Footprint and Biocapacity Atlas of Francophonie Member Nations Preparing Economies for the “Global Auction” Table of Contents

PREVIEW

FOOTPRINT AND BIOCAPACITY ATLAS OF FRANCOPHONIE MEMBER NATIONS PREPARING ECONOMIES FOR THE “GLOBAL AUCTION” TABLE OF CONTENTS

Global Footprint Network PUBLICATIONS DIRECTOR Introduction promotes a sustainable economy by Fatimata Dia Touré, Directrice de l’IEPF From Ecological Creditors to Debtors 2 advancing the use of the Ecological Ecological Footprint and Biocapacity 4 Footprint, a resource management tool SCIENTIFIC TEAM that measures how much nature we Mathis Wackernagel* in Francophone Nations have, how much we use and who uses Succeeding in the Global Auction 6 what. All Footprint and biocapacity data David Moore* in this report are based on the National Alessandro Galli* Footprint Accounts, Edition 2011. Katsunori Iha* www.footprintnetwork.org Gemma Cranston* Country Profi les In collaboration with: Belgium 8 Organisation Internationale COORDINATION de La Francophonie Rajae Chafi l, IEPF RD Congo 10 The International Organisation of Egypt 12 the Francophonie (OIF) represents AUTHORS France 14 the countries that share the French language. Today, it includes 75 member Mathis Wackernagel* Greece 16 states and governments (56 members David Moore* Guinea-Bissau 18 and 19 observers) on fi ve continents. Scott Mattoon* Lebanon 20 It represents a unique group for whom Melissa Mazzarella* the sharing of a common language is a Rajae Chafi l, IEPF Marocco 22 starting point for political, economic and Alessandro Galli* Senegal 24 cultural cooperation between its members. www.francophonie.org Togo 26 MEMBERS OF

FRANCOPHONIE’S IEPF Tunisia 28 Institute de l’énergie et de l’environnement de la Fatimata Dia Touré, Director Francophonie (IEFP) Prosper Biabo, Program Director Appendix A OIF is also involved in sustainable Footprint and Biocapacity 30 development cooperation through Rajae Chafi l, Program Specialist Methodology (IEEP). IEFP’s mission is to contribute to Louis-Noël Jail, Communication strengthening national capabilities on Jacinthe Potvin, Information Services both institutional and individual levels Appendix B and to promote partnerships in the fi eld DESIGN References 32 With additional of energy and the environment. IEPF fi nancial support from: has been created in 1988 to refl ect MaddoxDesign.net Abbreviations 32 the commitment of heads of States and governments of Francophone countries *Global Footprint Network for a concerted action on developing ISBN of the English version the energy sector in member countries. of the Footprint and Biocapacity Atlas In 1996, this mission was expanded to of Francophonie Member Nations: include the environment. 978-2-89481-120-7 www.iepf.org II FOOTPRINT AND BIOCAPACITY ATLAS OF FRANCOPHONIE MEMBER NATIONS

“ W e are in a new era of resource constraints, with countries becoming increasingly dependent on resources they do not have.

As a result, more countries are competing in an accelerated race for limited global resources. We call this new dynamic “The global auction.”

To remain economically competitive, countries with ecological deﬁ cits need new tools for successful policy and investment decisions. Economic planners and private investors who ignore this new reality put their assets in peril.

1 FROM ECOLOGICAL CREDITORS TO DEBTORS

Even the strongest economies will not ECOLOGICAL CREDITORS AND ECOLOGICAL DEBTORS 1961 operate without fuel, water, food and ﬁ bers. Input of primary resources keeps economies on the move. During the 20th century, such inputs were easily available. Prices were falling. As a result, most countries became dependent on large amounts of natural resources they did not have—both non-renewables (such as fossil fuels) and biological resources and services (such as food, water, ﬁ bers and carbon sequestration). While resources are still relatively cheap today, growing global demand has led to a supply crunch. This new situation is reshaping the rules of competitiveness for all economies. The Ecological Footprint represents humanity’s demand on the planet for natural resources and ecosystem services. Biocapacity tracks Earth’s supply of these same resources and services. Both Ecological Footprint and biocapacity results are expressed in a globally comparable, standardized unit called a “global hectare” (gha)—a hectare of biologically productive land or sea area with world average bioproductivity in a given year. These two indicators show a clear trend over the past 50 years: More and more FRANCOPHONE NATIONS countries are becoming ecological debtors—that is, their Footprint exceeds Member nations of the Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie represent a diversity of geographies, cultures, and the biocapacity available within their economic possibilities. Through La Francophonie, they are united in the goal of advancing peace and sustainable development. borders. As the maps show, in 1961 most people lived in countries that had Global Footprint Network’s initiative with La Francophonie has this same goal at heart. Its purpose is to summarize the more biocapacity than their residents resource situation of those nations using the Ecological Footprint and biocapacity indicators, and to identify how resource demanded. By 2008, 83 percent of the world population lived in countries that constraints carry implications for their economic performance. The full Footprint Atlas will be published in 2013. demanded more than what their local ecosystems could renew. 2 FOOTPRINT AND BIOCAPACITY ATLAS OF FRANCOPHONIE MEMBER NATIONS

ECOLOGICAL DEBTORS ECOLOGICAL CREDITORS AND ECOLOGICAL DEBTORS 2008

Footprint is

0-50% larger than biocapacity 50-100% larger than biocapacity 100-150% larger than biocapacity >150% larger than biocapacity Data not available

Countries with ecological deﬁ cits (when the Footprint exceeds local biocapacity) depend on net imports of resources, on depletion of their ecological assets, and/ or on the use of global commons (such as the sequestration of anthropogenic

CO2 pollution). Dependence on imported resources exposes a country to supply disruption and price volatility. Overharvesting causes a loss of capital assets. Emitting CO2 from fossil fuel burning is largely free of direct costs for now, but fossil fuels are far from free. For instance, oil costs dwarf even the most aggressive proposed CO2 taxes.

ECOLOGICAL CREDITORS

Biocapacity is GLOBAL FOOTPRINT = 1.5 0-50% larger than footprint GLOBAL BIOCAPACITY 50-100% larger than footprint

100-150% larger than footprint >150% larger than footprint ONE KEY TREND IS CLEAR: Data not available more and more countries are becoming ecological debtors. As the maps show, there has been a signiﬁ cant shift since 1961. Back then, Ecological creditor countries use fewer re- most people lived in countries that had more biocapacity than their residents demanded. In other words, they were like true farms, sources and ecological services than are available within their borders, and there- where the farm family is consuming less than what their farm can produce. By now 83 percent of the world population lives in countries fore are endowed with a biocapacity reserve. Biocapacity reserves, in an in- where residents demand more than what their ecosystems can renew. Humanity’s demand is now 50 percent larger than the planet’s creasingly resource-constrained world, are biocapacity, up from a 30 percent reserve in 1961. This global overshoot translates inevitably into liquidation of ecological assets. becoming rare and more sought after. The growing value of biocapacity gives those countries an economic advantage. 3 ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT AND BIOCAPACITY IN FRANCOPHONE NATIONS 30

THE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT WHY BIOCAPACITY measures people’s demand on nature. 28 It is expressed as the biologically Built up land MATTERS 26 productive land and sea area required Carbon Footprint Humanity is entering a new era of to provide all the ecosystem services constraints, when demand exceeds people use through the consumption 24 Fish Footprint the planet’s limited supplies of natural of their goods and services. In 2008, 22 Forest product Footprint resources and other ecosystem services. humanity’s Ecological Footprint was While many resource and consumption 18 billion global hectares (gha), or Grazing Footprint 20 trends are global, each country is in a 2.7 gha per person. On the supply side, the planet’s productive area, or Cropland Footprint unique situation (as demonstrated by Number biocapacity, was 12 billion gha, or 18 countries’ biocapacity and Footprint 1.8 gha per person. This means global trends shown for 11 countries in the demand exceeded the planet’s supply 16 appendix). by the aforementioned 50 percent (2.7 gha/1.8 gha ≈ 1.5). 14 Human and non-human life compete for area on this planet, and is ultimately A country’s Footprint is the sum of all 12 limited by the biosphere’s regenerative the cropland, grazing land, forest and 10 capacity. In addition to the scarcity fi shing grounds required to produce the food, fi ber, timber, and fuel wood of crop land, fi shing grounds, forests, 8 and the like, use of non-renewable it consumes, to provide space for its

settlements and infrastructure, and per person global hectares resources from the lithosphere also 6 to absorb the wastes it emits (current faces limitations. Footprint calculations only include one 4 waste: CO from fossil fuels). A country’s The primary lithosphere resource, 2 Footprint calculation includes its net 2 fossil fuel, is most restricted by the imports—that is, when residents demand biosphere’s ﬁ nite capacity to absorb resources and ecological services from 0 CO2 waste. Biocapacity is far more foreign ecosystems, it adds to their total limited than oil, gas and coal availability. and per capita Footprint. In 2008, the In fact, if humanity burned more than single largest demand humanity put on one ﬁ fth of the fossil fuels already the biosphere was its carbon Footprint. found, global average temperatures would increase more than 2 degrees Celsius, a commonly recognized upper Chad Latvia France Congo Gabon Austria threshold for dangerous climate change Estonia Guinea Canada Slovakia Hungary Lithuania RD, Congo (carbontracker.org). Mauritania Madagascar Guinea-Bissau 4 Central AfricanCentral Rep. FOOTPRINT AND BIOCAPACITY ATLAS OF FRANCOPHONIE MEMBER NATIONS

BIOCAPACITY BIOCAPACITY is inﬂ uenced both by In an era of global overshoot, the uneven distribution of biocapacity natural events and human activities. Built up land Some agricultural practices, for raises political and economic questions. Ecological debtor countries face example, can reduce long-term Fishing Ground increasing risk from a growing dependence on the biological capacity biocapacity by increasing soil erosion of others. Conversely, countries with biocapacity reserves can view their Forest Land or salinity. Climate change, whether driven by human or natural forces, can biological wealth as an asset that provides an important competitive Grazing Land decrease forest biocapacity as drier and warmer weather increase the potential advantage in an uncertain world. Cropland for changing species composition, yield losses, ﬁ res and pest outbreaks.

Figure 1: Ecological Footprint and biocapacity ranked by countries’ per capita biocapacity. This comparison includes all Francophonie member countries for which sufﬁ cient data are available (typically those with populations greater than 1 million). While the average per person Footprint among members is slightly smaller than the world average, their biocapacity per person exceeds that of the world by one third.

Global biocapacity per person (2008), including space needed for wild species. UAE Mali Haiti Togo Benin Tunisia Poland Ghana Egypt* Greece Croatia Burundi Ukraine Belgium Albania Serbia* Senegal Rwanda Georgia Bulgaria Slovenia Thailand Armenia Lebanon Romania Moldova Morocco Mauritius WORLD Viet Nam Viet Cambodia Cameroon Switzerland Burkina Faso Mozambique Lao People's DR Lao People's Macedonia TFYR

Luxembourg *** Luxembourg 5

Dominican Republic FRANCOPHONIE Bosnia & Herzegovina SUCCEEDING IN THE GLOBAL AUCTION

Global Footprint Network’s data These confl icting trends point to a WHY AN AUCTION highlights the fundamental confl ict structural weakening of countries’ WHAT’S NEXT? between two major trends: Human economies. Before the global auction – AND WHY demand for biocapacity is continuously for biocapacity (when resources were La Francophonie and Global THE FOCUS ON increasing, while relative income for abundant), declining relative income Footprint Network will launch the RELATIVE INCOME? many countries is in decline. barely affected countries’ economies. complete report on francophone In the era of plentiful resources, supply For many Francophonie member countries, member nations’ biocapacity and We are in a world of resource Footprints in mid-2013. their residents’ absolute income may of goods and resources was limited limitations, with more countries have increased on average, but their only by market demands. In a world wanting—and competing for—more share in global income has fallen. For where resource costs are becoming a The appendix contains eleven of the planet’s limited biocapacity. In signifi cant factor to economic production, instance, the French resident today country trends to spotlight the biocapacity and relative income this global auction of fi nite goods, earns on average 35 percent less of the particular situation of those trends will become key determinants of what matters most is not absolute total global income than 30 years ago countries. economic success or failure. ability to pay, but the relative ability (measured in GNI according to World Bank statistics). The resident of Senegal compared to all the other bidding receives on average 50 percent less of The initiative’s goal is to help powers. If people’s relative income is the global income than three decades policy analysts identify more decreasing in a world where all want earlier. This is creating a new challenge specifi c risks and opportunities for each nation, including options for more, their ability to compete in the for these and other countries: Since diversifying trade. auction is weakening. all countries participate in increasingly interconnected economies, dropping To remain competitive, policy relative incomes make it more diffi cult The full report will highlight tools for ecological debtors to compete makers need to pay closer attention for measuring risks, and include in the global market for the world’s strategies for action. It will to relative income, not just limited resources. discuss how to mitigate the risks absolute income. For instance, of a global auction, including This is the essence: for most countries, what percentage share does an countries’ need to revisit their the relative income of residents’ competitiveness strategies and Egyptian, a Belgian, a Nigerian or has decreased. At the same time, To fi nd out more, or to participate in this adapt them to this new era of a Cambodian, get from the total biocapacity defi cits have increased (or initiative, contact La Francophonie at: resource constraints. It will also outline why focusing on wealth global income pie? And how is this biocapacity reserves have shrunk). As rajae.chafi [email protected] generation, rather than income share changing over time? countries depend more on biocapacity or Global Footprint Network at maximization, allows countries from outside the country, their ability to [email protected]. to build a foundation for a bid for these resources is diminishing. stable economy. 6 FOOTPRINT AND BIOCAPACITY ATLAS OF FRANCOPHONIE MEMBER NATIONS

BIOCAPACITY AND GLOBAL INCOME SHARE (1985 TO 2007) Fraction of world total GNI held per country resident, Fraction ofworld GNI heldpercountry total 1.8 Figure 2: Ecological deﬁ cits go up, relative incomes come down (1985 – 2007). 1.6 Switzerland While the biocapacity deﬁ cits have been growing fast, per capita income of most countries compared

1.4 SHARE INCOME RELATIVE onaverage (inbillionths) to global income has been shrinking, weakening their position to access limited resources from 1.2 around the globe. 1.0 Canada This means as countries increasingly require France Belgium resources and ecological services beyond 0.8 what their domestic ecosystems can provide

0.6 (in net terms), their relative purchasing power is declining. Greece 0.4 Note: The y-axis shows the fraction of the world’s GDP a resident of a given country on average 0.2 Camaroon generates. Therefore the world’s average per Congo, Democratic Republic person share, per deﬁ nition, is at (1/world -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0.0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 population) or currently at about 0.14 of a billionths of total world GDP. BIOCAPACITY DEFICIT BIOCAPACITY RESERVE (gha/cap)

0.25

World 0.2 GLOBAL AUCTION Countries that grow a biocapacity deficit while losing relative income 0.15 amplify their exposure to the global auction. Romania Tunesia 0.1 Bulgaria Egypt Marocco 0.05 Cameroon Burkina-Fasco Senegal

0 Mali Viet Nam -3 -2 -1 0.0 1 2 3

7 BELGIUM FOOTPRINT AND BIOCAPACITY ATLAS OF FRANCOPHONIE MEMBER NATIONS

Built-up Land Forest Land Fishing Grounds Population Ecological Footprint - Total Ecological Footprint per capita Grazing Land Cropland Carbon Footprint

8 1.5

6 1.0 5

3 0.5

2 Relative value (1961=1)

Global Hectares Per Capita 1

0 0.0 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Figure BE-1: Ecological Footprint per capita in Belgium by component, Figure BE-2: Contributing drivers of Belgium’s Ecological Footprint, 1961-2008 1961-2008 Indicator Value Value Change (2008) (1961) (%) EF per capita [gha] 7.11 6.69 6% - EF Carbon 3.26 2.50 30% BC per capita [gha] 1.33 1.32 1% BC deficit per capita [gha] 5.78 5.36 8%Built-up LandForest Land Fishing Grounds Grazing Land Cropland Population Biocapacity per hectare (Biocapacity density) Area Biocapacity per capita - deficit Forest 3.45 2.47 40% GNI per capita 25,450 7,879 223% [constant 2000 $US] - fraction of world 0.63 0.94 -33% [billionths] GDP per capita 1.5 25,100 7,800 222% 1.5 [constant 2000 $US] Exports per capita 21,967 2,445 798%1.2 [constant 2000 $US] Population ['000] 10,710 9,184 17% 1.2 0-14 1,807 2,149 -16%0.9 15-64 7,038 5,906 19%

>64 2,405 1,098 119%0.6 HDI 0.88 0.76 16% 0.9 Relative value (1961=1) 0.3 Global Hectares Per Capita Per Global Hectares

0.0 0.6 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Figure BE-3: Biocapacity per capita in Belgium by component 1961-2008 Figure BE-4: Contributing drivers of Belgium’s biocapacity, 1961-2008 * GNI fraction of world from 1970, not 1961 ** HDI value from 1980, not 1961

8 FOOTPRINT AND BIOCAPACITY ATLAS OF FRANCOPHONIE MEMBER NATIONS

Biocapacity per capita Ecological Footprint per capita GDP (left axis): ConsumptionGovernment Investment 0-14 years15-64 years >65 years GNI (left axis) GNI ratio (right axis)

8 12

7 National GNIpercapitaoverworldtotal 30000 1.0 10 6 0.8 8 5 25000 [billionths] 4 20000 0.6 6

3 15000 Population [millions] 0.4 4

2 [constant 2000 $ US] 10000 0.2 Global Hectares Per Capita Global Hectares 2 1 Gross Domestic Product Per Capita 5000

0 0 0.0 0 1960 1975 1990 2005 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Figure BE-5: Belgium’s per capita biocapacity deﬁ cit, 1961-2008 Figure BE-7: Belgium’s GDP by component, GNI, and ratio of national GNI Figure BE-9: Belgium’s population by age group, 1961-2010 per capita to world total GNI, 1961-2008

12 Fishing Ground Grazing Land Cropland Carbon Forest

10 Ecological footprintinghaperperson

Threshold for high human development 8

7 Global biocapacity per person in 2008 6

5 4 4 Blue box represents 3 global sustainable 2 development - with high 2 2 human development Global Hectares Per Capita Global Hectares 1 within globally replicable 0 0 resource demands. 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 United Nations Human Development Index Figure BE-6: Belgium’s per capita biocapacity deﬁ cit by contributing land-use type, 1961-2008 Figure BE-8: Ecological Footprint and HDI for all countries in 2008, with Belgium’s trend for 1980-2008

9 CONGO, DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC FOOTPRINT AND BIOCAPACITY ATLAS OF FRANCOPHONIE MEMBER NATIONS

Built-up Land Forest Land Fishing Grounds Population Ecological Footprint - Total Ecological Footprint per capita Grazing Land Cropland Carbon Footprint

1.2 4.0

1.0 3.5

0.8 3.0

2.5 0.6 2.0 0.4 1.5 Relative value (1961=1)

Global Hectares Per Capita 0.2 1.0

0.0 0.5 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Figure CD-1: Ecological Footprint per capita in RD Congo by component, Figure CD-2: Contributing drivers of RD Congo’s Ecological 1961-2008 Footprint, 1961-2008 Indicator Value Value Change (2008) (1961) (%) EF per capita [gha] 0.76 1.00 -24% - EF Forest 0.50 0.51 -2% BC per capita [gha] 3.10 13.72 -77% BC deficit per capita [gha] -2.35 -12.72 -82%Built-up LandForest Land Fishing Grounds Grazing Land Cropland Population Biocapacity per hectare (Biocapacity density) Area Biocapacity per capita - deficit Crop 0.03 -0.02 -211% GNI per capita 88 271 -68% [constant 2000 $US] - fraction of world 0.00 0.03 -92% [billionths] GDP per capita 101 282 -64%15 4.0 [constant 2000 $US] Exports per capita 3.5 24 25 -4%12 [constant 2000 $US] 3.0 Population ['000] 62,475 15,767 296% 2.5 0-14 30,530 6,732 354%9 15-64 33,679 8,188 311% 2.0 >64 1,940 447 334% 6 HDI 0.27 0.28 -3% 1.5

Relative value (1961=1) 1.0 3 Global Hectares Per Capita 0.5

0 0.0 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Figure CD-3: Biocapacity per capita in RD Congo by component 1961- Figure CD-4: Contributing drivers of RD Congo’s biocapacity, * GNI fraction of world from 1970, not 1961 2008 1961-2008 ** HDI value from 1980, not 1961

10 FOOTPRINT AND BIOCAPACITY ATLAS OF FRANCOPHONIE MEMBER NATIONS

Biocapacity per capita Ecological Footprint per capita GDP (left axis): ConsumptionGovernment Investment 0-14 years15-64 years >65 years GNI (left axis) GNI ratio (right axis)

15 80

() (g)

National GNIpercapitaoverworldtotal 70 1.0 12 400 60 0.8 350 50 9 300 [billionths] 0.6 40 250

6 200 Population [millions] 30 0.4 150 [constant 2000 $ US] 20 3 100 0.2 Global Hectares Per Capita Global Hectares Gross Domestic Product Per Capita 50 10 0 0 0.0 0 1960 1975 1990 2005 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Figure CD-5: RD Congo’s per capita biocapacity deﬁ cit, Figure CD-7: RD Congo’s GDP by component, GNI, and ratio of Figure CD-9: RD Congo’s population by age group, 1961-2010 1961-2008 national GNI per capita to world total GNI, 1961-2008

12 Fishing Ground Grazing Land Cropland Carbon Forest

10 Ecological footprintinghaperperson

Threshold for high human development 8

Global biocapacity per person in 2008 6 12

9 4 Blue box represents 6 global sustainable 2 development - with high 2 3 human development Global Hectares Per Capita Global Hectares within globally replicable 0 0 resource demands. 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 United Nations Human Development Index Figure CD-6: RD Congo’s per capita biocapacity deﬁ cit by contributing land-use type, 1961-2008 Figure CD-8: Ecological Footprint and HDI for all countries in 2008, with RD Congo’s trend for 1980-2008

11 EGYPT FOOTPRINT AND BIOCAPACITY ATLAS OF FRANCOPHONIE MEMBER NATIONS

Built-up Land Forest Land Fishing Grounds Population Ecological Footprint - Total Ecological Footprint per capita Grazing Land Cropland Carbon Footprint

2.0 6

5 1.5

4 1.0

0.5 Relative value (1961=1) 2 Global Hectares Per Capita

0.0 1 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Figure EG-1: Ecological Footprint per capita in Egypt by component, Figure EG-2: Contributing drivers of Egypt’s Ecological Footprint, 1961-2008 1961-2008 Indicator Value Value Change (2008) (1961) (%) EF per capita [gha] 1.70 0.87 94% - EF Crop 0.66 0.38 74% BC per capita [gha] 0.65 0.54 21% BC deficit per capita [gha] 1.04 0.34 211%Built-up LandForest Land Fishing Grounds Grazing Land Cropland Population Biocapacity per hectare (Biocapacity density) Area Biocapacity per capita - deficit Forest 0.75 0.29 162% GNI per capita 1,874 438 328% [constant 2000 $US] - fraction of world 0.05 0.05 1% [billionths] GDP per capita 1,859 438 325%0.8 3.0 [constant 2000 $US] Exports per capita 0.7 745 89 737% 2.5 [constant 2000 $US] 0.6 Population ['000] 78,323 28,649 173% 0.5 0-14 25,581 12,295 108% 2.0 15-64 51,460 14,707 250%0.4 >64 4,634 900 415% 1.5 HDI 0.63 0.41 55%0.3

0.2 Relative value (1961=1) 1.0 Global Hectares Per Capita 0.1

0.0 0.5 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Figure EG-3: Biocapacity per capita in Egypt by component 1961-2008 Figure EG-4: Contributing drivers of Egypt’s biocapacity, 1961-2008 * GNI fraction of world from 1970, not 1961 ** HDI value from 1980, not 1961

12 FOOTPRINT AND BIOCAPACITY ATLAS OF FRANCOPHONIE MEMBER NATIONS

Biocapacity per capita Ecological Footprint per capita GDP (left axis): ConsumptionGovernment Investment 0-14 years15-64 years >65 years GNI (left axis) GNI ratio (right axis)

2.0 100

() (g) 1.0 National GNIpercapitaoverworldtotal 80 1.5 30000 0.8 25000 60 [billionths] 1.0 20000 0.6

40 15000 Population [millions] 0.4

0.5 [constant 2000 $ US] 10000 0.2 20 Global Hectares Per Capita Global Hectares Gross Domestic Product Per Capita 5000

0.0 0 0.0 0 1960 1975 1990 2005 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Figure EG-5: Egypt’s per capita biocapacity deﬁ cit, 1961-2008 Figure EG-7: Egypt’s GDP by component, GNI, and ratio of national Figure EG-9: Egypt’s population by age group, 1961-2010 GNI per capita to world total GNI, 1961-2008

12 Fishing Ground Grazing Land Cropland Carbon Forest

10 Ecological footprintinghaperperson

Threshold for high human development 8

2.0

Global biocapacity per person in 2008 6 1.5

4 1.0 Blue box represents global sustainable 2 development - with high 0.5 2 human development Global Hectares Per Capita Global Hectares within globally replicable 0.0 0 resource demands. 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 United Nations Human Development Index Figure EG-6: Egypt’s per capita biocapacity deﬁ cit by contributing land-use type, 1961-2008 Figure EG-8: Ecological Footprint and HDI for all countries in 2008, with Egypt’s trend for 1980-2008

13 FRANCE FOOTPRINT AND BIOCAPACITY ATLAS OF FRANCOPHONIE MEMBER NATIONS

Built-up Land Forest Land Fishing Grounds Population Ecological Footprint - Total Ecological Footprint per capita Grazing Land Cropland Carbon Footprint

6 2.0

3 1.5

2 Relative value (1961=1)

Global Hectares Per Capita 1

0 1.0 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Figure FR-1: Ecological Footprint per capita in France by component, Figure FR-2: Contributing drivers of France’s Ecological Footprint, 1961-2008 1961-2008 Indicator Value Value Change (2008) (1961) (%) EF per capita [gha] 4.91 3.48 41% - EF Carbon 2.24 1.30 73% BC per capita [gha] 2.99 2.54 18% BC deficit per capita [gha] 1.92 0.95 103%Built-up LandForest Land Fishing Grounds Grazing Land Cropland Population Biocapacity per hectare (Biocapacity density) Area Biocapacity per capita - deficit Forest 1.96 0.87 127% GNI per capita 23,776 7,871 202% [constant 2000 $US] - fraction of world 0.59 0.96 -39% [billionths] GDP per capita 23,366 7,809 199%4.0 2.0 [constant 2000 $US] Exports per capita 3.5 7,059 626 1028% [constant 2000 $US] 3.0 Population ['000] 64,371 47,255 36% 1.5 0-14 11,531 12,047 -4%2.5

15-64 40,713 28,320 44%2.0 >64 13,916 5,322 161% 1.5 HDI 0.88 0.72 22% 1.0

1.0 Relative value (1961=1)

Global Hectares Per Capita 0.5

0.0 0.5 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Figure FR-3: Biocapacity per capita in France by component 1961-2008 Figure FR-4: Contributing drivers of France’s biocapacity, 1961-2008 * GNI fraction of world from 1970, not 1961 ** HDI value from 1980, not 1961

14 FOOTPRINT AND BIOCAPACITY ATLAS OF FRANCOPHONIE MEMBER NATIONS

Biocapacity per capita Ecological Footprint per capita GDP (left axis): ConsumptionGovernment Investment 0-14 years15-64 years >65 years GNI (left axis) GNI ratio (right axis)

6 80

() (g)

National GNIpercapitaoverworldtotal 70 5 1.0 25000 60 4 0.8 50 20000

3 0.6 [billionths] 40 15000

Population [millions] 30 2 0.4 10000 [constant 2000 $ US] 20 0.2 Global Hectares Per Capita Global Hectares 1 5000 Gross Domestic Product Per Capita 10

0 0 0.0 0 1960 1975 1990 2005 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Figure FR-5: France’s per capita biocapacity deﬁ cit, 1961-2008 Figure FR-7: France’s GDP by component, GNI, and ratio of national Figure FR-9: France’s population by age group, 1961-2010 GNI per capita to world total GNI, 1961-2008

12 Fishing Ground Grazing Land Cropland Carbon Forest

10 Ecological footprintinghaperperson

Threshold for high human development 8

Global biocapacity per person in 2008 6 5

4 4 3 Blue box represents global sustainable 2 2 development - with high 2 human development

Global Hectares Per Capita Global Hectares 1 within globally replicable 0 0 resource demands. 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 United Nations Human Development Index Figure FR-6: France’s per capita biocapacity deﬁ cit by contributing land-use type, 1961-2008 Figure FR-8: Ecological Footprint and HDI for all countries in 2008, with France’s trend for 1980-2008

15 GREECE FOOTPRINT AND BIOCAPACITY ATLAS OF FRANCOPHONIE MEMBER NATIONS

Built-up Land Forest Land Fishing Grounds Population Ecological Footprint - Total Ecological Footprint per capita Grazing Land Cropland Carbon Footprint

6 4.0

3.5 5

3.0 4 2.5 3 2.0 2 1.5 Relative value (1961=1)

Global Hectares Per Capita 1 1.0

0 0.5 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Figure GR-1: Ecological Footprint per capita in Greece by component, Figure GR-2: Contributing drivers of Greece’s Ecological Footprint, 1961- 1961-2008 2008 Indicator Value Value Change (2008) (1961) (%) EF per capita [gha] 4.92 1.92 156% - EF Carbon 2.53 0.31 709% BC per capita [gha] 1.59 1.58 0% BC deficit per capita [gha] 3.34 0.34 883%Built-up LandForest Land Fishing Grounds Grazing Land Cropland Population Biocapacity per hectare (Biocapacity density) Area Biocapacity per capita - deficit Forest 2.76 0.37 644% GNI per capita 14,172 3,782 275% [constant 2000 $US] - fraction of world 0.35 0.56 -37% [billionths] GDP per capita 14,648 3,733 292%2.5 2.0 [constant 2000 $US] Exports per capita 3,667 168 2081% [constant 2000 $US] 2.0

Population ['000] 11,237 8,398 34% 1.5 0-14 1,655 2,208 -25%1.5 15-64 7,597 5,438 40% >64 2,658 688 287% 1.0 HDI 0.86 0.72 20% 1.0 Relative value (1961=1) 0.5 Global Hectares Per Capita

0.0 0.5 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Figure GR-3: Biocapacity per capita in Greece by component 1961-2008 Figure GR-4: Contributing drivers of Greece’s biocapacity, 1961-2008 * GNI fraction of world from 1970, not 1961 ** HDI value from 1980, not 1961

16 FOOTPRINT AND BIOCAPACITY ATLAS OF FRANCOPHONIE MEMBER NATIONS

Biocapacity per capita Ecological Footprint per capita GDP (left axis): ConsumptionGovernment Investment 0-14 years15-64 years >65 years GNI (left axis) GNI ratio (right axis)

6 12

5 1.0 National GNIpercapitaoverworldtotal 10 15000 4 0.8 8 12000

3 0.6 [billionths] 6 9000 Population [millions] 2 0.4 4 6000 [constant 2000 $ US]

0.2 Global Hectares Per Capita Global Hectares 1 3000 2 Gross Domestic Product Per Capita

0 0 0.0 0 1960 1975 1990 2005 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Figure GR-5: Greece’s per capita biocapacity deﬁ cit, 1961-2008 Figure GR-7: Greece’s GDP by component, GNI, and ratio of national Figure GR-9: Greece’s population by age group, 1961-2010 GNI per capita to world total GNI, 1961-2008

12 Fishing Ground Grazing Land Cropland Carbon Forest

10 Ecological footprintinghaperperson

Threshold for high human development 8

Global biocapacity per person in 2008 6 5

4 4 3 Blue box represents global sustainable 2 2 development - with high 2 human development

Global Hectares Per Capita Global Hectares 1 within globally replicable 0 0 resource demands. 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 United Nations Human Development Index Figure GR-6: Greece’s per capita biocapacity deﬁ cit by contributing land-use type, 1961-2008 Figure GR-8: Ecological Footprint and HDI for all countries in 2008, with Greece’s trend for 1980-2008

17 GUINEA-BISSAU FOOTPRINT AND BIOCAPACITY ATLAS OF FRANCOPHONIE MEMBER NATIONS

Built-up Land Forest Land Fishing Grounds Population Ecological Footprint - Total Ecological Footprint per capita Grazing Land Cropland Carbon Footprint

1.5 2.5

1.2 2.0

0.9 1.5 0.6

Relative value (1961=1) 1.0 0.3 Global Hectares Per Capita

0.0 0.5 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Figure GW-1: Ecological Footprint per capita in Guinea-Bissau by Figure GW-2: Contributing drivers of Guinea-Bissau’s Ecological Footprint, component, 1961-2008 1961-2008 Indicator Value Value Change (2008) (1961) (%) EF per capita [gha] 1.10 1.33 -17% - EF Grazing 0.42 0.37 12% BC per capita [gha] 3.40 8.02 -58% BC deficit per capita [gha] -2.30 -6.69 -66%Built-up LandForest Land Fishing Grounds Grazing Land Cropland Population Biocapacity per hectare (Biocapacity density) Area Biocapacity per capita - deficit Grazing 0.01 -0.66 -101% GNI per capita - - - [constant 2000 $US] - fraction of world - - - [billionths] GDP per capita 158 - - 10 2.5 [constant 2000 $US] Exports per capita - - - [constant 2000 $US] 8 2.0 Population ['000] 1,454 596 144% 0-14 626 245 156%6 1.5 15-64 839 330 154% >64 56 18 210% 4 1.0 HDI 0.35 - - Relative value (1961=1) 2 0.5 Global Hectares Per Capita

0 0.0 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Figure GW-3: Biocapacity per capita in Guinea-Bissau by component Figure GW-4: Contributing drivers of Guinea-Bissau’s biocapacity, * GNI fraction of world from 1970, not 1961 1961-2008 1961-2008 ** HDI value from 1980, not 1961

18 FOOTPRINT AND BIOCAPACITY ATLAS OF FRANCOPHONIE MEMBER NATIONS

Biocapacity per capita Ecological Footprint per capita GDP (left axis): ConsumptionGovernment Investment 0-14 years15-64 years >65 years GNI (left axis) GNI ratio (right axis)

10 2.0

() (g) 1.0 National GNIpercapitaoverworldtotal 8 250 1.5 0.8 6 200

0.6 [billionths] 1.0 150 4 0.4 Population [millions] 100 [constant 2000 $ US] 0.5 2 0.2 Global Hectares Per Capita Global Hectares 50 Gross Domestic Product Per Capita

0 0 0.0 0.0 1960 1975 1990 2005 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Figure GW-5: Guinea-Bissau’s per capita biocapacity deﬁ cit, Figure GW-7: Guinea-Bissau’s GDP by component, GNI, and ratio of Figure GW-9: Guinea-Bissau’s population by age group, 1961-2010 1961-2008 national GNI per capita to world total GNI, 1961-2008

12 Fishing Ground Grazing Land Cropland Carbon Forest

10 Ecological footprintinghaperperson

Threshold for high human development 8

Global biocapacity per person in 2008 6 8

6 4 Blue box represents 4 global sustainable 2 development - with high 2 2 human development Global Hectares Per Capita Global Hectares within globally replicable 0 0 resource demands. 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 United Nations Human Development Index Figure GW-6: Guinea-Bissau’s per capita biocapacity deﬁ cit by contributing land-use type, 1961-2008 Figure GW-8: Ecological Footprint and HDI for all countries in 2008, with Guinea-Bissau’s trend for 1980-2008

19 LEBANON FOOTPRINT AND BIOCAPACITY ATLAS OF FRANCOPHONIE MEMBER NATIONS

Built-up Land Forest Land Fishing Grounds Population Ecological Footprint - Total Ecological Footprint per capita Grazing Land Cropland Carbon Footprint

3.5 4.0

3.0 3.5

2.5 3.0

2.0 2.5

1.5 2.0

1.0 1.5 Relative value (1961=1)

Global Hectares Per Capita 0.5 1.0

0.0 0.5 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Figure LB-1: Ecological Footprint per capita in Lebanon by component, Figure LB-2: Contributing drivers of Lebanon’s Ecological Footprint, 1961-2008 1961-2008 Indicator Value Value Change (2008) (1961) (%) EF per capita [gha] 2.85 1.68 69% - EF Carbon 1.33 0.42 215% BC per capita [gha] 0.39 0.47 -17% BC deficit per capita [gha] 2.45 1.21 103%Built-up LandForest Land Fishing Grounds Grazing Land Cropland Population Biocapacity per hectare (Biocapacity density) Area Biocapacity per capita - deficit Forest 1.55 0.38 313% GNI per capita 5,975 - - [constant 2000 $US] - fraction of world 0.15 - - [billionths] GDP per capita 5,895 - -0.6 2.5 [constant 2000 $US] Exports per capita 1,414 - -0.5 [constant 2000 $US] 2.0 Population ['000] 4,167 1,967 112%0.4 0-14 1,048 784 34%

15-64 2,871 1,011 184%0.3 1.5 >64 357 112 219%

HDI 0.73 - -0.2

Relative value (1961=1) 1.0

Global Hectares Per Capita 0.1

0.0 0.5 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Figure LB-3: Biocapacity per capita in Lebanon by component 1961-2008 Figure LB-4: Contributing drivers of Lebanon’s biocapacity, 1961-2008 * GNI fraction of world from 1970, not 1961 ** HDI value from 1980, not 1961

20 FOOTPRINT AND BIOCAPACITY ATLAS OF FRANCOPHONIE MEMBER NATIONS

Biocapacity per capita Ecological Footprint per capita GDP (left axis): ConsumptionGovernment Investment 0-14 years15-64 years >65 years GNI (left axis) GNI ratio (right axis)

3.5 5

3.0 National GNIpercapitaoverworldtotal 6000 1.0 4 2.5 0.8 5000 3 2.0 [billionths] 4000 0.6 1.5 2 3000 Population [millions] 0.4 1.0 [constant 2000 $ US] 2000 1 0.2 Global Hectares Per Capita Global Hectares 0.5 Gross Domestic Product Per Capita 1000

0.0 0 0.0 0 1960 1975 1990 2005 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Figure LB-5: Lebanon’s per capita biocapacity deﬁ cit, 1961-2008 Figure LB-7: Lebanon’s GDP by component, GNI, and ratio of national Figure LB-9: Lebanon’s population by age group, 1961-2010 GNI per capita to world total GNI, 1961-2008

12 Fishing Ground Grazing Land Cropland Carbon Forest

10 Ecological footprintinghaperperson

Threshold for high human development 8

3.5

3.0 Global biocapacity per person in 2008 6

2.5

2.0 4

1.5 Blue box represents global sustainable 1.0 2 development - with high 2 human development Global Hectares Per Capita Global Hectares 0.5 within globally replicable 0.0 0 resource demands. 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 United Nations Human Development Index Figure LB-6: Lebanon’s per capita biocapacity deﬁ cit by contributing land-use type, 1961-2008 Figure LB-8: Ecological Footprint and HDI for all countries in 2008, with Lebanon’s trend for 1980-2008

21 MOROCCO FOOTPRINT AND BIOCAPACITY ATLAS OF FRANCOPHONIE MEMBER NATIONS

Built-up Land Forest Land Fishing Grounds Population Ecological Footprint - Total Ecological Footprint per capita Grazing Land Cropland Carbon Footprint

1.5 4.0

3.5 1.2

3.0 0.9 2.5

0.6 2.0 Relative value (1961=1) 0.3

Global Hectares Per Capita 1.5

0.0 1.0 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Figure MA-1: Ecological Footprint per capita in Morocco by component, Figure MA-2: Contributing drivers of Morocco’s Ecological Footprint, 1961-2008 1961-2008 Indicator Value Value Change (2008) (1961) (%) EF per capita [gha] 1.32 0.94 41% - EF Crop 0.60 0.32 89% BC per capita [gha] 0.70 1.14 -39% BC deficit per capita [gha] 0.63 -0.20 - Built-up LandForest Land Fishing Grounds Grazing Land Cropland Population Biocapacity per hectare (Biocapacity density) Area Biocapacity per capita - deficit Forest 0.34 0.00 - GNI per capita 1,706 618 176% [constant 2000 $US] - fraction of world 0.04 0.06 -35% [billionths] GDP per capita 1,734 613 183%1.5 3.0 [constant 2000 $US] Exports per capita 603 118 411% [constant 2000 $US] 1.2 2.5 Population ['000] 31,321 11,948 162% 0-14 8,949 5,211 72%0.9 2.0 15-64 21,247 6,114 247% >64 2,010 301 569% 0.6 1.5 HDI 0.57 0.36 56% Relative value (1961=1) 0.3 1.0 Global Hectares Per Capita

0.0 0.5 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Figure MA-3: Biocapacity per capita in Morocco by component Figure MA-4: Contributing drivers of Morocco’s biocapacity, 1961-2008 * GNI fraction of world from 1970, not 1961 1961-2008 ** HDI value from 1980, not 1961

22 FOOTPRINT AND BIOCAPACITY ATLAS OF FRANCOPHONIE MEMBER NATIONS

Biocapacity per capita Ecological Footprint per capita GDP (left axis): ConsumptionGovernment Investment 0-14 years15-64 years >65 years GNI (left axis) GNI ratio (right axis)

yyy 1.5 35

() (g) 1.0 National GNIpercapitaoverworldtotal 30

2000 25 1.0 0.8

1500 20 0.6 [billionths] 15

1000 Population [millions] 0.5 0.4 10 [constant 2000 $ US]

500 0.2 Global Hectares Per Capita Global Hectares

Gross Domestic Product Per Capita 5

0.0 0 0.0 0 1960 1975 1990 2005 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Figure MA-5: Morocco’s per capita biocapacity deﬁ cit, 1961-2008 Figure MA-7: Morocco’s GDP by component, GNI, and ratio of Figure MA-9: Morocco’s population by age group, 1961-2010 national GNI per capita to world total GNI, 1961-2008

12 Fishing Ground Grazing Land Cropland Carbon Forest

10 Ecological footprintinghaperperson

Threshold for high human development 8

1.5

Global biocapacity per person in 2008 6 1.2

0.9 4 Blue box represents 0.6 global sustainable 2 development - with high 2 0.3 human development Global Hectares Per Capita Global Hectares within globally replicable 0.0 0 resource demands. 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 United Nations Human Development Index Figure MA-6: Morocco’s per capita biocapacity deﬁ cit by contributing land-use type, 1961-2008 Figure MA-8: Ecological Footprint and HDI for all countries in 2008, with Morocco’s trend for 1980-2008

23 SENEGAL FOOTPRINT AND BIOCAPACITY ATLAS OF FRANCOPHONIE MEMBER NATIONS

Built-up Land Forest Land Fishing Grounds Population Ecological Footprint - Total Ecological Footprint per capita Grazing Land Cropland Carbon Footprint

3.0 4.0

3.5 2.5

3.0 2.0 2.5 1.5 2.0 1.0 1.5 Relative value (1961=1)

Global Hectares Per Capita 0.5 1.0

0.0 0.5 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Figure SN-1: Ecological Footprint per capita in Senegal by component, Figure SN-2: Contributing drivers of Senegal’s Ecological Footprint, 1961-2008 1961-2008 Indicator Value Value Change (2008) (1961) (%) EF per capita [gha] 1.53 2.32 -34% - EF Crop 0.69 1.00 -31% BC per capita [gha] 1.40 4.90 -71% BC deficit per capita [gha] 0.13 -2.58 - Built-up LandForest Land Fishing Grounds Grazing Land Cropland Population Biocapacity per hectare (Biocapacity density) Area Biocapacity per capita - deficit Crop 0.26 -0.08 - GNI per capita 555 - - [constant 2000 $US] - fraction of world 0.01 0.04 -69% [billionths] GDP per capita 557 617 -10%5 4.0 [constant 2000 $US] Exports per capita 3.5 161 219 -26%4 [constant 2000 $US] 3.0 Population ['000] 11,787 3,131 276% 2.5 0-14 5,432 1,278 325%3

15-64 6,703 1,691 296% 2.0 >64 316 78 304% 2 HDI 0.45 0.32 41% 1.5

Relative value (1961=1) 1.0 1 Global Hectares Per Capita 0.5

0 0.0 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Figure SN-3: Biocapacity per capita in Senegal by component Figure SN-4: Contributing drivers of Senegal’s biocapacity, 1961-2008 * GNI fraction of world from 1970, not 1961 1961-2008 ** HDI value from 1980, not 1961

24 FOOTPRINT AND BIOCAPACITY ATLAS OF FRANCOPHONIE MEMBER NATIONS

Biocapacity per capita Ecological Footprint per capita GDP (left axis): ConsumptionGovernment Investment 0-14 years15-64 years >65 years GNI (left axis) GNI ratio (right axis)

5 15

() (g) 1.0 National GNIpercapitaoverworldtotal 4 12 800 0.8 700 3 9 600 0.6 [billionths] 500 2 6 400 Population [millions] 0.4 300 [constant 2000 $ US] 1 3 200 0.2 Global Hectares Per Capita Global Hectares Gross Domestic Product Per Capita 100

0 0 0.0 0 1960 1975 1990 2005 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Figure SN-5: Senegal’s per capita biocapacity deﬁ cit, 1961-2008 Figure SN-7: Senegal’s GDP by component, GNI, and ratio of national Figure SN-9: Senegal’s population by age group, 1961-2010 GNI per capita to world total GNI, 1961-2008

12 Fishing Ground Grazing Land Cropland Carbon Forest

10 Ecological footprintinghaperperson

Threshold for high human development 8

Global biocapacity per person in 2008 6 4

3 4 Blue box represents 2 global sustainable 2 development - with high 2 1 human development Global Hectares Per Capita Global Hectares within globally replicable 0 0 resource demands. 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 United Nations Human Development Index Figure SN-6: Senegal’s per capita biocapacity deﬁ cit by contributing land-use type, 1961-2008 Figure SN-8: Ecological Footprint and HDI for all countries in 2008, with Senegal’s trend for 1980-2008

25 TOGO FOOTPRINT AND BIOCAPACITY ATLAS OF FRANCOPHONIE MEMBER NATIONS

Built-up Land Forest Land Fishing Grounds Population Ecological Footprint - Total Ecological Footprint per capita Grazing Land Cropland Carbon Footprint

2.0 4.0

3.5

1.5 3.0

2.5 1.0 2.0

1.5 0.5 Relative value (1961=1)

Global Hectares Per Capita 1.0

0.0 0.5 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Figure TG-1: Ecological Footprint per capita in Togo by component, Figure TG-2: Contributing drivers of Togo’s Ecological Footprint, 1961-2008 1961-2008 Indicator Value Value Change (2008) (1961) (%) EF per capita [gha] 1.03 1.54 -33% - EF Crop 0.41 0.39 5% BC per capita [gha] 0.67 1.52 -56% BC deficit per capita [gha] 0.36 0.02 2065%Built-up LandForest Land Fishing Grounds Grazing Land Cropland Population Biocapacity per hectare (Biocapacity density) Area Biocapacity per capita - deficit Forest 0.40 0.60 -34% GNI per capita 257 194 33% [constant 2000 $US] - fraction of world 0.01 0.02 -73% [billionths] GDP per capita 258 196 32%2.0 4.0 [constant 2000 $US] Exports per capita 3.5 82 57 44% [constant 2000 $US] 1.5 3.0 Population ['000] 5,777 1,594 262% 0-14 2,390 672 256% 2.5 15-64 3,433 850 304% 1.0 2.0 >64 231 56 310% HDI 0.43 0.35 23% 1.5

0.5 Relative value (1961=1) 1.0

Global Hectares Per Capita 0.5

0.0 0.0 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Figure TG-3: Biocapacity per capita in Togo by component 1961-2008 Figure TG-4: Contributing drivers of Togo’s biocapacity, 1961-2008 * GNI fraction of world from 1970, not 1961 ** HDI value from 1980, not 1961

26 FOOTPRINT AND BIOCAPACITY ATLAS OF FRANCOPHONIE MEMBER NATIONS

Biocapacity per capita Ecological Footprint per capita GDP (left axis): ConsumptionGovernment Investment 0-14 years15-64 years >65 years GNI (left axis) GNI ratio (right axis)

2.0 8

7 400 1.0 National GNIpercapitaoverworldtotal 1.5 6 0.8 350 5 300 1.0 0.6 [billionths] 4 250

200 Population [millions] 3 0.4 150 0.5 [constant 2000 $ US] 2 100 0.2 Global Hectares Per Capita Global Hectares Gross Domestic Product Per Capita 1 50

0.0 0 0.0 0 1960 1975 1990 2005 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Figure TG-5: Togo’s per capita biocapacity deﬁ cit, 1961-2008 Figure TG-7: Togo’s GDP by component, GNI, and ratio of national Figure TG-9: Togo’s population by age group, 1961-2010 GNI per capita to world total GNI, 1961-2008

12 Fishing Ground Grazing Land Cropland Carbon Forest

10 Ecological footprintinghaperperson

Threshold for high human development 8

2.0

Global biocapacity per person in 2008 6 1.5

4 1.0 Blue box represents global sustainable 2 0.5 development - with high 2 human development Global Hectares Per Capita Global Hectares within globally replicable 0.0 0 resource demands. 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 United Nations Human Development Index Figure TG-6: Togo’s per capita biocapacity deﬁ cit by contributing land- use type, 1961-2008 Figure TG-8: Ecological Footprint and HDI for all countries in 2008, with Togo’s trend for 1980-2008

27 TUNISIA FOOTPRINT AND BIOCAPACITY ATLAS OF FRANCOPHONIE MEMBER NATIONS

Built-up Land Forest Land Fishing Grounds Population Ecological Footprint - Total Ecological Footprint per capita Grazing Land Cropland Carbon Footprint

2.0 5

4 1.5

1.0

0.5 Relative value (1961=1) 1 Global Hectares Per Capita

0.0 0 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Figure TN-1: Ecological Footprint per capita in Tunisia by component, Figure TN-2: Contributing drivers of Tunisia’s Ecological Footprint, 1961-2008 1961-2008 Indicator Value Value Change (2008) (1961) (%) EF per capita [gha] 1.76 0.93 90% - EF Carbon 0.66 0.05 1143% BC per capita [gha] 0.96 1.18 -19% BC deficit per capita [gha] 0.81 -0.25 - Built-up LandForest Land Fishing Grounds Grazing Land Cropland Population Biocapacity per hectare (Biocapacity density) Area Biocapacity per capita - deficit Forest 0.81 0.15 441% GNI per capita 2,857 689 314% [constant 2000 $US] - fraction of world 0.07 0.07 -2% [billionths] GDP per capita 3,023 691 337%1.5 2.5 [constant 2000 $US] Exports per capita 1,176 162 625% [constant 2000 $US] 1.2 2.0 Population ['000] 10,329 4,277 141%

0-14 2,459 1,830 34%0.9 15-64 7,294 2,215 229% 1.5 >64 850 176 383% 0.6 HDI 0.69 0.45 52%

Relative value (1961=1) 1.0 0.3 Global Hectares Per Capita

0.0 0.5 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Figure TN-3: Biocapacity per capita in Tunisia by component 1961-2008 Figure TN-4: Contributing drivers of Tunisia’s biocapacity, 1961-2008 * GNI fraction of world from 1970, not 1961 ** HDI value from 1980, not 1961

28 FOOTPRINT AND BIOCAPACITY ATLAS OF FRANCOPHONIE MEMBER NATIONS

Biocapacity per capita Ecological Footprint per capita GDP (left axis): ConsumptionGovernment Investment 0-14 years15-64 years >65 years GNI (left axis) GNI ratio (right axis)

2.0 12

3500 1.0 National GNIpercapitaoverworldtotal 10 1.5 0.8 3000 8

2500 [billionths] 1.0 0.6 6 2000 Population [millions] 0.4 1500 4

0.5 [constant 2000 $ US] 1000 0.2

Global Hectares Per Capita Global Hectares 2 Gross Domestic Product Per Capita 500

0.0 0 0.0 0 1960 1975 1990 2005 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Figure TN-5: Tunisia’s per capita biocapacity deﬁ cit, 1961-2008 Figure TN-7: Tunisia’s GDP by component, GNI, and ratio of national Figure TN-9: Tunisia’s population by age group, 1961-2010 GNI per capita to world total GNI, 1961-2008

12 Fishing Ground Grazing Land Cropland Carbon Forest

10 Ecological footprintinghaperperson

Threshold for high human development 8

2.0

Global biocapacity per person in 2008 6

1.5

4 1.0 Blue box represents global sustainable 2 development - with high 0.5 2 human development Global Hectares Per Capita Global Hectares within globally replicable 0.0 0 resource demands. 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 United Nations Human Development Index Figure TN-6: Tunisia’s per capita biocapacity deﬁ cit by contributing land-use type, 1961-2008 Figure TN-8: Ecological Footprint and HDI for all countries in 2008, with Tunisia’s trend for 1980-2008

29 APPENDIX A: CALCULATING THE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT AND BIOCAPACITY

The National Footprint Accounts track competing for bioproductive space. Yields are mutually exclusive: If two DANNUAL above), YN is the national countries’ use of ecological services and Built-up land refl ects the bioproductivity crops are grown at the same time on average yield for P, and YF and EQF are resources as well as the biocapacity compromised by infrastructure and the same hectare, one portion of the the yield factor and equivalence factor, available in each country. As with hydropower. Forest land for carbon hectare is assigned to one crop, and respectively, for the country and land any resource accounts, they are static, dioxide uptake represents the carbon the remainder to the other. This avoids use type in question. The yield factor is quantitative descriptions of outcomes absorptive capacity of a world double counting. This follows the same the ratio of national-to-world-average for any given year in the past for which average hectare of forest needed to logic as measuring the size of a farm: yields. It is calculated as the annual data exist. The detailed calculation absorb human induced carbon dioxide Each hectare is only counted once, even availability of usable products and methodology of the most updated emissions, after having considered the though it might provide multiple services. varies by country and year. Equivalence Accounts are described in Calculation ocean sequestration capacity (also factors translate the area supplied or The Ecological Footprint, in its most Methodology for the National called the carbon Footprint). demanded of a specifi c land use type basic form, is calculated by the following Footprint Accounts, 2011 Edition (e.g. world average cropland, grazing equation: (www.footprintnetwork.org, 2011). The The Ecological Footprint calculates land, etc.) into units of world average implementation of the National Footprint the combined demand for ecological biologically productive area expressed Accounts through database-supported resources wherever they are located in global hectares. These factors vary by templates is described in the Guidebook and presents them as the global average land use type and year. to the National Footprint Accounts area needed to support a specifi c (Kitzes et al. 2008) and the method human activity. This quantity is expressed Annual demand for manufactured or paper by Borucke et al. (2013). Kitzes et in units of global hectares. A global where D is the annual demand of a derivative products (e.g. fl our or wood al. (2009) outline the research agenda hectare is defi ned as a biologically product and Y is the annual yield of the pulp) is converted into primary product for improvements. productive hectare with world average same product (Borucke et al, 2013). equivalents (e.g., wheat or roundwood) bioproductivity. Yield is expressed in global hectares. In through the use of extraction rates. These The National Footprint Accounts, practice, global hectares are estimated quantities of primary product equivalents 2011 edition, calculate the Ecological By expressing all results in a common with the help of two factors: The yield are then translated into an Ecological Footprint and biocapacity for 240 unit, biocapacity and Footprints can be factors (that compare national average Footprint. The Ecological Footprint also countries, territories and regions, from directly compared across land use types yield per hectare to world average yield embodies the energy required for the 1961 to 2008. and countries. in the same land category) and the manufacturing process. equivalence factors (which capture the Demand for resource production and ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT relative productivity among the various waste assimilation are translated into land and sea area types). CONSUMPTION, PRODUCTION, The National Footprint Accounts, global hectares by dividing the total AND TRADE 2011 edition, track human demand amount of a resource consumed by the Therefore, the formula of the Ecological for ecological services in terms of six yield per hectare, or dividing the waste Footprint becomes: The National Footprint Accounts major land use types (cropland, grazing emitted by the absorptive capacity per calculate the Footprint of a population land, forest land, carbon Footprint, hectare. Yields are calculated based on from a number of perspectives. Most fi shing grounds, and built-up land). The various international statistics, primarily commonly reported is the Ecological Ecological Footprint of each major land those from the United Nations Food Footprint of consumption of a population, use type is calculated by summing the and Agriculture Organization (FAO where P is the amount of a product typically just called Ecological Footprint. contributions of products and activities ResourceSTAT Statistical Databases). harvested or waste emitted (equal to The Ecological Footprint of consumption 30 FOOTPRINT AND BIOCAPACITY ATLAS OF FRANCOPHONIE MEMBER NATIONS

for a given country measures the BIOCAPACITY SELECTED SOURCE DATA biocapacity demanded by the fi nal A national biocapacity calculation starts consumption of all the residents of the Dataset Source with the total amount of bioproductive country. This includes their household land and sea available. “Bioproductive” Ecological Footprint consumption as well as their collective refers to land and water areas that Production of primary consumption, such as schools, roads, FAO ProdSTAT section of the FAOSTAT web-site: http:// supports signifi cant photosynthetic agricultural products faostat.fao.org/site/567/default.aspx#ancor fi re brigades, etc., which serve the activity and accumulation of biomass, household, but may not be directly paid Production of crop-based Feed from general marketed crops data is directly drawn ignoring barren areas of low, dispersed for by the households. feeds used to feed from the SUA/FBS section of FAOSTAT : productivity. This is not to say that areas animals http://faostat.fao.org/site/354/default.aspx In contrast, a country’s primary such as the Sahara Desert, Antarctica, or Alpine mountaintops do not support Import and Export of FAO TradeSTAT section of the FAOSTAT web-site: production Ecological Footprint is the primary agricultural and http://faostat.fao.org/site/535/default.aspx#ancor sum of the Footprints for all resources life; their production is simply too livestock products harvested and all waste generated within widespread to be directly harvestable Livestock crop the country’s geographical borders. This and negligible in quantity. Biocapacity Calculated by Global Footprint Network based upon the is an aggregated measure of the amount consumption following datasets: includes all the area within a country • FAO Production for Livestock primary. necessary for supporting the actual of area available, weighted by the • Haberl, et al. 2007. Quantifying and mapping the human harvest of primary products (cropland, productivity of that area. It represents appropriation of net primary production in earth’s terrestrial grazing land, forest land, and fi shing the ability of the biosphere to produce ecosystems. PNAS 104: 12 crops, livestock (pasture), timber grounds), the country’s infrastructure Production, import and FAO ForeSTAT section of the FAOSTAT website: and hydropower (built-up land), and the products (forest), and fi sh, as well as to export of primary forestry http://faostat.fao.org/site/630/default.aspx area needed to absorb fossil fuel carbon uptake carbon dioxide in forests. It also products dioxide emissions generated within the includes how much of this regenerative capacity is occupied by infrastructure Production, import and FAO FishSTAT section of the FAOSTAT website: country (carbon Footprint). export of primary fishery http://www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/en (built-up land). In short, it measures products The difference between the production the ability of available terrestrial and and consumption Footprint is trade, aquatic areas to provide ecological Import and Export of Data available directly from the UN Commodity Trade shown by the following equation: services. A country’s biocapacity for any commodities StatisticsDatabase. http://comtrade.un.org. land use type is calculated as: Economic Trends Debt World Bank data portal

Gross Domestic Product lan Heston, Robert Summers and Bettina Aten, Penn World Table Version 6.3, Center for International Comparisons of Production, Income and Prices at the University of Pennsylvania, August 2009. where EFC is the Ecological Footprint where BC is the biocapacity, A is the Demographic Trends of consumption, EFP is the Ecological area available for a given land use type, Population by age group Footprint of production, and EFI and and YF and EQF are the yield factor and United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Population Division. World Population Prospects: The 2008 EFE are the Footprints of imported and equivalence factor, respectively, for the exported commodity ﬂ ows, respectively. country land use type in question. Revision. http://esa.un.org/unpp/index.asp 31 APPENDIX B

REFERENCES Kitzes, J., A. Galli, S.M. Rizk, A. Reed and M. Wackernagel. 2008. Guidebook to the National Footprint Accounts: 2008 Edition. Oakland: Global Footprint Network.

Kitzes, J., Galli, A, Bagliani, M., Barrett, J., et al., 2009. A Research Agenda for Improving National Ecological Footprint Accounts. Ecological Economics, 68 (7), 1991– 2007.

Borucke, M. et al, 2013, Accounting for demand and supply of the biosphere’s regenerative capacity: The National Footprint Accounts’ underlying methodology and framework, Ecological Indicators 24 (2013) 518–533

Abbreviations

BC Biocapacity, regenerative capacity of nature, measured in global hectares

EF Ecological Footprint, human demand on nature, measured in global hectares

GDP Gross Domestic Product

gha global hectare

GNI Gross National Income

HDI UNDP’s Human Development Index

Country with * slightly updated results based on 2011 edition

Country with *** results from 2010 edition, modified in country collaboration

32 FOOTPRINT AND BIOCAPACITY ATLAS OF FRANCOPHONIE MEMBER NATIONS

“ W e have entered a global auction, with more people bidding for fewer resources. Such an auction changes the rules of competitiveness, and poses a systemic risk to many countries’ economic stability. In a time of global ecological overshoot, managing our use of natural capital is crucial for economic success.

33 U.S. OFFICE In the past, seemingly unlimited resources fueled 312 Clay Street, Suite 300 Oakland, CA 94607-3510 USA T: +1 (510) 839 8879 our economies. As demand for these resources

EUROPE OFFICE and other ecological services expand, ecological International Environment House 2 7-9 chemin de Balexert deﬁ cits are skyrocketing. As a consequence, 1219 Chatelaine (Geneva) SWITZERLAND it requires ever more effort to secure resources. T: +41 22 797 41 08 [email protected] This tightening situation increasingly affects whether www.footprintnetwork.org business, communities, and nations succeed.

ORGANISATION INTERNATIONALE DE LA FRANCOPHONIE 19-21 avenue Bosquet Global Footprint Network and La Francophonie’s 75007 Paris FRANCE T: + 33 1 44 11 12 50 initiative documents these resource and www.francophonie.org consumption trends among member nations and www.iepf.org outlines options for action, so all can prosper in supported by: Printed on 100% recycled paper. a world of resource constraints.