America and the Carribean /64 North America /72 Oceania /80 Account Templates and Guidebook 88 What information is in the Guidebook? /88 Limitations of the Ecological Footprint Method 90 Limitations of Scope: What the Footprint Does Not Measure /90 Limitations of Current Methodology and Data: What the Footprint Does Not Measure Well /90 Potential Errors in Implementation /91 Interpreting the Footprint: What the Results Mean /92 Quality Assurance Procedures for Raw Data and Results 93 Country-Specific Adaptations of the National Footprint Accounts /93 Missing Data /93 Standards and National Footprint Accounts Committees 94 Regular Review /94 Future Standardization Plans /94 Ecological Footprint Standards Committee /94 National Footprint Accounts Review Committee /94 Progress on the Research Agenda To Improve the National Footprint Accounts 95 Detailed Written Documentation /95 Trade /95 Equivalence Factors /96 Nuclear Footprint /96 Carbon Footprint /96 Emissions from Non-Fossil Fuels and Gas Flaring /96 Fisheries Yields /96 Constant Yield Calculations /96 Policy Linkages and Institutional Context /97 Research Collaborations 98 Frequently Asked Questions 100 Glossary 103 References 107 Sources for the National Footprint Accounts 110 Global Footprint Network Partner Organizations 111 Acknowledgements 111 List of Abbreviations BC Biological capacity CO2 Carbon dioxide CLC CORINE Land Cover COICOP Classification of Individual Consumption by Purpose CORINE Coordinate Information on the Environment DG ENV Directorate General Environment of the European Commission EC European Commission EE-MRIO Environmentally Extended Multi-Region Input-Output (analysis/model) EEA European Environment Agency EF Ecological Footprint EFC Ecological Footprint of consumption EFE Ecological Footprint of exports EFI Ecological Footprint of imports EFP Ecological Footprint of production EQF Equivalence Factor EXIOPOL Environmental Accouting Framework Using Externality Data and Input-Output Tools for Policy Analysis GAEZ Global-Agro Ecological Zones GDP Gross Domestic Product GFN Global Footprint Network GNI Gross National Income GTAP Global Trade Analysis Project HANPP Human Appropriation of Net Primary Production HDR Human Development Report HDI Human Development Index HS Harmonized System Commodity Classification IEA International Energy Agency IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute IO Input-Output Analysis (analysis/table) IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ISEAL International Social and Environmental Accreditation and Labelling LCA Life Cycle Assessment MFA Materal Flow Analysis/Accounting NAMEA National Accounting Matrix including Environmental Accounts NFA National Footprint Accounts NPP Net Primary Production OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development PIOT Physical Input-Output Table PPR Primary Production Rate SCP Sustainable Consumption and Production SEEA System of Economic and Environmental Accounts SITC Standard Industrial Trade Classification SNA System of National Accounts UN COMTRADE United Nations database on the trade of commodities UN FAO United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization YF Yield factor Foreword and services that promote well-being without draining resources will play a key role in this effort. Cities, regions, or countries that Rethinking Wealth in a Resource-Constrained are not able to provide a high quality of life on a low Footprint World will be at a disadvantage in a resource-constrained future. Access to ecosystem services will become an ever more critical Without significant change, countries that depend extensively upon factor for economic success and resilience in the 21st century. The ecological resources from abroad will become particularly vulnerable reason is simple: current trends are moving us closer to a new era to supply chain disruptions, and to rising costs for greenhouse gas of peak energy and climate change. These effects will combine with emissions and waste disposal. At the same time, countries and states food shortages, biodiversity loss, depleted fisheries, soil erosion and with sufficient ecological reserves to balance their own consumption freshwater stress to create a global supply-demand crunch of essential or even export resources will be at a competitive advantage. This resources. Humanity is already in “overshoot,” using more resources also holds true for cities and communities such as BedZed in the than Earth can renew. Overshoot can persist for some time, since UK and Masdar in the UAE, which can operate on small Ecological the human economy can deplete stocks and fill waste sinks. But Footprints, and are more likely to be able to maintain or even improve eventually, this overshoot will be felt more widely, making apparent the well-being of their residents. For this reason, Ecuador in 2009 the emergence of a “peak everything” world (Heinberg 2007). has made it a national goal to move out of its ecological deficit. In spite of the economic shock waves since October 2008, most The political challenge is to demonstrate that this is not an economic recovery efforts are cementing the past resource trends. “inconvenient truth” to be resisted, but rather a critical issue that The massive stimulus efforts of OECD countries were not used to demands bold action in the direct self-interest of nations and decrease economies’ structural dependence on resource throughput cities. It is a case of pure economics: Prosperity and well-being will and ecological services. In addition, demand for resources continues to not be possible without preserving access to the basic ecological increase in other large economies, including China, India and Brazil. resources and services that sustain our economy, and all of life. Unabated overshoot could have dramatic consequences for all those economies. Further degradation of the Earth’s capacity to generate resources, continuing accumulation of greenhouse gases and other The Role of Metrics wastes, make likely shortage, or even collapse, of critical ecosystems. Without a way of comparing the demand on ecological services to But this path is not unavoidable. The good news is that local solutions the available supply, it is easy for policy makers to ignore the threat need not wait for a global consensus. While the current climate of overshoot, and remain entangled in ideological debates over the debate assumes that those who act first may be at a competitive “affordability of sustainability”. Clear metrics can help change these disadvantage, the opposite is often true. Acting aggressively now ideological debates into discussions based on empirical facts. This to implement sustainable solutions