Ecological Wealth of Nations by Global Footprint Network

Title

THE ECOLOGICAL WEALTH OF NATIONS Earthâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s biocapacity as a new framework for international cooperation The Ecological Power of Nations

Contents Foreword Exploring a new perspective

1 2

Biocapacity and the sustainability challenge

Global ecological limits

Ecological Footprint and biocapacity of nations

Development that fits on one Earth

Human Development Index and Ecological Footprint of countries, 2006

Biocapacity constraints and national well-being

A new map of the world

Investment risks and opportunities

Interpreting national Footprint and biocapacity trends

Biocapacity & Ecological Footprint over time World, Latin America, North America & Oceania Africa Asia Europe

24 25 26 27

Data Tables: Ecological Footprint and biocapacity of nations, 2005

References and further reading

Global Footprint Network partner organizations

EDITORS Steven Goldfinger Pati Poblete TEXT AND GRAPHICS Susan Burns William Coleman Brad Ewing Katsunori Iha Alessandro Galli Steven Goldfinger David Moore Juan Alfonso Peña Pati Poblete Anders Reed Meredith Stechbart Mathis Wackernagel NATIONAL FOOTPRINT ACCOUNTS William Coleman Brad Ewing Alessandro Galli David Moore Anna Oursler Anders Reed Meredith Stechbart Mathis Wackernagel Robert Williams GRAPHIC DESIGN Info Grafik Inc. Daniela Arias Juan Alfonso Peña PRINTER Hunza Graphics Oakland, California, United States of America.

Global Footprint Network, promotes a sustainable economy by advancing the Ecological Footprint, a tool that makes sustainability measurable. Together with its partners, the network coordinates research, develops methodological standards and provides decision makers with robust resource accounts to help the human economy operate within the Earth’s ecological limits.

Published in April 2010 by Global Footprint Network, Oakland, California, United States of America. © 2010 Global Footprint Network. All rights reserved. Any reproduction in full or in part of this publication must mention the title and credit the aforementioned publisher as the copyright owner. This report is a revision of an earlier edition that was written and produced by Juan Alfonso Peña, and published in August 2009.

Photographs Photographs courtesy of Yann ArthusBertrand from the book Earth from Above: 365 Days published by Harry N. Abrams, Inc., © 2001 Harry N. Abrams, Inc. See www. yannarthusbertrand.org and www.goodplanet. org.

Photograph courtesy of NASA was taken by an Expedition 7 crewmember onboard the International Space Station (ISS). Photograph from Patricio Pillajo courtesy of Fundación Terra. Cover photo: Canada. Quebec Province. Charlevoix forest. © Yann Arthus-Bertrand. Page 2: Plantation. © Juan Alfonso Peña; Carrots. © Juan Alfonso Peña; Tomatoes. © Juan Alfonso Peña; Corn. © Juan Alfonso Peña; Herbs. © Juan Alfonso Peña; Water. © Patricio Pillajo. Page 5: Anvil clouds over the Pacific Ocean, NASA Human Spaceflight Collection, ISS007-E-10807, 21 July, 2003. Page 11: Ivory Coast. Crowd at Abengourou. © Yann Arthus-Bertrand. Page 14: Kenya. Small African fields. © Yann Arthus-Bertrand. Page 22: Ecuador. Sierra region. Fields near Quito. © Yann Arthus-Bertrand. Page 23: Mali. Market gardening near Tombouctou. © Yann Arthus-Bertrand.

This report was made possible through the generous support of the Flora Family Foundation; Foundation for Global Community; Mental Insight Foundation; Skoll Foundation; TAUPO Fund; Luc Hoffmann; André and Rosalie Hoffmann; Catherine Oeri; Lutz Peters; Daniela Schlettwein-Gsell; Peter Seidel; Terry and Mary Vogt; Marie-Christine Wackernagel Burckhardt; and Oliver and Bea Wackernagel. We would also like to acknowledge Global Footprint Network’s partner organizations and the Global Footprint Network National Accounts Committee for their guidance, contributions and commitment to robust National Footprint Accounts.

Foreword When I was born in 1962 most of the world’s countries were using resources and emitting carbon dioxide at a rate that their own ecosystems could keep up with. Today, less than 20 percent of the world’s population lives in countries where this is still the case. How do we know this? By using Ecological Footprint accounting, a method for calculating society’s use of nature’s assets. Based on data from the United Nations, as well as in-country statistical sources, it compares humanity’s Ecological Footprint (the demand our consumption places on the biosphere) with biocapacity (the biosphere’s ability to meet this demand), providing a kind of bank statement for the planet. The results for 2006, which are presented in this report: Our Footprint now overshoots the Earth’s biocapacity by more than 40 percent. In other words, the planet’s living systems need to grow for about a year and five months to meet the demands we are placing on them in a single year. Overshoot is possible only for a limited time. Similar to the financial world, we can temporarily eat into our ecological savings by drawing down our resource

stocks; or we can take out a loan to be “repaid” at a future date, putting more carbon into the air than nature can currently absorb. But for how long can we do this, and at what cost in the interim? Based on current United Nations agencies’ projections of moderate population growth, a slight decline in world hunger, partial decarbonization of global energy systems, and a continued increase in agricultural productivity, by the late 2030s humanity will need the equivalent of two Earths to keep up with our demands. With demand so far out of synch with supply, and ecological debt accumulating from decades of ecological overspending, it is unrealistic to assume we can even reach this level of consumption. There just are not that many fisheries to overfish, forests to deforest, or atmospheres to fill up with CO2 before climate change wreaks havoc with food and water supplies.

course, one which all too often seems to be more about maintaining the “right to collapse.” We must work with nature’s budget, not against it, if we are to secure human well-being for both current and future generations. To succeed, and to make this success last, we need to alter the path we are on today. I am an unwavering optimist and am convinced we can. Consider this: If the current trends in biocapacity and Footprint represented financial trajectories, every planner, economist or minister would recognize the urgency of changing course, and develop an aggressive agenda for rectifying the situation. Nothing less is required with our current ecological trajectory. After all, more money can be printed, but nature’s assets cannot.

Mathis Wackernagel, Ph.D. President, Global Footprint Network

We have a choice: Maintaining the “right to develop” – a key motivation behind this publication, and more broadly, the activities of Global Footprint Network – means moving away from our current

The Ecological Wealth of Nations

Exploring a new perspective

This report documents the demand that humanity is putting on the Earth’s ecological assets, and the capacity of ecosystems to keep up with this demand, both globally and by individual nation. The analysis is primarily based on statistical information that countries report to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UN FAO), the UN Development Program (UNDP) and other international organizations The purpose of this publication is to provide data rather than policy recommendations, and to open a creative debate over the implications of living in a resourceconstrained world. Statistics show that humanity is using resources and turning them into wastes faster than the Earth’s living systems can absorb these wastes or turn them back into resources. This information is intended to raise awareness and catalyze a discussion of the various risks and opportunities for individual countries created by this imbalance, exploring questions such as: What does this global ecological overshoot mean to those countries that use less biological capacity than they have available? 2

The Ecological Wealth of Nations

Conversely, what does it mean for those who are running an ecological deficit? What are the political, economic, social and strategic implications of eight countries controlling more than half the planet’s biological capacity? How can nations work together to best manage ecological assets so that they are not depleted or degraded, but rather, can continue to meet human demands while maintaining a healthy biodiversity? The data presented in this publication are intended to enhance understanding of the extent, use and distribution of ecological assets, and their relationship to human wellbeing. It provides an objective and measurable starting point for politicians, decision-makers, opinion leaders and citizens to address the sustainability challenge — how to live well, while living within the means of the planet. This challenge is perhaps the key issue of the 21st century, and how it is resolved will likely determine the fate of humanity and the rest of the Earth’s species.

Global Footprint Network invites all countries and organizations to participate in this debate, and to explore the implications of the Ecological Footprint and biocapacity data for national development, valuation of ecological services, and international agreements, such as those designed to protect biodiversity. In addition, these data provide an important perspective for shaping and evaluating post-Copenhagen initiatives related to the emission and capture of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation and other sources. In a world that is confronting simultaneous limits on food, water, soil, energy, climate and biodiversity, this perspective brings current ecological realities into sharper focus. In particular, it can help gauge whether proposed solutions will result in an absolute reduction in humanity’s ecological overshoot, or will just transfer pressure from one stressed ecosystem to another.

Increasing economic globalization and a rapidly growing world population are pushing resource consumption and fossil fuel emissions to unprecedented levels. The ecosystems that provide society with these resources and absorb its carbon emissions can no longer keep up. Just as we are moving toward a single global economy, scientists are coming to see the planet as a single, integrated, self-regulating organism. Thus, it is not surprising that as we surpass ecological limits, multiple consequences such as climate change, ocean acidification and biodiversity loss are emerging simultaneously. Solving this problem means addressing not just carbon or any other single limit in isolation. Instead, a more holistic approach is required to ensure that pressure is not just being shifted from one part of the biosphere to another. The Ecological Footprint, a resource accounting tool, takes such a holistic approach by tracking flows of resources and carbon emissions through production, consumption and trade to show where ecological assets are available and where they are being used. Such a tool is vital in addressing the dangers of our

ongoing ecological challenge. We have been running annual ecological deficits for at least a quarter of a century, and as this debt grows, the ecosystems that support our health and our economies are in increasing danger of deterioration or collapse. We cannot continue to ignore the importance of our ecological assets, and the fact that they are impacted by both poverty and affluence. Now, more than ever, it is essential to recognize that humanity’s health and well-being depend on the health and well-being of the Earth’s ecosystems. Countries that import food, fiber and timber resources or products that incorporate them are meeting their consumption demands by using ecological assets from outside their own borders, and are at risk if demand outpaces supply, or if resource shortages develop in the exporting country. Countries exporting these resources are using their ecological assets to generate revenue flows, in addition to meeting their own needs, and thus are at economic risk if domestic demand for these resources grows, or if resource productivity, and thus export income, declines. In addition, many countries generate more carbon emissions

Image © The Ministry for the Environment, New Zeland

Biocapacity and the sustainability challenge

than their own ecosystems can sequester; if the world decides that countries will have to pay for these excess emissions, this may entail significant new costs. Tracking resource and emissions flows is a key step in addressing pressure on these overburdened ecosystems. Reducing this pressure is not just altruistic. While doing so will benefit all of humanity and many other species, it is also in the self-interest of nations to know how much natural capital they have and how much they are using. Understanding whose ecological assets they are dependent on and who is dependent on theirs will help nations identify both risks and opportunities,

and will help ensure that investments they make in development today will continue to pay dividends tomorrow. The Ecological Footprint helps clarify these risks and opportunities, laying the foundation for ecologically-sound decisionmaking and a new global collaboration, one based on the sharing of ecological assets, without their depletion or degradation. Throughout this publication, you will see demonstrated the growing need for nations to recognize the value of their own ecological assets, as well as the need to find a way for humanity to live well, within the means of our planet. You will also learn more about the Ecological Footprint, and what it tells us about the current ecological balances of both individual countries and the world as a whole.

The Ecological Wealth of Nations

Global Ecological Limits 12 Figure 1: Human Demand on the Biosphere, 1961-2006 1.5

Biocapacity Footprint

1 Earth

0.5

Ecological Footprint Biocapacity

0.0 1960

1975

1990

Human Demand

2005

In 1961 we used a little more than half of the Earth’s biocapacity; in 2006 we used 44% more than was available.

The Ecological Wealth of Nations

The Ecological Footprint measures the area of biologically productive land and water required to provide the resources used and absorb the carbon dioxide waste generated by human activity, under current technology. Accounting for a country’s consumption Footprint starts with all goods and services produced in that country, then adds imports and subtracts exports. Biocapacity is the area of productive land and water available to produce resources or absorb carbon dioxide waste, given current management practices. Both the Ecological Footprint and biocapacity are measured in standard units called global hectares (gha). One gha represents a hectare of forest, cropland, grazing land or fishing grounds with world average productivity. While economies, populations and resource demands grow, the size of the planet remains the same. In 2006, humanity’s Footprint exceeded global biocapacity by 44 percent (Figure 1). Moderate United Nations projections suggest demand will grow significantly faster than biocapacity, and that by the late 2030s, the capacity of two Earths will be needed

to keep up with our consumption. Staying on this course would quickly diminish our room to maneuver, and the well-being of many of the planet’s residents would be increasingly at risk. In 2006, by September 11, humanity had used all the combined resource production and carbon sequestration capacity that the planet’s ecosystems had available for that entire year. Since the mid1980s, when global ecological overshoot first became a consistent reality, we have been drawing down the biosphere’s principal rather than living off its annual interest. To support our consumption, we have been liquidating resource stocks and allowing carbon dioxide to accumulate in the atmosphere. Ecological overshoot is possible only for a limited time before ecosystems begin to degrade and possibly collapse. This can already be seen in water shortages, desertification, erosion, reduced cropland productivity, overgrazing, deforestation, rapid extinction of species, collapse of fisheries and global climate change. New consequences of overshoot are regularly being discovered, and others may only become apparent long into the future.

The biosphere is made up of complex, interactive systems that are often unpredictable. Air, water, land, and life -- including human life -- combine forces to create a constantly changing world.

If these changes exceed certain thresholds conditions could depart from those that were present during the course of human evolution, making the planet a less hospitable place to us to live.

Photo of anvil clouds over the Pacific Ocean. NASA, 21 July, 2003

The Ecological Wealth of Nations

Global hectares (millions)

3000 0

2500

2000

1500

1000 Built-up La

UnitedStates States United China China India India Russian Federation Russia Japan Japan United Kingdom United Kingdom Mexico Mexico Germany Germany Italy Italy France France Spain Spain Nigeria Nigeria Turkey Turkey Canada Canada Iran Iran, Islamic Republic of Korea, South Korea, Republic of Poland Poland SouthAfrica Africa South Ukraine Ukraine Pakistan Pakistan Argentina Argentina Thailand Thailand Egypt Egypt VietNam Nam Viet Colombia Colombia SaudiArabia Arabia Saudi Sudan Sudan Netherlands Netherlands Kazakhstan Kazakhstan Greece Greece Algeria Algeria Venezuela, BolivarianVenezuela Republic of Belgium Belgium Romania Romania Czech Republic Czech Republic Chile Chile Peru Peru Myanmar Myanmar Uzbekistan Uzbekistan Portugal Portugal Congo, DRC Congo, Democratic Republic of United Arab Emirates United Arab Emirates Switzerland Switzerland Morocco Morocco Belarus Belarus Austria Austria Tanzania Tanzania, United Republic of Denmark Denmark Iraq Iraq Ghana Ghana Israel Israel Ireland Ireland Korea, North Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Hungary Hungary New NewZealand Zealand Syria Syrian Arab Republic Finland Finland Slovakia Slovakia Cuba Cuba Ecuador Ecuador Bulgaria Bulgaria Niger Niger Bolivia Bolivia Madagascar Madagascar

1000

UnitedStates States United China China Russian Federation Russia Canada Canada India India Argentina Argentina Bolivia Bolivia Mexico Mexico Colombia Colombia France France Congo, DRC Congo, Democratic Republic of Germany Germany Nigeria Nigeria Peru Peru Turkey Turkey Sudan Sudan Ukraine Ukraine United Kingdom United Kingdom SouthAfrica Africa South Japan Japan Myanmar Myanmar Venezuela, BolivarianVenezuela Republic of Poland Poland Iran Iran, Islamic Republic of Finland Finland Thailand Thailand Chile Chile Kazakhstan Kazakhstan Paraguay Paraguay Italy Italy Madagascar Madagascar Pakistan Pakistan Spain Spain Angola Angola New NewZealand Zealand Romania Romania Congo Congo Viet VietNam Nam Cameroon Cameroon Central African Rep. Central African Republic Chad Chad Tanzania Tanzania, United Republic of Zambia Zambia Belarus Belarus Saudi SaudiArabia Arabia C么te C么ted'Ivoire d'Ivoire Ecuador Ecuador Mali Mali Norway Norway Denmark Denmark Morocco Morocco Algeria Algeria Guinea Guinea Czech Republic Czech Republic Niger Niger Hungary Hungary Ghana Ghana Austria Austria Uzbekistan Uzbekistan Egypt Egypt Papua New Papua NewGuinea Guinea Bulgaria Bulgaria Burkina BurkinaFaso Faso Mauritania Mauritania

Global hectares (millions)

Ecological Footprint and biocapacity of nations

3000

2500

2000

1500 Built-up La

Figure 2. Total Ecological Footprint, by country, 2006

500

Figure 3. Total Biocapacity, by country, 2006

500

The Ecological Wealth of Nations

Forest Lan

Fishing G

Grazing L

Cropland

Carbon Fo

Forest Lan

Fishing Gr

Grazing L

Cropland

Ghana Ghana Austria Austria Uzbekistan Uzbekistan Egypt Egypt Papua New Papua NewGuinea Guinea Bulgaria Bulgaria Burkina BurkinaFaso Faso Mauritania Mauritania Nicaragua Nicaragua Ireland Ireland Namibia Namibia Netherlands Netherlands Syria Syrian Arab Republic Turkmenistan Turkmenistan Latvia Latvia Senegal Senegal Greece Greece Yemen Yemen Slovakia Slovakia Korea, South Korea, Republic of Guatemala Guatemala Honduras Honduras Somalia Somalia Cambodia Cambodia Korea, North Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Portugal Portugal Lithuania Lithuania Cuba Cuba Estonia Estonia Tunisia Tunisia Belgium Belgium Panama Panama Zimbabwe Zimbabwe Switzerland Switzerland Libya Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liberia Liberia Azerbaijan Azerbaijan Croatia Croatia Eritrea Eritrea Laos Lao People's Democratic Republic Costa CostaRica Rica Kyrgyzstan Kyrgyzstan Botswana Botswana Iraq Iraq SriSriLanka Lanka Benin Benin Bosnia\Herzegovina Bosnia and Herzegovina Oman Oman United Arab Emirates United Arab Emirates Sierra SierraLeone Leone Guinea-Bissau Guinea-Bissau Dominican Rep. Dominican Republic Slovenia Slovenia Moldova Moldova Tajikistan Tajikistan Albania Albania Haiti Haiti Israel Israel Armenia Armenia Fiji Fiji Gambia Gambia Solomon SolomonIslands Islands Lebanon Lebanon Jordan Jordan Kuwait Kuwait Djibouti Djibouti Singapore Singapore Finland Finland Slovakia Slovakia Cuba Cuba Ecuador Ecuador Bulgaria Bulgaria Niger Niger Bolivia Bolivia Madagascar Madagascar Guatemala Guatemala Mali Mali Kuwait Kuwait Yemen Yemen Paraguay Paraguay Cameroon Cameroon Singapore Singapore Norway Norway Burkina BurkinaFaso Faso Azerbaijan Azerbaijan Tunisia Tunisia Libya Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Turkmenistan Turkmenistan Chad Chad SriSriLanka Lanka Côte Côted'Ivoire d'Ivoire Angola Angola Honduras Honduras Croatia Croatia Senegal Senegal Zimbabwe Zimbabwe Zambia Zambia Guinea Guinea Bosnia\Herzegovina Bosnia and Herzegovina Dominican Rep. Dominican Republic Somalia Somalia Cambodia Cambodia Nicaragua Nicaragua Costa CostaRica Rica Jordan Jordan Lithuania Lithuania Papua New Papua NewGuinea Guinea Panama Panama Latvia Latvia Mauritania Mauritania Oman Oman Benin Benin Lebanon Lebanon Estonia Estonia Albania Albania Slovenia Slovenia Botswana Botswana Kyrgyzstan Kyrgyzstan Moldova Moldova Namibia Namibia Central African Rep. Central African Republic Laos Lao People's Democratic Republic Tajikistan Tajikistan Armenia Armenia Haiti Haiti Sierra SierraLeone Leone Liberia Liberia Eritrea Eritrea Congo Congo Fiji Fiji Gambia Gambia Guinea-Bissau Guinea-Bissau Solomon SolomonIslands Islands Djibouti Djibouti 1.5 Built-up

1 Earth

Built-up Land

Forest Land

Fishing Ground

Grazing Land

Cropland

Global biocapacity

1960 1965 1970

Forest L

Fishing Grazing

0.5 Croplan

Carbon

0.0 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

The Ecological Wealth of Nations

2005

Figure 4. Humanity’s Ecological Footprint, by component, 1961-2006

Figure x. Humanity’s Ecological Footprint, by component, 1961-2006

Carbon Footprint

Note: in order to get x-axis starting at 1960, a data point of zero was included. So that this data point doesn’t show up on the graph, white boxes were placed to cover them up.

Built-up Land

Forest Land

Fishing Ground

Grazing Land

Cropland

Global hectares (per capita)

United Arab Emirates United Arab Emirates United States of America United States Ireland Ireland Kuwait Kuwait New Zealand New Zealand Denmark Denmark Estonia Estonia United Kingdom United Kingdom Canada Canada Greece Greece Belgium Belgium Spain Spain Switzerland Switzerland Finland Finland Israel Israel Czech Republic Czech Republic Slovakia Slovakia Italy Italy Austria Austria Netherlands Netherlands France France Latvia Latvia Singapore Singapore Russia Russian Federation Kazakhstan Kazakhstan Portugal Portugal Belarus Belarus Norway Norway Japan Japan Germany Germany Poland Poland Slovenia Slovenia Botswana Botswana Turkmenistan Turkmenistan Korea, South Korea, Republic of Fiji Fiji Oman Oman Saudi SaudiArabia Arabia Bosnia\Herzegovina Bosnia and Herzegovina Paraguay Paraguay Croatia Croatia Lithuania Lithuania Bulgaria Bulgaria Mexico Mexico Hungary Hungary Panama Panama Libya Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Mauritania Mauritania Chile Chile Argentina Argentina Namibia Namibia Turkey Turkey South SouthAfrica Africa Costa CostaRica Rica Romania Romania Ukraine Ukraine Iran Iran, Islamic Republic of Albania Albania Bolivia Bolivia Venezuela, BolivarianVenezuela Republic of Cuba Cuba Azerbaijan Azerbaijan Nicaragua Nicaragua

Bolivia Canada Congo Finland New Zealand Paraguay Estonia Namibia Central African Rep. Latvia Argentina Russia Mauritania Norway Denmark United States Kazakhstan Botswana Ireland Chile Peru Colombia Papua New Guinea Lithuania Panama Turkmenistan Belarus Chad Angola Guinea-Bissau Nicaragua Solomon Islands Madagascar Austria Guinea Zambia France Sudan Slovakia Congo, DRC Bulgaria Venezuela Czech Republic Liberia Hungary Mali Oman Fiji Slovenia Ecuador Romania Ukraine Cameroon Honduras Niger Germany Poland Costa Rica Croatia Eritrea South Africa Mexico Bosnia\Herzegovina

Global hectares (per capita)

10 Figure 5. Per Capita Ecological Footprint, by country, 2006

The Ecological Wealth of Nations

Built-up

Forest

Fishing

Grazin

Cropla

Carbon

14 Figure 6. Per Capita Biocapacity, by country, 2006

8 Built-up

6 Fishing

Forest

Grazin

2 Cropla

Germany Poland Costa Rica Croatia Eritrea South Africa Mexico Bosnia\Herzegovina C么te d'Ivoire Somalia United Kingdom Libya Myanmar Kyrgyzstan Turkey Laos Senegal United Arab Emirates Greece Burkina Faso Spain Saudi Arabia Switzerland Gambia Portugal Tunisia Moldova Ghana Belgium Guatemala Cuba Thailand Netherlands Italy Albania Sierra Leone Iran Azerbaijan Cambodia Uzbekistan Morocco Nigeria Syria Tanzania China Djibouti Algeria Benin Zimbabwe Armenia Yemen Japan Dominican Rep. Korea,North Viet Nam Kuwait Tajikistan Pakistan Lebanon India Sri Lanka Israel Egypt Korea, South Jordan Iraq Haiti Singapore

Ukraine Iran Iran, Islamic Republic of Albania Albania Bolivia Bolivia Venezuela, BolivarianVenezuela Republic of Cuba Cuba Azerbaijan Azerbaijan Nicaragua Nicaragua Honduras Honduras Sudan Sudan Lebanon Lebanon Jordan Jordan Algeria Algeria Ecuador Ecuador Tunisia Tunisia Colombia Colombia Mali Mali China China Peru Peru Chad Chad Moldova Moldova Uzbekistan Uzbekistan Solomon SolomonIslands Islands Thailand Thailand Guatemala Guatemala Papua New Papua NewGuinea Guinea Niger Niger Armenia Armenia Syria Syrian Arab Republic Nigeria Nigeria Ghana Ghana Somalia Somalia Guinea Guinea Central African Rep. Central African Republic Korea, North Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Egypt Egypt Burkina BurkinaFaso Faso Dominican Rep. Dominican Republic Morocco Morocco Iraq Iraq Kyrgyzstan Kyrgyzstan Senegal Senegal Madagascar Madagascar Zambia Zambia Liberia Liberia Cameroon Cameroon Gambia Gambia Laos Lao People's Democratic Republic Zimbabwe Zimbabwe Tanzania, United Tanzania Republic of Viet VietNam Nam Benin Benin Guinea-Bissau Guinea-Bissau Yemen Yemen Myanmar Myanmar Congo Congo C么te C么ted'Ivoire d'Ivoire Angola Angola SriSriLanka Lanka Djibouti Djibouti Cambodia Cambodia Tajikistan Tajikistan India India Eritrea Eritrea Sierra SierraLeone Leone Pakistan Pakistan Congo, DRC Congo, Democratic Republic of Haiti Haiti Built-up Land

Forest Land

Fishing Ground

Grazing Land

Cropland

Carbon Footprint Global biocapacity: 1.8 global hectares per capita, with no allocation to support biodiversity

Built-up Land

Forest Land

Fishing Ground

Grazing Land

Cropland

The Ecological Wealth of Nations

Development that fits on one Earth

Humanity’s challenge is to live well, while living within the capacity of the planet, and not degrading ecological assets to the detriment of future generations. This is the challenge of sustainable development. Can living well be measured? The United Nations Human Development Index (HDI) measures life expectancy, education and literacy, and the ability to purchase needed goods and services. On a scale of 0.0 to 1.0, the UN defines a score of 0.8 as the threshold that indicates a high level of development. But development can only be sustained if it is done within the Earth’s ecological limits. This means that the average person’s Ecological Footprint must not exceed the per

capita biocapacity available on the planet — 1.8 global hectares, as of 2006. This figure assumes that humans will use all of the Earth’s biocapacity. However, if we want to ensure the stability of the world’s ecosystems and the many services they provide humanity, a significant percentage of this ecological budget must be allocated to support biodiversity. Thus in reality the area available to support each individual on the planet is less than 1.8 global hectares.

Ivory Coast. Crowd at Abengourou. © Yann Arthus-Bertrand

The Ecological Wealth of Nations

Title

The Ecological Wealth of Nations

Human Development Index and Ecological Footprint of countries, 2006

As populations expand, the total demand for ecological resources typically increases, while the biocapacity available to support each individualâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s consumption shrinks. World population is rising at 1.3 percent a year. At this rate, population doubles approximately every 50 years. This lowers the per capita Footprint threshold for sustainable development, making it more difficult to attain. Economic growth often comes in the form of increased per capita consumption of goods and services. When this is not offset by increased material and energy efficiency in the production of these goods and services, this means a larger per capita Footprint. While some countries may need to increase consumption just to meet basic needs, on a global scale an increase in the average Footprint makes sustainable development that much more elusive. Taken together, the HDI and Footprint thresholds define minimum criteria that must be met if a

The Ecological Wealth of Nations

globally sustainable society is to be achieved. On average, countries would enjoy a high level of development, with an HDI score above 0.8, and have an average Ecological Footprint less than the biocapacity available per person on the planet, 1.8 global hectares as of 2006. Note that in 1961 it would have been easier to meet the Footprint threshold; with considerably fewer people on the planet sharing the Earthâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s bounty, the biocapacity available per person then was about double what it was 45 years later. Figure 7 shows where countries stood relative to these two criteria in 2006. Countries meeting both criteria would be located in the blue quadrant. In spite of international recognition almost 20 years earlier of the need for sustainable development, no single country was found there, nor on average was the world as a whole.

1212

1010

World average biocapacity per capita in 1961

Ecological Footprint (global hectares per capita)

Human Development Index data from UNDP, Human Development Report, 2009

Ecological Footprint (global hectares per capita)

UNDP threshold for high human development

Figure 7. Human Development Index and Ecological Footprint, 2006

African countries Asian countries

World average biocapacity per capita in 2006

European countries

Latin American and Caribbean countries

High human development within the Earthâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s limits

North American countries Oceanian countries

0 0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

United Nations Human Development Index Index United Nations Human Development

The Ecological Wealth of Nations

Figure 7. Human Development Index and Ecological Footprint, 2006

Title

The Ecological Wealth of Nations

We’re going to have to think of ourselves as a subsystem, part of the natural world and that we depend upon it in two ways: we’ll have to take from the natural world resources at a rate at which the natural world can regenerate and we’ll have to throw back the wastes from using those natural resources at a rate the natural world can assimilate. Herman Daly

Kenya. Small African fields. © Yann Arthus-Bertrand

The Ecological Wealth of Nations

Figure x. Net biocapacity, by country, 2006

Biocapacity constraints and national well-being 400

200

Djibouti Burkina Faso Fiji Honduras Benin Turkmenistan Kazakhstan Haiti Moldova Tajikistan Oman Armenia Slovenia Costa Rica Zimbabwe Bulgaria Albania Tanzania

Figure 8. Net Biocapacity, by country, 2006 Biocapacity larger than Ecological Footprint Biocapacity larger than Ecological Footprint Ecological Footprint larger than biocapacity

Global hectares (millions)

-200

-400

-600

-800

-1,000

-1,200

Canada Russia Argentina Bolivia Congo, DRC Colombia Peru Congo Paraguay Angola Finland Madagascar Central African Rep. Myanmar Sudan Zambia New Zealand Cameroon Chad Chile Guinea Papua New Guinea Namibia Mauritania Norway Venezuela Mali Latvia Nicaragua Ecuador Liberia Eritrea Guinea-Bissau Estonia Niger Laos Senegal Sierra Leone Kyrgyzstan Lithuania Panama Botswana Solomon Islands Cambodia Somalia Gambia

Ecological Footprint larger than biocapacity

In an ever more globalized world, countries meet the demand for the resources they consume by using both their own biocapacity, and the biocapacity of other countries. With continuing growth in world population and, in many places, per capita consumption, competition for resources is rapidly increasing. As prices rise and shortages develop, countries may find it difficult to maintain their economies and the well-being of their residents -- and to achieve sought-after development goals or even to sustain existing successes. Wealthier countries will likely be buffered from the impacts of these resource shortages longer than countries with less purchasing power. These shortages have already started to become apparent. In December 2007, the UN Food and

-1,400

Agriculture Organization began warning about absolute rather than distributional global food shortages (Rosenthal, 2007). One response has been an international “biocapacity grab,” with countries buying up the rights to food production — that is, buying cropland biocapacity in other countries in order to ensure a continuing adequate supply of food. Saudi Arabia, for example, has contracted for the use of large areas of land in Ethiopia, while South Korean companies have tried, thus far unsuccessfully, to obtain growing rights to half of the arable land in Madagascar (Rice, 2009). In addition to these attempts to purchase biocapacity, a recent report by the UN Environmental Programme suggests that military conflicts over

control of increasingly scarce natural resources will expand over the coming decades (UNEP, 2009). Countries also make demands on biocapacity external to their own borders through the emissions of carbon dioxide that come from burning fossil fuels, deforestation, and industrial processes such as cement manufacturing. These emissions quickly disperse throughout the global atmosphere. Biocapacity somewhere on the planet is needed to sequester them if their accumulation in the atmosphere is to be avoided. With climate agreements, there soon may be significant costs imposed for emitting carbon dioxide, as well as significant economic benefits for those countries that have more sequestration capacity than they are using.

Oman Armenia Slovenia Costa Rica Zimbabwe Bulgaria Albania Tanzania Hungary Yemen Bosnia\Herzegovina Croatia Lebanon Tunisia Dominican Rep. Belarus Guatemala Romania Libya Jordan Denmark Azerbaijan Sri Lanka Ghana Slovakia Morocco Cuba Syria Austria Ireland Singapore Korea, North Kuwait Ukraine Uzbekistan Czech Republic Iraq Switzerland Portugal Israel Algeria United Arab Emirates Viet Nam Thailand Belgium Greece South Africa Saudi Arabia Netherlands Pakistan Poland Egypt Turkey Nigeria France Iran Mexico Korea, South Germany Spain Italy United Kingdom Japan India China United States

The demands on biocapacity from carbon emissions are not independent of the demands on biocapacity for resources; thus, it is necessary to consider these demands together. For example, current methods of food production heavily depend on the use of fossil fuels to create fertilizer and to power mechanized agriculture. If fossil fuel use is phased-out, demand for sequestration capacity will be reduced, but if yields then decline, more cropland may be required to meet world food demands. If biofuels are used to substitute for some fossil fuel use, the additional area required to grow biomass for fuel production may mean more total cropland will be required if food production is not to be displaced. Where will this new cropland come from? If by conversion of forest to cropland, the resultant deforestation is likely

to increase carbon emissions in the short term, while reducing sequestration capacity in the long term. Whether used for the production of resources or for carbon sequestration, each country and the world as a whole has limited biocapacity, and must therefore decide how much is to be budgeted for resource production and how much for carbon sequestration. Aggregating the Footprints of resource use and CO2 emissions and comparing the total with available biocapacity can help reveal whether proposed strategies for addressing resource shortages and climate change are reducing national, as well as global overshoot, or are simply shifting demand from one type of ecosystem to another.

The Ecological Wealth of Nations

A new map of the world

“The world will no longer be divided by the ideologies of ‘left’ and ‘right,’ but by those who accept ecological limits and those who don’t.” Wolfgang Sachs, Wuppertal Institute

How much is a country relying on domestic, versus foreign, biocapacity to satisfy its own consumption demands? How much of its biocapacity is being used to bolster its economy through exports? If the Footprint of a country’s production does not exceed its own biocapacity, can this remaining biocapacity be managed for sequestration of carbon emissions and thereby earn carbon credits? Knowing the answers to such questions can help a country better manage its economic and social well-being. Many countries rely, in net terms, on the biocapacity of other nations to meet domestic demands for goods and services. For example: Japan imports Ecuadorian wood to make paper; Europe imports meat fed on Brazilian soy; the United States imports Peruvian cotton; and China obtains lumber from Tanzania. Because disruptions of this supply chain can negatively impact their economies and their quality of life, countries that are importing renewable resources are dependent on how well both their own ecological assets and those of their trading partners are being managed. Knowing where this biocapacity is located, and the stability

The Ecological Wealth of Nations

of these assets in the face of political, economic and climatic challenges, can help a country manage its imports and select its trading partners to reduce the risks that come from exposure to trade in an increasingly resource-constrained world. Map 1 in Figure 9 compares each country’s total consumption Footprint with the biocapacity available within its own borders. In 1961, most of the world’s population was living in countries that, in net terms, could provide the food, fiber and timber they were consuming and absorb their carbon emissions. By 2006 the situation had radically changed, with less than 20 percent of the world’s population living in countries that can keep up with their own demands. Reintegrating human society into the larger ecological community will take a new social and economic architecture, one more aligned with the Earth’s physiology. The old geopolitical paradigm will need to give way to a new biopolitical one, and with this shift will come a transition from competition to collaboration, a richness of new possibilities, and creative new solutions for living well without transgressing the Earth’s ecological limits.

Figure 9. Footprint of Consumption Compared to Biocapacity, 1961 and 2006

Footprint more than 150% larger than biocapacity Footprint 100-150% larger than biocapacity Footprint 50-100% larger than biocapacity Footprint 0-50% larger than biocapacity Biocapacity 0-50% larger than Footprint

1961

Biocapacity 50-100% larger than Footprint Biocapacity 100-150% larger than Footprint Biocapacity more than 150% larger than Footprint Insufficient data

2006

The Ecological Wealth of Nations

Investment risks and opportunities

Achieving a sustainable society means, at a minimum, getting out — and staying out — of ecological overshoot. Doing so will require both demand-side and supplyside management of the resources society uses and the wastes it generates. On the demand side, three factors determine the size of a country’s, or the world’s, Ecological Footprint: population (the number of people consuming); per capita consumption (the amount of goods and services each person uses); and resource and waste intensity (the efficiency with which these goods and services are produced). On the supply side, the amount of biocapacity available to meet this demand is a function of how much productive area is available, and how much it yields. Remaining on our current path is not a viable option — ecological limits have already been transgressed, wastes are accumulating in the atmosphere and the oceans, ecosystems that we depend on are in decline all over the planet. In a world of overshoot, businessas-usual means exasperating an already growing ecological debt. This risks further

The Ecological Wealth of Nations

climate change, ecosystem degradation, and possible permanent losses of productivity. The good news is that change is possible, and that those who provide the strategies, technologies, products and services that support the transition to sustainability will be at a distinct advantage. Countries that find ways to create the greatest improvements in the well-being of their people on the smallest Footprints, while maintaining or even expanding their biocapacity, will be more resilient in the face of growing resource constraints and rising costs for carbon emissions, and will be able to maintain their development gains. New technologies that allow leapfrogging over formerly resourceintensive phases of development that are no longer necessary can help make this possible. Businesses that are early adopters in providing technological and other solutions will gain market advantage and remain relevant and competitive in a rapidly changing world.

2.5

Figure 10. Lifespans of People, Assets and Infrastructure

Car

9 yrs*

Nuclear power station

2 Earths

US/europe avg 40 years

Long term waste

Highway

20-50 years

Bridge

1.5

30-75 years

Coal power station 30-75 years

1 Earth

Human

National avgs 32-82 years

Commercial building design

0.5

50-100 years

Housing, railway and dam 50-100 years

0.0 1960

*US Avg

1980

2000

2020

2040

Business As Usual

2060

2080

2100

Infrastructure, because of its long life, will play an especially important role in determining whether the sustainability challenge will be successfully met. The energy, transportation, housing and manufacturing systems we build today will be with us long into the future (Figure 8). If we invest in systems that can operate on a small Footprint, that do not have negative impacts on biocapacity, and that are flexible and resilient in face of changing resource constraints, they will provide lasting benefits. If, on the other hand, we design infrastructure that is dependent on a high level of resource throughput, or that damages or depletes the ecological services that make its operation possible, any benefits gained will be at best shortlived. Similarly, the way we manage agricultural, water and forestry systems will determine whether they will be able to provide an ongoing stream of renewable resources and carbon sequestration services. With more than half the worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s population already living in cities, and that percentage expected to grow, urban infrastructure and the supply chains

that support it are especially critical. Cities provide unique opportunities for achieving efficiency gains in housing and mobility systems while improving quality of life. Utilities providing energy, water and waste management services can be integrated to generate Footprint reductions that in less densely populated areas might be more difficult to attain. In addition to physical infrastructure, improvement in intellectual infrastructure, particularly in education and health care, will play an essential role. Education helps shape values, provides a framework for understanding sustainability, and builds the skills to develop solutions and new ideas. In countries with rapidly expanding populations, education, especially of women, along with improved health care and access to family planning options, can help mitigate the contribution of population growth to local and global overshoot.

The Ecological Wealth of Nations

Interpreting national Footprint and biocapacity trends From 1961 to 2006, biocapacity per capita in most countries declined, often precipitously. This was not typically due to a loss of ecological productivity — on the contrary, agricultural yields increased significantly over that period. The dominant driver was population growth: more people sharing available ecological assets. A country whose biocapacity exceeds the Ecological Footprint of its consumption has more room to maneuver. Its ecosystems can, in net terms, provide the food, fiber and timber demanded by its residents, and absorb the emissions from the energy used to fuel their consumption. This net biocapacity surplus can be used

Countries with ecological deficits — with consumption Footprints exceeding their own biocapacities — overharvest their own ecosystems, rely on imports to meet part of their consumption demands, and/ or use the global commons as a sink for their carbon emissions. All these strategies

Ecuador

Ecological Footprint Biocapacity

9 Global hectares per person

to produce goods for export, absorb carbon dioxide from other countries, or be set aside to protect biodiversity. All these options can generate financial benefits. In addition, as fossil fuels become increasingly expensive or unavailable, countries with a net biocapacity surplus have more options for producing energy from biomass.

8 7 6

5 4 3 2 1 0

1960

1975

The Ecological Wealth of Nations

1990

2005

carry risks: Overharvested ecosystems may lose productivity and collapse, and trade partners can decrease quantities and increase prices of their exports. Carbon emissions may cost more if carbon taxes or cap-and-trade schemes are instituted, or as prices for fossil fuels increase.

Footprint trends clearly show that its net biocapacity surplus is rapidly disappearing, and it may soon run an ecological deficit. This poses a risk not revealed when looking at carbon in isolation. Unless Cameroon can afford to import resources, it may soon find it more difficult to meet its consumption demands.

Carbon accounting alone is not sufficient to address risks to economic and social well-being and to identify opportunities in a resource-constrained world. For instance, Cameroon’s carbon Footprint was negligible in 1961, and in 2006 was still only 8 percent of its total Footprint. However, biocapacity and Ecological

National Ecological Footprint and biocapacity trends reveal potential tradeoffs and conflicts among different types of resource use —energy versus food, for example — as well as overarching risks to future well-being. The following pages show these trends for selected countries.

Figure 9: Ecuador’s Footprint and biocapacity, per person,EF21961-2006. In 1961, Ecuador’s biocapacity was more than four times its Footprint, meaning the consumption BC1 demand of Ecuador’s residents could be met, in net terms, using less than one-quarter the capacity of its EF1 own ecosystems. But by 2006, the country’s Footprint was almost as large as its biocapacity. Of all the South American countries, Ecuador is closest to running an ecological deficit. As its per capita consumption has remained fairly constant over these decades, the rapid reduction of Ecuador’s net ecological surplus is largely due to a decline in per capita biocapacity, mostly driven by the country’s population growth. In December 2009 Ecuador launched a Presidential Mandate with a goal of no ecological deficit by 2013. Ecuador. Sierra region. Fields near Quito © Yann Arthus-Bertrand.

12 10 Global hectares per person

Japan Ecological Footprint Biocapacity

8 7 6

5 4 3 2 1 0

1960

1975

1990

2005

12 10 Global hectares per person

Mali Ecological Footprint Biocapacity

8 7 6

5 4 3 2 1 0

1960

1975

1990

Figure 10: Japan’s Footprint and biocapacity, per person, 1961-2006. While Japan’s Footprint in 1961 BC2 was about twice its biocapacity, Japan’s Footprint in 2006 was seven times its own biocapacity. In 1961, EF2 Japan had the seventh highest Footprint to biocapacity ratio of any country, and in 2006 it ranked fifth. Its BC1 ecological deficit is not just a reflection of carbon emissions to the global atmosphere. Even without the carEF1 bon component, Japan’s Footprint is more than twice its biocapacity. Running an ecological deficit is possible for Japan because of its purchasing power, which is far greater than world average. But this deficit also indicates a potential risk for the Japanese economy as the world enters ever further into a resource constrained future. Japan. Rice field near Oukura.

2005

Figure 11: Mali’s Footprint and biocapacity, per person, 1961-2006. Mali’s per capita Footprint has declined slightlyBC2 over the past 45 years. About half of its Footprint has been demand on grazing land, while the carbon componentEF2 grew from essentially zero to about six percent of Mali’s overall Footprint. With climate change, Mali’s next BC1 decades may be more strongly influenced by the impact of climate on its biocapacity than by the size of its carbon EF1 Mali’s per capita biocapacity, about 6 global Footprint. hectares in 1961, shrank by about two-thirds to 2.3 global hectares in 2006, While still 30 percent higher than world average, Mali’s per capita biocapacity has declined more rapidly than the world‘s. This is due to two factors: more rapid population growth than world average, and slower increase in agricultural productivity than world average. Still Mali is among the few nations where biocapacity exceeds consumption demands. Market gardening near Tombouctou. © Yann Arthus-Bertrand.

Gap in line indicates interpolation due to data anomaly. The Ecological Wealth of Nations

World, Latin America, North America, and Oceania Ecological Footprint and Biocapacity, per capita,1961-2006 World World World

5 5

Argentina

BC1 BC1

4 4

Global hectares per person

1960

1975

1990

2005

BC1

30 EF1

5 EF1

EF1

1960

1975

1990

2005

Cuba

EF2

BC1

EF1

1975

1990

2005

Ecuador

1960

1975

1990

2005

Guatemala

Nicaragua

Panama

15 BC2

EF2

10 BC1

EF1

1960

2005

Paraguay

50 BC2

1960 24

1975

1990

2005

The Ecological Wealth of Nations

1960

1975

1990

2005

1960

BC2 EF2

EF1

BC1

EF1

1960 10 BC2

1975

1990

2005

United States

2005

1960 25 BC1

1975

1990

2005

New Zealand BC2

EF2

20 EF1

EF2

BC1 30

BC1

5 EF1

1990

Haiti

40 EF2 EF1

1975

2005

4 EF2

1960

EF1

10 5

10 0

1990

4 BC1

1990

1975

BC2

1975

1960

EF2

1 0

15 BC2

Dominican Republic

Ecological Footprint Biocapacity

Honduras

2005

BC2

2005 2005

1990

4 EF2

1990 1990

1975

4 EF2

1975 1975

1960

BC1

BC2

1960

0 0 1960 1960

EF2

40 BC1

BC2

1 1

BC2

EF2

2 2

Colombia

10 BC2

Costa Rica

3 3

50 EF2

EF1 EF1

Bolivia

60 BC2

1975

1990

2005

1960

1975

1990

2005

1960

1975

1990

2005

Angola

Benin

5 BC2 4 EF2

Africa Ecological Footprint and Biocapacity, per capita,1961-2006

1960 12

Burkina Faso

Cameroon

10 BC2

25 BC2

EF2

20 EF2

BC1

BC1 15

5 EF1

Central African Rep.

1960 12

1975

1990

2005

C么te d'Ivoire

1960

1975

1990

2005

Eritrea

1960

1975

1990

2005

Madagascar

2005

Chad

1990

2005

Gambia

1960

EF1

1960

1975

1990

2005

EF1

2005

Guinea

1960 12

1975

1990

2005

Global hectares per person

1960

1975

1990

2005

Somalia

2005

Liberia EF2

BC1

EF1

5 EF1

EF1

1960

1975

1990

2005

Mali

10 BC2

1960

1975

1990

2005

Mauritania

20 BC2

1960

1975

1990

2005

Niger

10 BC2

1960

1975

1990

10 BC2

2005

Senegal

10 BC2

1960

BC2

1975

1990

2005

Sierra Leone

BC2

EF2

4 EF2

EF2

BC1

EF1 5

10 EF1

5 EF1

EF1

1960 12

1975

1990

2005

South Africa

1960

1975

1990

2005

Sudan

1960

1975

1990

2005

Tanzania

1960 10 BC2

EF2

4 EF2

BC1

EF1

5 EF1

1960

1975

BC2

1990

2005

1975

1990

2005

1960

1990

2005

1990

2005

Zimbabwe

BC2

EF2

4 EF2

EF2

BC1

EF1

5 EF1

EF1

1975

Zambia

1 0

1960

BC2

Countries not shown to same vertical scale. Gap in line indicates interpolation due to data anomaly. Biocapacity

1990

Ecological Footprint

1975

BC1

2005

1960

EF2

1990

EF1

EF2

4 EF2

1975

BC1

EF1

EF2

1960

EF2

10 BC1

4 EF2

10 BC2

BC2

EF2

4 EF2

BC2

Congo DRC

Guinea-Bissau

5 0

2005

10 BC2

1990

1975

15 BC2

BC1 30

1975

1960 12

Congo

50 BC2 40 EF2

1975

EF1

BC2

EF2

1960

1990

15 BC2

BC1

EF1

BC2

1975

EF1

10 BC1

EF2

BC1

EF2

EF1

BC2

EF2

Botswana

15 BC2

1960

1975

1990

2005

1960

1975

1990

2005

1960

1975

1990

The Ecological Wealth of Nations

2005 25

0.84 0.05 2.67 0.33 16 21.5 57.50 0.09 1.21 1.51 0.15 4.44 0.43 143.2 635.97 0.05 2.23 0.59 Ecological 0.07 4.94 0.59 5.4 26.64 0.06 3.48 Changein in National Per capita capita Ecological Footprint Footprint Components Components Change National Per Grazing Fishing Grazing Fishing 0.79 0.10 3.89 0.78 2.0 7.78 0.06 2.07 Population,Forest Ecological Ecological Population, Ecological Cropland Land Ecological Grounds Yield 1 Population Forest Cropland Land Grounds Yield 1 Country/Region 1961-2006 Footprint Footprint Carbon Footprint Cropland Grazing land Forest land Fishing grounds 1.16 0.53 5.63 0.46land Fishing 43 43.9 247.01 0.17land 3.25 Country/Region Population 1961-2006 Footprint Footprint Carbon Footprint Cropland Grazing Forest grounds [millions] [percent] [million gha] [gha per capita] [gha per capita] [gha per capita] [gha per capita] [gha per capita] [gha per capita] [millions] [percent] [million gha] [gha per capita] [gha 3.98 per capita] [gha per per capita] [gha per capita] 0.72capita] [gha per 0.14 5.59 37 7.5 41.67 0.20capita] [gha0.43 0.87 0.11 2.67 0.17 46.6 124.20 0.01 1.45 WorldAverage Average 0.22 1.37 1.0 1.0 0.57 0.10 1.0 2.59 1.0 0.28 114 6,592.9 17,090.66 World 0.22 0.93 1.37 0.23 0.57 0.10 6.12 0.58 1.0 15 2.59 0.28 60.7 371.65 1.0 0.20 4.00 World 6,592.9 17,090.66 1.0 114 1.0

0.14 0.06 0.15 0.09 Built-up 0.05land Built-up land [gha per [gha 0.11 percapita] capita] 0.07 0.06 0.18 0.06

46 Change in Change - in per percapita capita Footprint, Footprint, 1961-2006 120 1961-2006 [percent] [percent] 90 13 13 59

942.5 564.7 942.5

225 150 225

1,338.22 1,375.32 1,338.22

1.42 2.44 1.42

0.35 0.35 0.60

0.48 0.58 0.48

0.20 0.20 0.71

0.29 0.36 0.29

0.04 0.11 0.04

0.05 0.08 0.05

-61 -61 -6

33.4 39.1 Argentina 33.4 16.6 9.4 Bolivia 16.6 8.8 16.5 Chile 8.8 1.9 45.6 Colombia 1.9 14.4 4.4 Costa Rica 14.4 18.2 11.3 Cuba 18.2 4.3 4.3 Dominican Republic 9.6 10.5 13.2 10.5 Ecuador 3.7 13.0 3.7 Guatemala 60.6 9.4 60.6 Haiti 18.9 7.0 18.9 Honduras 0.8 105.3 0.8 Mexico 74.2 5.5 74.2 Nicaragua 4.7 3.3 4.7 Panama 1.7 6.0 1.7 Paraguay 23.0 27.6 23.0 Peru 9.2 27.2 9.2 Venezuela

1.6 1.6 3.6 3.6 North America 335.5 6.0 6.0 19.2 32.6 19.2 Canada 12.0 302.8 12.0 United States 3.0 3.0 30.9 33.8 30.9 Oceania 2.0 2.0 13.7 0.8 13.7 Fiji 144.7 4.1 144.7 New Zealand 12.1 6.2 Papua New Guinea 12.1 5.7 0.5 5.7 Solomon Islands 8.4 8.4 48.3 48.3 37.7 37.7 39.5 39.5 10.2 10.2 11.7 11.7 28 The Ecological Wealth of Nations 13.2 13.2

203 87 203 224 173 224 272 110 272 242 163 242 210 219 210 229 55 229 174 178 174 245 189 245 259 206 259 282 139 282 518 237 518 810 169 810 160 204 160 184348 207 348 213 170 213 189 245 189 196 196 231 62 231 331 331 248 78 248 193 60 193 233 233 158 108 158 233 233 336 104 336 234 71 234 258 193 258 150 297 150 193 193 171 171 222 222 281 281 138 138 262 262 241 241

63.90 117.49 63.90 15.66 22.50 15.66 8.85 50.99 8.85 7.20 85.12 7.20 19.55 11.87 19.55 20.10 26.22 20.10 6.13 13.08 6.13 18.38 25.19 18.38 3.55 22.32 3.55 44.67 4.53 44.67 17.89 15.55 17.89 0.76 342.23 0.76 103.82 12.52 103.82 3.61 10.55 3.61 1.80 20.17 1.80 36.87 49.59 36.87 13.46 63.39 13.46 1.64 1.64 4.12 2,918.16 4.12 19.21 19.21 22.43 187.61 22.43 22.17 2,730.32 22.17 9.43 9.43 41.26 196.43 41.26 6.14 6.14 23.13 3.06 23.13 232.59 31.36 232.59 15.07 10.59 15.07 4.41 0.84 4.41 12.82 12.82 132.17 132.17 84.11 84.11 40.46 40.46 19.23 19.23 13.69 13.69 13.69 13.69

1.92 3.00 1.92 0.95 2.41 0.95 1.01 3.10 1.01 3.88 1.87 3.88 1.36 2.70 1.36 1.11 2.33 1.11 1.44 1.36 1.44 1.76 1.91 1.76 0.96 1.71 0.96 0.74 0.48 0.74 0.95 2.23 0.95 0.93 3.25 0.93 1.40 2.26 1.40 0.77 3.21 0.77 1.08 3.35 1.08 1.60 1.80 1.60 1.47 2.33 1.47 1.00 1.00 1.15 8.70 1.15 3.18 3.18 1.17 5.76 1.17 1.85 9.02 1.85 3.10 3.10 1.34 5.80 1.34 3.00 3.00 1.68 3.68 1.68 1.61 7.58 1.61 1.25 1.71 1.25 0.77 1.73 0.77 1.52 1.52 2.74 2.74 2.23 2.23 1.03 1.03 1.88 1.88 1.17 1.17 1.04 1.04

0.81 0.81 0.71 0.14 0.14 0.47 0.10 0.10 0.49 1.60 1.60 0.52 0.02 0.02 1.13 0.09 0.09 1.05 0.02 0.02 0.54 0.01 0.01 0.74 0.09 0.09 0.51 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.13 0.13 0.73 0.17 0.17 1.58 0.69 0.69 0.43 0.03 0.03 1.22 0.12 0.12 0.41 0.35 0.35 0.30 0.04 0.04 1.07 0.05 0.05 0.06 6.13 0.06 1.95 1.95 0.08 3.60 0.08 0.12 6.41 0.12 0.44 0.44 0.32 1.75 0.32 0.80 0.80 0.05 1.99 0.05 0.61 2.21 0.61 0.18 0.21 0.18 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.01 0.01 1.29 1.29 0.27 0.27 0.11 0.11 0.58 0.58 0.16 0.16 0.12 0.12

0.76 0.43 0.76 0.34 0.47 0.34 0.50 0.67 0.50 0.23 0.31 0.23 0.67 0.44 0.67 0.54 0.96 0.54 0.68 0.46 0.68 0.61 0.36 0.61 0.30 0.36 0.30 0.16 0.25 0.16 0.36 0.46 0.36 0.37 1.00 0.37 0.41 0.61 0.41 0.19 0.47 0.19 0.50 0.32 0.50 0.42 0.53 0.42 0.46 0.51 0.46 0.39 0.39 0.30 1.07 0.30 0.81 0.81 0.30 0.54 0.30 0.62 1.12 0.62 0.38 0.38 0.70 0.26 0.70 0.71 0.71 1.13 0.55 1.13 0.63 0.44 0.63 0.47 0.21 0.47 0.20 0.42 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.78 0.78 0.70 0.70 0.31 0.31 0.82 0.82 0.44 0.44 0.25 0.25

0.14 0.14 1.36 0.19 0.19 1.22 0.05 0.05 0.32 1.78 1.78 0.78 0.22 0.22 0.26 0.13 0.13 0.11 0.38 0.38 0.13 0.77 0.77 0.40 0.03 0.22 0.03 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.05 0.34 0.05 0.28 0.18 0.28 0.02 0.62 0.02 0.27 0.55 0.27 0.14 1.68 0.14 0.05 0.24 0.05 0.35 0.36 0.35 0.34 0.34 0.02 0.08 0.02 0.18 0.18 0.43 0.26 0.43 0.83 0.06 0.83 2.02 2.02 0.15 2.33 0.15 1.39 1.39 0.19 0.18 0.19 0.06 2.45 0.06 0.24 0.02 0.24 0.04 0.01 0.04 0.76 0.76 0.21 0.21 0.99 0.99 0.31 0.31 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.15 0.36 0.36

0.13 0.20 0.13 0.13 0.16 0.13 0.30 0.95 0.30 0.19 0.13 0.19 0.37 0.73 0.37 0.24 0.12 0.24 0.29 0.12 0.29 0.29 0.25 0.29 0.41 0.55 0.41 0.49 0.10 0.49 0.21 0.59 0.21 0.05 0.32 0.05 0.13 0.42 0.13 0.20 0.23 0.20 0.19 0.87 0.19 0.57 0.18 0.57 0.52 0.13 0.52 0.16 0.16 0.70 1.16 0.70 0.10 0.10 0.26 1.05 0.26 0.18 1.17 0.18 0.21 0.21 0.06 0.88 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.48 0.27 0.21 1.12 0.21 0.22 0.30 0.22 0.37 0.25 0.37 0.49 0.49 0.30 0.30 0.22 0.22 0.25 0.25 0.21 0.21 0.36 0.36 0.28 0.28

0.03 0.20 0.03 0.09 0.01 0.09 0.03 0.55 0.03 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.08 0.03 0.08 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.13 0.03 0.13 0.04 0.10 0.04 0.06 0.12 0.06 0.04 0.68 0.04 0.08 0.01 0.08 0.16 0.45 0.16 0.03 0.19 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.17 0.03 0.10 0.10 0.04 0.23 0.04 0.01 0.16 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.52 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.04 1.21 0.04 0.09 0.87 0.09 0.08 0.75 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00

0.04 0.09 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.04 0.03 0.12 0.03 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.04 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.03 0.07 0.03 0.08 0.06 0.08 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.04 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.09 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.07 0.04 0.05 0.14 0.05 0.04 0.11 0.04 0.03 0.20 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.03

92 92 -20 -26 -26 -20 -22 -22--21 -18 -18 -1 -53 -53 108 -26 -26 15 -51 -51 -4 -33 -33 18 -48-42 -42 -41 -56 -5677 77 -25 16-15 -15 -32 -33 -33-19 -19 -26 -26 61 -51 -51-22 -22 64 -39 -39 -11 -11 -35 -77 -77-45-46 -46-42 -42-49 -49 -8 -8 -35 -35 26 26 -51 -51

3,983.9 3,983.9

129 129

6,031.71 6,031.71

1.51 1.51

0.80 0.80

0.38 0.38

0.06 0.06

0.14 0.14

0.08 0.08

0.06 0.06

46 46

Latin America

48.9 906.2 14.4 4.7 National National Yield Yield 58.0 Biocapacity Biocapacity [millions9.5 gha] [millions gha] 103.5 11,901.5 95.7 11,901.5 1,418.8 3,065.2 1,418.8

2.3 6.3 2.7 Per2.4 Capita Per Capita 1.3 Biocapacity Biocapacity [gha per per capita] 1.3capita] [gha 2.2 1.81 1.6 1.81

0.84 1.55 0.83 0.22 Forest Forest 0.84 Cropland Cropland [gha 0.26 per capita] capita] [gha per 1.47 0.56 0.62 0.56

1.51 5.4 1.51

0.42 0.72 0.42

0.10 1.00 9,348 0.18 332 -6 0.83 0.21 4.18 13,073 0.33 Change Change 22 0.00 1.60 16,214 0.09 - inin Biocapacity Components Gross per Gross Human Human Biocapacity Components percapita capita Gross Gross Human Human Grazing 0.00 25,020 0.25 Fishing Grazing Fishing 1.80 Domestic Biocapacity, Domestic Biocapacity, Domestic Domestic Development Development Development Development Land Grounds 1 Land Grounds 0.06 0.86 0.24 31,338 0.13 1,269 -27 0.95 Grazing Forest Product, Grazing land land Forest land land Fishing Fishing grounds grounds 1961-2006 1961-2006 Product,1961 1961 Product, Product,2006 2006 Index, Index,1980 1980 Index, Index,2006 2006 Country/Region Country/Region1 33 [$ per capita]33 [gha per capita] [gha per capita] [gha per capita] [$ per capita] [percent] 0.01 0.90 0.73 -28 0.96 per capita] [gha 0.17 per capita] [gha per capita] [gha per capita] [percent] [$ 3,574 per capita] [$37,483 0.15 0.40 9,676 0.14 0.18 -0.74 -0.26 --51 -0.56 0.86 0.18 0.11 32,103 0.74 0.11 2,192 1 0.95 0.26 World -51 0.45 0.90 0.45

0.46 3.40 0.46

0.12 0.33 0.12

-68 -60 -68

---

- --

0.01 -0.37 0.04 6,912 0.82 0.35 475 27.2 -59 0.75 1.91 0.79 0.01 0.78 15,119 0.37 7.1 0.04 1.94 6,912 1,894 -41 0.82 0.86 276.0 0.35 2.32 475 0.75 27.2 -59 0.31 0.22 0.78 4,446 3.36 2.01 55.6 -70 0.55 0.07 0.560.31 15.77 3,946 0.22 19.3 0.78 2.75 4,446 515 -66 3.36 0.73 180.9 2.01 0.67 0.55 55.6 -70 0.03 0.35 0.48 0.19 1,417 0.78 0.05 172 6.9 -68 0.49 0.83 0.03 2.16 0.3519,838 0.48 4.1 0.19 0.53 1,417 1,132 0.78 67.4 0.05 0.45 172 0.496.9 -680.33 -0.15 0.70 8,918 4.27 3.02 153 7.9 -0.04 0.69 0.33 2.19 7,745 0.15 3.9 0.70 1.32 8,918 613 -63-4.27 0.80 175.8 3.02 0.22 153 7.9 0.00 0.25 0.69 0.34 1,366 1.34 0.22 153 19.2 -47 0.38 0.11 0.76 0.00 0.60 0.25 11,605 0.69 1.8 0.34 0.65 1,366 969 -72 1.34 0.85 8.0 0.22 0.35 153 0.38 19.2 -47 0.13 0.46 0.59 1.14 2,776 2.05 0.13 353 37.2 -72 0.52 0.14 0.13 0.20 0.46 10,658 0.59 1.1 1.14 0.09 2,776 3 2.05 0.86 12.1 0.13 0.59 353 0.52 37.2 -72 0.00 0.34 0.65 7.31 871 8.41 0.38 297 35.9 -64 0.37 0.02 0.64 0.00 0.12 0.34 9,192 0.65 0.6 7.31 0.13 871 451 -64 8.41 0.77 5.4 0.38 0.25 297 0.37 35.9 -64 0.10 0.60 1.07 2,766 3.38 1.54 275 35.3 -71 0.39 0.20 0.71 0.10 1.33 6,198 0.60 2.3 1.07 0.40 2,766 577 -73 3.38 0.81 30.5 1.54 0.33 275 0.39 35.3 -71 0.51 -0.23 8.35 5,202 13.20 4.05 220 48.7 -73 0.60 0.05 0.53 0.51 0.41 6,051 0.23 1.1 8.35 0.22 5,202 664 -62 13.20 0.70 14.1 4.05 0.35 220 0.60 48.7 -73 0.05 -0.14 2.29 390 2.66 0.13 245 161.5 -0.43 0.05 0.01 1,556 0.14 0.2 2.29 0.04 390 316 -69-2.66 0.53 2.2 0.13 0.15 0.02 245 161.5 0.01 0.74 0.48 2,295 1.65 0.36 316 31.3 -72 0.48 0.570.01 0.88 3,564 0.74 2.0 0.48 0.33 2,295 445 -76 1.65 0.73 13.8 0.36 0.43 0.26 316 0.48 31.3 -72 0.54 -0.00 0.00 4,599 0.84 0.28 0.7 -880.52 0.54 0.50 11,370 0.00 1.7 0.00 0.31 4,599 859-0.84 178.7 0.28 0.65 0.17 0.52 0.7 -88 0.02 0.50 0.21 0.00 5,587 0.32 0.00 304 23.8 -41 0.70 0.57 0.02 1.25 0.50 2,194 0.21 3.3 0.00 0.66 5,587 579 -78 0.32 0.70 18.2 0.00 0.74 0.57 304 0.70 23.8 -41 1.18 0.13 0.11 615 1.74 0.27 8.1 0.76 1.18 1.79 8,721 0.13 3.4 0.11 0.56 615 469 -71 1.74 0.83 11.3 0.27 0.33 0.70 8.1 0.42 0.38 0.21 1,415 1.19 0.14 222 2.0 -73 0.45 0.680.42 6.67 4,652 0.38 10.8 0.21 2.68 1,415 469 -76 1.19 0.76 64.9 0.14 1.30 0.06 222 0.45 2.0 -73 0.06 0.51 0.18 1,656 1.12 0.32 413 25.8 -0.06 2.73 6,625 0.51 4.1 0.18 0.57 1,656 716 -1.12 -112.5 0.32 0.41 0.27 413 25.8 0.60 0.42 0.80 3,722 2.94 1.06 666 27.0 -64 0.43 -0.60 1.91 12,594 0.42 2.7 0.80 0.34 3,722 1,473 2.94 72.1 1.06 0.29 0.05 666 0.4327.0 -642.05 0.26 0.49 0.34 641 3.35 0.41 125 5.5 -64 0.39 2.05 0.26 0.49 0.34 641 3.35 0.41 125 0.39 5.5 -64 0.37 0.37 0.19 1.19 381 2.59 0.81 9.3 -74 0.43 0.37 2.22 0.370.19 5.7 1.19 0.29 381 -2.59 -41 1,897.3 0.81 2.17 0.89 0.439.3 -74 0.00 0.37 0.02 21,907 1.57 1.14 9.5 0.00 0.37 0.02 21,907 1.57 1.14 9.5 0.21 0.28 0.92 880 3.17 1.70 251 60.8 -69 0.54 0.21 8.39 36,584 0.28 17.1 0.92 0.26 880 2,287 3.17 556.4 1.70 4.30 251 0.54 60.8 -69 4.05 0.07 0.25 0.64 0.76 1,383 2.53 0.98 141 30.3 -59 0.37 0.07 1.55 0.25 44,005 0.64 4.4 0.76 0.29 1,383 2,934 2.53 -43 0.96 1,340.9 0.98 1.94 141 0.37 30.3 -59 0.56 0.89 1.93 0.16 0.06 2,374 6.29 4.09 150 19.1 -69 0.52 1.93 0.16 0.06 2,374 6.29 4.09 150 0.52 19.1 -69 0.11 0.47 0.46 0.08 5,594 0.90 0.20 421 27.7 -37 0.65 0.11 2.82 0.470.46 12.8 0.08 4.95 5,594 0.90 434.0 -56 0.20 1.90 421 0.6527.7 -37 3.09 5.87 0.40 0.41 6,642 8.71 1.99 805 17.8 5.87 0.40 0.41 6,642 8.71 -1.99 805 17.8 0.00 1.09 0.07 881 1.92 0.72 257 26.4 -78 0.34 0.00 1.32 1.09 6,326 2.5 0.07 881 0.11 1.92 496 2.1 0.72 0.48 257 0.3426.4 -780.50 -0.02 0.60 0.02 2,205 0.90 0.20 293 129.9 0.02 5.03 0.60 25,484 12.0 0.02 2,205 3.47 0.90 2,441 -520.9549.9 0.20 1.04 293 129.9 2.36 0.860.21 0.37 0.52 1,942 1.37 0.22 530 0.46 16.5 -76 0.21 2.59 0.37 2,336 3.7 0.52 1,942 0.05 1.37 177 23.2 0.22 0.30 530 0.4616.5 -760.70 -0.21 0.15 0.18 1,817 0.99 0.41 389 0.36 5.7 -59 0.21 2.42 0.15 1,318 3.2 0.18 1,817 0.01 0.99 1.6 0.41 0.50 389 0.365.7 -590.08 -0.39 0.11 0.28 478 1.60 0.77 13.5 -66 0.39 0.11 0.28 478 1.60 0.77 13.5 -66 0.25 0.66 0.68 0.02 10,375 1.72 0.70 1,047 0.68 82.9 -58 1 0.25United Nations 0.66 0.68using values Regional from all countries region; only selected countries are shown here. 0.02 within each 10,375 1.72are calculated 0.70 1,047 0.68 82.9 averages -58 0.17 0.63 0.97 2,152 2.82 0.99 0.53 106.3 -71 0.17 0.63 Dashes missing or insufficient data. 0.99 0.97 2,152 0.53 106.3 indicate2.82 -71 0.06 0.31 0.15 886 0.87 0.31 88 34.4 0.06 0.31 2 0.15 886 0.87 0.31 88 34.4 0.28 0.67 Also11.7 includes Built-up equal 0.10 to the Built-up 0.06 land Footprint, shown on previous page. 9,937 1.15 land biocapacity 618 0.76 -37 0.28 0.67 0.06 9,937 1.15 0.10 618 0.76 11.7 -37 3 0.03 0.51 0.99 2,111 2.86 1.29 537 33.5 In 1constant 20052.86 US $ 0.03 0.51 0.99 2,111 1.29 537 here. Dashes 33.5 Regional are calculated using countries within each region; only selected shown 0.01 - or insufficient data. 0.18values from all0.37 0.14United Nations 2,281indicate missing 0.74 9.8 averages -72 countries are480 2 0.01page. 0.18 0.14 2,281 0.74 land biocapacity 0.37 land Footprint, 480 9.8 -72 Also includes Built-up equal to the Built-up shown on previous 3

In constant 2005 US $.

2,867.1 2,867.1

0.7 0.7

0.33 0.33

0.08 0.08

0.15 0.15

0.10 0.10

-44 -44

Latin America Argentina Bolivia Chile Colombia Costa Rica Cuba Dominican Republic Ecuador Guatemala Haiti Honduras Mexico Nicaragua Panama Paraguay Peru Venezuela

North America Canada United States

Oceania Fiji New Zealand Papua New Guinea Solomon Islands

Ecological Footprint Components Change in National Per capita Grazing Fishing Population, Ecological Ecological Cropland Forest Land Grounds Yield Country/Region1 Population 1961-2006 Footprint Footprint Carbon Footprint CroplandEcological GrazingFootprint land Forest land Fishing grounds Built-up land Components Change in National Per capita Grazing [millions] [percent] [million gha] [gha perFishing capita] [gha per capita] [gha per capita] [gha per capita] [gha per capita] [gha per capita] [gha per capita] Population, Ecological Ecological Forest Cropland Land Grounds Yield Country/Region1 Population 1961-2006 Footprint Footprint Carbon Footprint Cropland Grazing land Forest land Fishing grounds Built-up land [millions] [percent] [million gha] [gha per capita] [gha per capita] [gha per capita] [gha per capita] [gha per capita] [gha per capita] [gha per capita] World Average 0.22 1.37 0.06 0.57 0.10 1.0 2.59 1.0 0.28 114 6,592.9 17,090.66 1.0 1.0 6,592.9 942.5

114 1.0 225

942.5 Algeria 33.4 Angola 16.6 33.4 8.8 Benin 16.6 1.9 Botswana 8.8 14.4 Burkina Faso 1.9 18.2 Cameroon 14.4 Central African Rep. 4.3 18.2 10.5 Chad 4.3 3.7 Congo 10.5 60.6 Congo, DRC 3.7 18.9 C么te d'Ivoire 60.6 0.8 Djibouti 18.9 74.2 Egypt 0.8 4.7 Eritrea 74.2 1.7 Gambia 4.7 23.0 Ghana 1.7 9.2 Guinea 23.0 1.6 Guinea-Bissau 9.2 3.6 Liberia 1.6 6.0 Libya 3.6 19.2 Madagascar 6.0 12.0 Mali 19.2 3.0 Mauritania 12.0 30.9 Morocco 3.0 2.0 Namibia 30.9 13.7 Niger 2.0 144.7 Nigeria 13.7 12.1 Senegal 144.7 5.7 Sierra Leone 12.1 8.4 Somalia 5.7 48.3 South Africa 8.4 37.7 Sudan 48.3 39.5 Tanzania 37.7 10.2 Tunisia 39.5 11.7 Zambia 10.2 13.2 Zimbabwe 11.7

225 203 224 203 272 224 242 272 210 242 229 210 174 229 245 174 259 245 282 259 518 282 810 518 160 810 160 348 213 348 189 213 196 189 231 196 331 231 248 331 193 248 233 193 158 233 233 158 336 233 234 336 258 234 150 258 193 150 171 193 222 171 281 222 138 281 262 138 241 262

World Average Africa

30 The Ecological Wealth of Nations 13.2

Change in per capita Footprint, Change in 1961-2006 per capita [percent] Footprint, 1961-2006 [percent] 13

2.59 1.0 1.42

1.37 0.35

0.57 0.48

0.22 0.20

0.28 0.29

0.10 0.04

0.06 0.05

13 -61

1,338.22 63.90 15.66 63.90 8.85 15.66 7.20 8.85 19.55 7.20 20.10 19.55 6.13 20.10 18.38 6.13 3.55 18.38 44.67 3.55 17.89 44.67 0.76 17.89 103.82 0.76 3.61 103.82 1.80 3.61 36.87 1.80 13.46 36.87 1.64 13.46 4.12 1.64 19.21 4.12 22.43 19.21 22.17 22.43 9.43 22.17 41.26 9.43 6.14 41.26 23.13 6.14 232.59 23.13 15.07 232.59 4.41 15.07 12.82 4.41 132.17 12.82 84.11 132.17 40.46 84.11 19.23 40.46 13.69 19.23 13.69 13.69

1.42 1.92 0.95 1.92 1.01 0.95 3.88 1.01 1.36 3.88 1.11 1.36 1.44 1.11 1.76 1.44 0.96 1.76 0.74 0.96 0.95 0.74 0.93 0.95 1.40 0.93 0.77 1.40 1.08 0.77 1.60 1.08 1.47 1.60 1.00 1.47 1.15 1.00 3.18 1.15 1.17 3.18 1.85 1.17 3.10 1.85 1.34 3.10 3.00 1.34 1.68 3.00 1.61 1.68 1.25 1.61 0.77 1.25 1.52 0.77 2.74 1.52 2.23 2.74 1.03 2.23 1.88 1.03 1.17 1.88 1.04 1.17

0.35 0.81 0.14 0.81 0.10 0.14 1.60 0.10 0.02 1.60 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.09 0.01 0.02 0.09 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.13 0.01 0.17 0.13 0.69 0.17 0.03 0.69 0.12 0.03 0.35 0.12 0.04 0.35 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.05 1.95 0.06 0.08 1.95 0.12 0.08 0.44 0.12 0.32 0.44 0.80 0.32 0.05 0.80 0.61 0.05 0.18 0.61 0.05 0.18 0.01 0.05 1.29 0.01 0.27 1.29 0.11 0.27 0.58 0.11 0.16 0.58 0.12 0.16

0.48 0.76 0.34 0.76 0.50 0.34 0.23 0.50 0.67 0.23 0.54 0.67 0.68 0.54 0.61 0.68 0.30 0.61 0.16 0.30 0.36 0.16 0.37 0.36 0.41 0.37 0.19 0.41 0.50 0.19 0.42 0.50 0.46 0.42 0.39 0.46 0.30 0.39 0.81 0.30 0.30 0.81 0.62 0.30 0.38 0.62 0.70 0.38 0.71 0.70 1.13 0.71 0.63 1.13 0.47 0.63 0.20 0.47 0.20 0.20 0.78 0.20 0.70 0.78 0.31 0.70 0.82 0.31 0.44 0.82 0.25 0.44

0.04 0.03 0.09 0.03 0.03 0.09 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.01 0.08 0.13 0.01 0.04 0.13 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.04 0.16 0.08 0.03 0.16 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.10 0.03 0.04 0.10 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.04 0.06 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.09 0.04 0.08 0.09 0.00 0.08 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.01 0.12 0.00 0.01

0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.03 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.06 0.08 0.03 0.04 0.08 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.08 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.05

0.25 0.38

0.29 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.30 0.13 0.19 0.30 0.37 0.19 0.24 0.37 0.29 0.24 0.29 0.29 0.41 0.29 0.49 0.41 0.21 0.49 0.05 0.21 0.13 0.05 0.20 0.13 0.19 0.20 0.57 0.19 0.52 0.57 0.16 0.52 0.70 0.16 0.10 0.70 0.26 0.10 0.18 0.26 0.21 0.18 0.06 0.21 0.00 0.06 0.27 0.00 0.21 0.27 0.22 0.21 0.37 0.22 0.49 0.37 0.30 0.49 0.22 0.30 0.25 0.22 0.21 0.25 0.36 0.21 0.28 0.36

0.36 0.06

0.28 0.14

0.00 0.08

0.03 0.06

-61 92 -26 92 -22 -26 -22 -18 -53 -18 -26 -53 -51 -26 -33 -51 -33 -42 -56 -42 77 -56 77 -15 -15 -33 -19 -33 -26 -19 -26 -51 -22 -51 -39 -22 -11 -39 -11 -77 -77 -46 -42 -46 -49 -42 -8 -49 -35 -8 -35 26 26 -51 -

0.12 0.80

0.20 0.14 0.19 0.14 0.05 0.19 1.78 0.05 0.22 1.78 0.13 0.22 0.38 0.13 0.77 0.38 0.03 0.77 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.01 0.28 0.05 0.02 0.28 0.27 0.02 0.14 0.27 0.05 0.14 0.35 0.05 0.34 0.35 0.02 0.34 0.18 0.02 0.43 0.18 0.83 0.43 2.02 0.83 0.15 2.02 1.39 0.15 0.19 1.39 0.06 0.19 0.24 0.06 0.04 0.24 0.76 0.04 0.21 0.76 0.99 0.21 0.31 0.99 0.10 0.31 0.15 0.10 0.36 0.15

0.80 0.72

0.38 0.58

0.06 0.22

0.14 0.06

0.08 0.00

0.06 0.06

1.0 17,090.66 1,338.22 1.0

3,983.9

241 129

13.69 6,031.71

1.04 1.51

3,983.9 3.0

129 -

6,031.71 4.94

1.51 1.64

-51 46 46

Change in per capita Grazing Fishing Biocapacity, Change in Forest Land Grounds Cropland Grazing land Components Forest land 2Fishing grounds per 1961-2006 Biocapacity capita Grazing Fishing [gha per capita] [gha per capita] [gha per capita] [gha per capita] Biocapacity, [percent] Forest Land Grounds Cropland Grazing land Forest land Fishing grounds 1961-2006 [gha 0.56 per capita] [gha per capita] [gha per capita] [percent] 0.18 0.74 0.26capita] [gha per -51

National Yield Biocapacity [millions gha] National Yield Biocapacity [millions gha] 11,901.5

Per Capita Biocapacity [gha per capita] Per Capita

11,901.5 1,418.8

1.81 1.51

Biocapacity [gha 1.81 per capita]

Biocapacity Components

0.56 0.42

0.26 0.45

0.74 0.46

0.18 0.12

-51 -68

Gross Gross Human Human Domestic Domestic Development Development Product, 1980 Index, 2006 Country/Region1 Gross1961 Product, Gross 2006 Index, Human Human 3 [$ per capita]3 [$ per capita] Domestic Domestic Development Development Product, 1961 Product, 2006 Index, 1980 Index, 2006 Country/Region1 3 [$ per capita]3 [$ per capita] -

0.12 -0.42 0.46 1.51 0.45 1,418.8 -68 0.01 0.37 0.04 6,912 0.82 0.35 475 0.75 27.2 -59 0.31 0.22 0.78 4,446 3.36 2.01 0.55 55.6 -70 0.01 0.37 0.04 6,912 0.82 0.35 475 27.2 -59 0.75 0.03 0.35 0.48 0.19 1,417 0.78 0.05 172 0.49 6.9 -68 0.31 0.22 0.78 4,446 3.36 2.01 55.6 -70 0.55 0.33 0.15 0.70 8,918 4.27 3.02 153 7.9 0.03 0.35 0.48 0.19 1,417 0.78 0.05 172 6.9 -68 0.49 0.00 0.25 0.69 0.34 1,366 1.34 0.22 153 0.38 19.2 -47 0.33 0.15 0.70 8,918 4.27 3.02 153 7.9 0.13 0.46 0.59 1.14 2,776 2.05 0.13 353 0.52 37.2 -72 0.00 0.25 0.69 0.34 1,366 1.34 0.22 153 19.2 -47 0.38 0.00 0.34 0.65 7.31 871 8.41 0.38 297 0.37 35.9 -64 0.13 0.46 0.59 1.14 2,776 2.05 0.13 353 37.2 -72 0.52 0.10 0.60 1.07 2,766 3.38 1.54 275 0.39 35.3 -71 0.00 0.34 0.65 7.31 871 8.41 0.38 297 35.9 -64 0.37 0.51 0.23 8.35 5,202 13.20 4.05 220 0.60 48.7 -73 0.10 0.60 1.07 2,766 3.38 1.54 275 35.3 -71 0.39 0.05 0.14 2.29 390 2.66 0.13 245 161.5 0.51 -0.23 8.35 5,202 13.20 4.05 220 48.7 -73 0.60 0.01 0.74 0.48 2,295 1.65 0.36 316 0.48 31.3 -72 0.05 -0.14 2.29 390 2.66 0.13 245161.5 0.54 0.00 0.00 4,599 0.84 0.28 0.52 0.7 -88 0.01 0.74 0.48 2,295 1.65 0.36 316 31.3 -72 0.48 0.02 0.50 0.21 0.00 5,587 0.32 0.00 304 0.70 23.8 -41 0.54 -0.00 0.00 4,599 0.84 0.28 -0.7 -880.52 1.18 0.13 0.11 615 1.74 0.27 8.1 0.02 0.50 0.21 0.00 5,587 0.32 0.00 304 23.8 -41 0.70 0.42 0.38 0.21 1,415 1.19 0.14 222 0.45 2.0 -73 1.18 0.13 0.11 615 1.74 0.27 8.1 0.06 0.51 0.18 1,656 1.12 0.32 413 25.8 0.42 0.38 0.21 1,415 1.19 0.14 222 2.0 -73 0.45 0.60 0.42 0.80 3,722 2.94 1.06 666 0.43 27.0 -64 0.06 0.51 0.18 1,656 1.12 0.32 413 25.8 2.05 0.26 0.49 0.34 641 3.35 0.41 125 0.39 5.5 -64 0.60 0.42 0.80 3,722 2.94 1.06 666 27.0 -64 0.43 0.37 0.37 0.19 1.19 381 2.59 0.81 0.43 9.3 -74 2.05 0.26 0.49 0.34 641 3.35 0.41 125 5.5 -64 0.39 0.00 0.37 0.02 21,907 1.57 1.14 9.5 0.37 0.37 0.19 1.19 381 2.59 0.81 9.3 -74 0.43 0.21 0.28 0.92 880 3.17 1.70 251 0.54 60.8 -69 0.00 0.37 0.02 21,907 1.57 1.14 9.5 0.07 0.25 0.64 0.76 1,383 2.53 0.98 141 0.37 30.3 -59 0.21 0.28 0.92 880 3.17 1.70 251 60.8 -69 0.54 1.93 0.16 0.06 2,374 6.29 4.09 150 0.52 19.1 -69 0.07 0.25 0.64 0.76 1,383 2.53 0.98 141 30.3 -59 0.37 0.11 0.47 0.46 0.08 5,594 0.90 0.20 421 0.65 27.7 -37 1.93 0.16 0.06 2,374 6.29 4.09 150 19.1 -69 0.52 5.87 0.40 0.41 6,642 8.71 1.99 805 17.8 0.11 0.47 0.46 0.08 5,594 0.90 0.20 421 27.7 -37 0.65 0.00 1.09 0.07 881 1.92 0.72 257 0.34 26.4 -78 5.87 0.40 0.41 6,642 8.71 1.99 805 17.8 0.02 0.60 0.02 2,205 0.90 0.20 293 129.9 0.00 1.09 0.07 881 1.92 0.72 257 26.4 -78 0.34 0.21 0.37 0.52 1,942 1.37 0.22 530 0.46 16.5 -76 0.02 0.60 0.02 2,205 0.90 0.20 293 129.9 0.21 0.15 0.18 1,817 0.99 0.41 389 0.36 5.7 -59 0.21 0.37 0.52 1,942 1.37 0.22 530 0.46 16.5 -76 0.39 0.11 0.28 478 1.60 0.77 13.5 -66 0.21 0.15 0.18 1,817 0.99 0.41 389 0.36 5.7 -59 0.25 0.66 0.68 0.02 10,375 1.72 0.70 1,047 0.68 82.9 -58 0.39 0.11 0.28 478 1.60 0.77 13.5 -66 0.17 0.63 0.97 2,152 2.82 0.99 0.53 106.3 -71 0.25 0.66 0.68 0.02 10,375 1.72 0.70 1,047 0.68 82.9 -58 0.06 0.31 0.15 886 0.87 0.31 88 34.4 0.17 0.63 0.97 2,152 2.82 0.99 0.53 106.3 -71 0.28 0.67 0.06 9,937 1.15 0.10 618 0.76 11.7 -37 0.06 0.31 0.15 886 0.87 0.31 88 34.4 0.03 0.51 0.99 2,111 2.86 1.29 537 33.5 0.28 0.67 0.06 9,937 1.15 0.10 618 0.76 11.7 -37 0.01 0.18 0.14 2,281 0.74 0.37 480 9.8 -72 0.03 0.51 0.99 2,111 2.86 1.29 537 33.5 1 Regional are calculated using countries within each region; only selected shown here. Dashes 0.01 - or insufficient data. 0.18values from all0.37 0.14United Nations 2,281indicate missing 0.74 9.8 averages -72 countries are480 2 0.10page. 0.33 0.15 0.7 land biocapacity 0.08 land Footprint, 2,867.1 -44 Also includes Built-up equal to the Built-up shown on previous 3

In constant 2005 US $.

2,867.1 2.2

0.7 0.7

0.33 0.30

0.08 0.29

0.15 0.07

0.10 0.02

-44 -

8,944

Africa Algeria Angola Benin Botswana Burkina Faso Cameroon Central African Rep. Chad Congo Congo, DRC C么te d'Ivoire Djibouti Egypt Eritrea Gambia Ghana Guinea Guinea-Bissau Liberia Libya Madagascar Mali Mauritania Morocco Namibia Niger Nigeria Senegal Sierra Leone Somalia South Africa Sudan Tanzania Tunisia Zambia Zimbabwe 31

0.06 0.78 0.10 2.74 0.30 171 48.3 132.17 0.21 1.29 0.05 0.70 0.00 2.23 0.22 222 37.7 84.11 0.99 0.27 0.05 0.31 Ecological 0.00 1.03 0.25 281 39.5 40.46 0.31 0.11 Footprint Components Change in National Per capita Grazing Fishing 0.04 0.82 0.12 1.88 0.21 138 10.2 19.23 0.10 0.58 Population, Ecological Ecological Forest Cropland Land Grounds Yield Country/Region1 Population 1961-2006 Footprint Footprint Carbon Footprint Cropland Grazing land Forest land Fishing grounds Built-up 0.05land 0.44 0.01 1.17 0.36 262 11.7 13.69 0.15 0.16 [millions] [percent] [million gha] [gha per capita] [gha per capita] [gha per capita] [gha per capita] [gha per capita] [gha per capita] [gha per capita] 0.03 0.25 0.00 1.04 0.28 241 13.2 13.69 0.36 0.12 World Average 6,592.9 3,983.9 Asia

114 1.0 129

942.5 3.0 8.4 33.4 14.2 16.6 1328.5 8.8 1151.8 1.9 70.3 14.4 28.5 18.2 6.8 4.3 128.0 10.5 5.7 3.7 15.3 60.6 23.7 18.9 48.0 0.8 2.8 74.2 5.3 4.7 5.8 1.7 4.1 23.0 48.4 9.2 2.5 1.6 160.9 3.6 24.2 6.0 4.4 19.2 19.2 12.0 19.4 3.0 6.6 30.9 63.4 2.0 73.9 13.7 4.9 144.7 4.2 12.1 27.0 5.7 86.2 8.4 21.7 48.3 37.7 731.3 39.5 10.2 3.2 11.7 8.3 32 The Ecological Wealth of Nations 13.2 9.7 10.4 3,983.9 3.9

225 203 155 224 98 272 153 242 215 210 277 229 210 174 35 245 515 259 282 111 518 87 810 805 160 183 348 108 213 125 189 340 196 240 231 476 331 159 248 93 193 307 233 158 122 233 155 336 234 4,235 258 150 150 193 308 171 222 22 281 138 91 262 18 241 14 129 -

Armenia Azerbaijan Cambodia China India Iran Iraq Israel Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Korea, North Korea, South Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Laos Lebanon Myanmar Oman Pakistan Saudi Arabia Singapore Sri Lanka Syria Tajikistan Thailand Turkey Turkmenistan UAE Uzbekistan Viet Nam Yemen

1.0 17,090.66 6,031.71 1.0

1,338.22 4.94 19.25 63.90 12.74 15.66 2,456.18 8.85 886.01 7.20 186.60 19.55 37.96 20.10 36.63 6.13 526.13 18.38 11.66 3.55 67.63 44.67 33.23 17.89 179.46 0.76 21.96 103.82 6.72 3.61 6.01 1.80 8.64 36.87 46.79 13.46 9.02 1.64 120.12 4.12 84.14 19.21 19.75 22.43 17.90 22.17 31.33 9.43 5.75 41.26 109.27 6.14 209.60 23.13 18.75 232.59 43.72 15.07 46.70 4.41 87.49 12.82 21.32 132.17 84.11 3,297.47 40.46 19.23 8.15 13.69 40.72 13.69 41.05 59.42 6,031.71 13.32

2.59 1.0 1.51 1.42 1.64 2.29 1.92 0.90 0.95 1.85 1.01 0.77 3.88 2.66 1.36 1.33 1.11 5.38 1.44 4.11 1.76 2.04 0.96 4.42 0.74 1.40 0.95 3.73 0.93 7.90 1.40 1.28 0.77 1.04 1.08 2.13 1.60 0.97 1.47 3.54 1.00 0.75 1.15 3.48 3.18 4.51 1.17 0.93 1.85 1.61 3.10 0.87 1.34 1.72 3.00 2.84 1.68 3.83 1.61 10.29 1.25 1.73 0.77 1.01 1.52 0.98 2.74 2.23 4.51 1.03 1.88 2.57 1.17 4.89 1.04 4.21 5.70 1.51 3.39

-8 -35 Change in per capita 26 Footprint, 1961-2006 [percent] -51

1.37 0.80

0.57 0.38

0.22 0.06

0.28 0.14

0.10 0.08

0.06 0.06

13 46

0.35 0.72 1.26 0.81 0.08 0.14 1.08 0.10 0.31 1.60 1.57 0.02 0.84 0.09 3.69 0.02 2.68 0.01 0.94 0.09 2.91 0.01 0.88 0.13 2.09 0.17 6.65 0.69 0.50 0.03 0.07 0.12 0.91 0.35 0.06 0.04 2.09 0.05 0.30 0.06 1.62 1.95 3.14 0.08 0.16 0.12 0.76 0.44 0.26 0.32 0.73 0.80 1.37 0.05 2.46 0.61 7.19 0.18 1.16 0.05 0.44 0.01 0.40 1.29 0.27 2.49 0.11 0.58 1.18 0.16 2.98 0.12 1.93 2.44 0.80 1.54

0.48 0.58 0.62 0.76 0.46 0.34 0.36 0.50 0.28 0.23 0.66 0.67 0.42 0.54 1.03 0.68 0.58 0.61 0.69 0.30 1.18 0.16 0.31 0.36 0.69 0.37 0.71 0.41 0.55 0.19 0.41 0.50 0.66 0.42 0.50 0.46 0.59 0.39 0.29 0.30 1.29 0.81 0.66 0.30 0.30 0.62 0.54 0.38 0.39 0.70 0.54 0.71 1.01 1.13 0.74 0.63 1.98 0.47 0.39 0.20 0.32 0.20 0.32 0.78 0.70 1.06 0.31 0.82 0.96 0.44 0.72 0.25 1.43 1.84 0.38 1.07

0.20 0.22 0.26 0.14 0.07 0.19 0.13 0.05 0.01 1.78 0.17 0.22 0.03 0.13 0.09 0.38 0.03 0.77 0.08 0.03 0.15 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.04 0.28 0.10 0.02 0.11 0.27 0.08 0.14 0.15 0.05 0.01 0.35 0.18 0.34 0.01 0.02 0.11 0.18 0.06 0.43 0.01 0.83 0.16 2.02 0.15 0.15 0.01 1.39 0.08 0.19 0.49 0.06 0.19 0.24 0.08 0.04 0.00 0.76 0.16 0.21 0.99 0.12 0.31 0.10 0.25 0.15 0.16 0.36 0.23 0.38 0.06 0.18

0.29 0.06 0.07 0.13 0.25 0.13 0.15 0.30 0.12 0.19 0.05 0.37 0.01 0.24 0.36 0.29 0.28 0.29 0.17 0.41 0.13 0.49 0.14 0.21 0.24 0.05 0.19 0.13 0.03 0.20 0.39 0.19 0.27 0.57 0.33 0.52 0.15 0.16 0.08 0.70 0.14 0.10 0.30 0.26 0.15 0.18 0.08 0.21 0.02 0.06 0.17 0.00 0.26 0.27 0.00 0.21 0.49 0.22 0.03 0.37 0.19 0.49 0.03 0.30 0.22 0.50 0.25 0.21 0.08 0.36 0.73 0.28 0.41 0.56 0.14 0.47

0.04 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.09 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.15 0.00 0.47 0.00 0.07 0.08 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.61 0.04 0.12 0.06 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.08 0.09 0.16 0.00 0.03 0.40 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.14 0.10 0.32 0.04 0.26 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.21 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.38 0.09 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.10 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.12 0.02 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.12 0.17 0.08 0.06

0.05 0.06 0.07 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.09 0.08 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.14 0.08 0.09 0.04 0.10 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.12 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.18 0.04 0.02 0.06 0.04 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.08 0.04 0.12 0.05 0.06 0.04 0.07 0.03 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.12 0.05 0.04 0.08 0.05 0.19 0.03 0.08 0.31 0.06 0.08

-61 -

92 -54 -26 165 -22 -12 21 -18 -21 -53 53 -26 90 -51 -33 25 -42 267 -56 77 -42 -15 13 -33 -19 -16 -26 -51 -10 -22 -39 -11 19 -77 -46 -42 38 -49 -8 -35 33 26 43 96 -51 32 46 -

82.9 106.3 34.4 11.7 National Yield Biocapacity 33.5 [millions9.8 gha]

1.72 2.82 0.87 1.15 Per Capita 2.86 Biocapacity [gha0.74 per capita]

11,901.5 2,867.1

1.81 0.7

0.25 0.68 0.02 0.70 0.17 0.63 0.97 0.99 2 0.06 0.31 0.15 0.31 Biocapacity Components Grazing 0.28 0.67 0.10 Fishing 0.06 Forest Land Grounds 0.03 0.51 0.99 Cropland Grazing Forest land Fishing grounds 1.29 land [gha 0.18 per capita] [gha 0.37 per capita] [gha per capita] [gha per capita] 0.01 0.14 0.56 0.33

0.26 0.08

0.74 0.15

0.18 0.10

-58 -71 Change in per capita -37 Biocapacity, 1961-2006 [percent] -72 -51 -44

0.66 10,375 1,047 0.68 2,152 0.53 886 88 Gross Gross Human Human 9,937 618 0.76 Domestic Domestic Development Development 2,111 Product, 1961 Product, 2006 Index, 1980 Index, 2006 Country/Region1 537 3 [$ per480 capita]3 [$ per capita] 2,281 --

0.12 -0.42 0.46 1.51 0.45 -1,418.8 -68-0.02 0.30 0.07 8,944 0.7 0.29 2.2 0.02 0.54 0.11 8,446 1.0 0.26 8.3 0.01 0.37 0.04 6,912 0.82 0.35 475 27.2 -59 0.75 0.14 0.45 0.20 2,765 0.9 0.12 0.58 13.4 -54 0.31 0.22 0.78 4,446 3.36 2.01 55.6 -70 0.55 0.08 0.53 0.35 0.22 7,303 0.9 0.12 1170.76 1,131.3 -17 0.03 0.35 0.48 0.19 1,417 0.78 0.05 172 6.9 -68 0.49 0.04 0.43 0.27 0.02 3,712 0.4 0.00 195 0.60 428.8 -54 0.33 0.15 0.70 8,918 4.27 3.02 153 7.9 0.07 0.56 0.55 0.07 9,739 1.0 0.21 429 0.78 69.3 -650.00 0.25 0.69 0.34 1,366 1.34 0.22 153 19.2 -47 0.38 0.01 0.14 0.05 5,032 0.2 0.02 7.0 -85 0.13 0.46 0.59 1.14 2,776 2.05 0.13 353 37.2 -72 0.52 0.02 0.83 0.20 0.03 23,753 0.3 0.01 1,613 0.93 2.2 -55 0.00 0.34 0.65 7.31 871 8.41 0.38 297 35.9 -64 0.37 0.08 0.89 0.13 0.33 31,236 0.6 0.00 1,203 0.96 78.8 -41 0.10 0.60 1.07 2,766 3.38 1.54 275 35.3 -71 0.39 0.00 0.12 0.03 5,292 0.3 0.02 865 1.5 0.51 -0.23 8.35 5,202 13.20 4.05 22048.7 -730.60 0.07 1.62 0.25 15,346 4.3 2.28 65.4 0.05 -0.14 2.29 3902.66 0.13 245161.5 -0.00 0.27 0.24 0.6 0.00 13.2 -610.01 0.74 0.48 2,295 1.65 0.36 316 31.3 -72 0.48 0.00 0.72 0.14 0.09 23,324 0.3 0.00 325 0.93 14.2 -49 0.54 0.00 0.00 4,599 0.84 0.28 0.7 -88 0.52 0.33 0.03 0.00 48,854 0.5 0.01 1.4 0.02 0.50 0.21 0.00 5,587 0.32 0.00 304 23.8 -41 0.70 0.06 0.53 0.08 3,738 1.5 0.75 7.9 1.18 0.13 0.11 615 1.74 0.27 8.1 0.04 0.41 0.77 2,230 1.4 0.08 0.61 8.0 -63 0.42 0.38 0.21 1,415 1.19 0.14 222 2.0 -73 0.45 0.01 0.20 0.06 8,175 0.4 0.06 1.5 0.06 0.51 0.18 1,656 1.12 0.32 413 25.8 0.35 0.52 0.61 1.6 0.01 0.58 75.2 -55 0.60 0.42 0.80 3,722 2.94 1.06 666 27.0 -64 0.43 2.22 0.11 0.00 25,507 2.5 0.08 6.5 2.05 0.26 0.49 0.34 641 3.35 0.41 125 5.5 -64 0.39 0.04 0.40 0.27 0.01 3,473 0.4 0.00 203 0.57 60.2 -56 0.37 0.37 0.19 1.19 381 2.59 0.81 9.3 -74 0.43 0.25 0.50 0.21 22,220 1.3 0.16 31.4 0.00 0.37 0.02 21,907 1.57 1.14 9.5 0.02 0.79 0.00 0.00 43,167 0.0 0.00 795 0.94 0.2 -59 0.21 0.28 0.92 880 3.17 1.70 251 60.8 -69 0.54 0.05 0.65 0.20 0.04 5,877 0.4 0.02 369 0.76 6.9 -43 0.07 0.25 0.64 0.76 1,383 2.53 0.98 141 30.3 -59 0.37 0.00 0.55 0.04 2,637 0.9 0.22 152 17.0 1.93 0.16 0.06 2,374 6.29 4.09 150 19.1 -69 0.52 0.02 0.23 0.01 2,771 0.5 0.18 3.3 0.11 0.47 0.46 0.08 5,594 0.90 0.20 421 27.7 -37 0.65 0.17 0.64 0.18 9,424 1.1 0.01 263 67.4 5.87 0.40 0.41 6,642 8.71 1.99 805 17.8 0.05 0.63 0.90 0.31 7,578 1.5 0.13 497 0.80 108.4 -52 0.00 1.09 0.07 881 1.92 0.72 257 26.4 -78 0.34 0.15 0.86 0.02 10,951 3.4 2.25 16.6 0.02 0.60 0.02 2,205 0.90 0.20 293 129.9 1.03 0.14 0.13 53,496 1.4 0.00 5.8 0.21 0.37 0.52 1,942 1.37 0.22 530 0.46 16.5 -76 0.03 0.52 0.06 2,002 0.9 0.23 24.8 0.21 0.15 0.18 1,817 0.99 0.41 389 0.36 5.7 -59 0.01 0.32 0.16 3,572 0.6 0.00 0.72 47.4 -40 0.39 0.11 0.28 478 1.60 0.77 13.5 -66 0.28 0.14 0.05 1,309 0.7 0.15 14.6 0.25 0.66 0.68 0.02 10,375 1.72 0.70 1,047 0.68 82.9 -58 0.17 0.63 0.97 2,152 2.82 0.99 0.53 106.3 -71 0.28 1.01 1.43 3.0 0.19 -21 2,212.6 0.06 0.31 0.15 886 0.87 0.31 88 34.4 0.28 0.67 0.06 9,937 1.15 0.10 618 0.76 11.7 -37 0.09 0.53 0.20 4,607 1.0 0.12 -34 0.81 3.2 0.03 0.51 0.99 2,111 2.86 1.29 537 33.5 0.00 0.87 0.60 2.02 35,659 3.0 1 24.9 2,030 -15 0.95 Regional are calculated using countries within each region; only selected shown here. Dashes data. 0.01 - or insufficient 0.18values from all0.17 0.14United Nations 2,281indicate missing 0.74 0.37 9.8 averages -72 countries are480 2 33.0 0.02page. 1.36equal to the Built-up 1.58 21,277 3.4 land biocapacity 0.34 land Footprint, Also includes Built-up shown on previous 3 In11.3 constant 2005 US $. 0.05 0.87 0.32 0.28 33,784 1.1 0.12 1,968 -25 0.95 0.10 0.33 0.15 0.7 0.08 2,867.1 -44 0.00 0.58 0.86 1.7 0.13 6.5

Asia Armenia Azerbaijan Cambodia China India Iran Iraq Israel Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Korea, North Korea, South Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Laos Lebanon Myanmar Oman Pakistan Saudi Arabia Singapore Sri Lanka Syria Tajikistan Thailand Turkey Turkmenistan UAE Uzbekistan Viet Nam Yemen

0.08 1.01 0.04 2.84 0.26 155 73.9 209.60 0.08 1.37 0.12 0.74 0.01 3.83 0.00 4.9 18.75 0.49 2.46 0.06 1.98 Ecological 0.38 10.29 0.49 4,235 4.2 43.72 0.19 7.19 Footprint Components Change in National Per capita Grazing Fishing 0.07 0.39 0.00 1.73 0.03 27.0 46.70 0.08 1.16 Population, Ecological Ecological Forest Cropland Land Grounds Yield Country/Region1 Population 1961-2006 Footprint Footprint Carbon Footprint Cropland Grazing land Forest land Fishing grounds Built-up 0.06land 0.32 0.00 1.01 0.19 150 86.2 87.49 0.00 0.44 [millions] [percent] [million gha] [gha per capita] [gha per capita] [gha per capita] [gha per capita] [gha per capita] [gha per capita] [gha per capita] 0.05 0.32 0.02 0.98 0.03 308 21.7 21.32 0.16 0.40 6,592.9 731.3

114 1.0 22

942.5 3.2 Albania 8.3 Austria 33.4 9.7 Belarus 16.6 10.4 Belgium 8.8 Bosnia/Herzegovina 3.9 1.9 7.7 Bulgaria 14.4 4.6 Croatia 18.2 10.2 Czech Republic 4.3 5.4 Denmark 10.5 1.3 Estonia 3.7 5.3 Finland 60.6 61.3 France 18.9 82.6 Germany 0.8 11.1 Greece 74.2 10.1 Hungary 4.7 4.2 Ireland 1.7 58.8 Italy 23.0 2.3 Latvia 9.2 3.4 Lithuania 1.6 3.8 Moldova 3.6 16.4 Netherlands 6.0 4.7 Norway 19.2 38.1 Poland 12.0 10.6 Portugal 3.0 21.5 Romania 30.9 143.2 Russia 2.0 5.4 Slovakia 13.7 2.0 Slovenia 144.7 43.9 Spain 12.1 7.5 Switzerland 5.7 46.6 Ukraine 8.4 60.7 United Kingdom

225 91 18 203 224 14 272 242 -3 210 229 174 18 245 259 18 282 33 518 13 810 33 160 0 49 348 16 213 189 196 231 41 331 29 248 27 193 19 233 16 158 233 336 234 43 258 37 150 193 15 171 222 150 281 138 87 262 173 241 110 163 129 219

World Average Europe

48.3 37.7 564.7 39.5 10.2 39.1 11.7 9.4 34 The Ecological Wealth of Nations 13.2 16.5 45.6 3,983.9 4.4

1.0 17,090.66 3,297.47 1.0

1,338.22 8.15 40.72 63.90 41.05 15.66 59.42 8.85 13.32 7.20 25.02 19.55 15.20 20.10 54.23 6.13 39.07 18.38 8.60 3.55 29.00 44.67 282.28 17.89 333.40 0.76 64.02 103.82 32.45 3.61 34.57 1.80 290.10 36.87 10.53 13.46 11.32 1.64 6.70 4.12 75.41 19.21 19.63 22.43 148.25 22.17 46.23 9.43 57.50 41.26 635.97 6.14 26.64 23.13 7.78 232.59 247.01 15.07 41.67 4.41 124.20 12.82 371.65 132.17 84.11 1,375.32 40.46 19.23 117.49 13.69 22.50 13.69 50.99 85.12 6,031.71 11.87

19 Change in per capita Footprint, 1961-2006 38 [percent] -

2.59 1.0 4.51

1.37 2.49

0.57 1.06

0.22 0.12

0.28 0.50

0.10 0.22

0.06 0.12

13 33

1.42 2.57 4.89 1.92 4.21 0.95 5.70 1.01 3.39 3.88 3.25 1.36 3.34 1.11 5.32 1.44 7.19 1.76 6.42 0.96 5.51 0.74 4.60 0.95 4.03 0.93 5.76 1.40 3.23 0.77 8.19 1.08 4.94 1.60 4.60 1.47 3.32 1.00 1.75 1.15 4.60 3.18 4.20 1.17 3.89 1.85 4.37 3.10 2.67 1.34 4.44 3.00 4.94 1.68 3.89 1.61 5.63 1.25 5.59 0.77 2.67 1.52 6.12 2.74 2.23 2.44 1.03 1.88 3.00 1.17 2.41 1.04 3.10 1.87 1.51 2.70

0.35 1.18 2.98 0.81 1.93 0.14 2.44 0.10 1.54 1.60 1.69 0.02 2.03 0.09 2.95 0.02 3.77 0.01 3.15 0.09 2.67 0.01 2.49 0.13 2.21 0.17 3.94 0.69 1.39 0.03 5.19 0.12 2.88 0.35 0.86 0.04 1.54 0.05 0.84 0.06 2.44 1.95 2.05 0.08 2.38 0.12 2.41 0.44 1.21 0.32 2.23 0.80 3.48 0.05 2.07 0.61 3.25 0.18 3.98 0.05 1.45 0.01 4.00 1.29 0.27 0.60 0.11 0.58 0.71 0.16 0.47 0.12 0.49 0.52 0.80 1.13

0.48 0.96 0.72 0.76 1.43 0.34 1.84 0.50 1.07 0.23 0.77 0.67 0.49 0.54 1.03 0.68 1.10 0.61 0.44 0.30 1.27 0.16 0.81 0.36 0.93 0.37 0.93 0.41 1.16 0.19 1.06 0.50 1.02 0.42 0.97 0.46 0.35 0.39 0.72 0.30 1.22 0.81 1.19 0.30 0.65 0.62 0.85 0.38 0.84 0.70 1.51 0.71 0.59 1.13 0.79 0.63 1.16 0.47 0.72 0.20 0.87 0.20 0.93 0.78 0.70 0.58 0.31 0.82 0.43 0.44 0.47 0.25 0.67 0.31 0.38 0.44

0.20 0.25 0.16 0.14 0.23 0.19 0.38 0.05 0.18 1.78 0.22 0.22 0.09 0.13 0.12 0.38 0.21 0.77 0.15 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.16 0.05 0.07 0.28 0.25 0.02 0.06 0.27 0.72 0.14 0.20 0.05 0.15 0.35 0.09 0.34 0.06 0.02 0.21 0.18 0.04 0.43 0.01 0.83 0.19 2.02 0.09 0.15 0.05 1.39 0.06 0.19 0.06 0.06 0.17 0.24 0.20 0.04 0.01 0.76 0.20 0.21 0.99 0.71 0.31 0.10 1.36 0.15 1.22 0.36 0.32 0.78 0.06 0.26

0.29 0.08 0.73 0.13 0.41 0.13 0.56 0.30 0.47 0.19 0.36 0.37 0.56 0.24 0.99 0.29 1.24 0.29 2.40 0.41 1.02 0.49 0.63 0.21 0.51 0.05 0.43 0.13 0.41 0.20 0.64 0.19 0.50 0.57 2.39 0.52 0.93 0.16 0.07 0.70 0.41 0.10 0.59 0.26 0.66 0.18 0.14 0.21 0.33 0.06 0.43 0.00 0.59 0.27 0.78 0.21 0.46 0.22 0.43 0.37 0.17 0.49 0.58 0.30 0.22 0.36 0.25 0.21 0.20 0.36 0.16 0.28 0.95 0.13 0.14 0.73

0.04 0.02 0.11 0.03 0.12 0.09 0.17 0.03 0.06 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.06 0.04 0.07 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.14 0.08 0.38 0.01 0.30 0.13 0.14 0.04 0.12 0.06 0.03 0.04 0.33 0.08 0.24 0.16 0.16 0.03 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.18 0.10 0.18 0.04 0.11 0.01 0.74 0.00 0.05 0.06 0.15 0.04 0.07 0.00 0.10 0.04 0.53 0.09 0.14 0.08 0.11 0.00 0.23 0.10 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.12 0.20 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.55 0.04 0.08 0.05

0.05 0.08 0.19 0.04 0.08 0.04 0.31 0.03 0.08 0.06 0.17 0.08 0.11 0.05 0.16 0.07 0.28 0.07 0.13 0.05 0.14 0.05 0.21 0.06 0.18 0.03 0.08 0.08 0.17 0.04 0.25 0.04 0.08 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.10 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.14 0.04 0.15 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.04 0.05 0.14 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.15 0.04 0.09 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.11 0.03 0.07 0.05 0.18 0.06 0.05 0.08 0.05 0.04 0.09 0.05 0.07 0.03 0.12 0.08 0.06 0.09

-61 43 96 92 -26 32 -22 35 -18 -53 -26 12 -51 -33 38 -42 37 -56 284 77 10 126 -15 116 -33 -19 -26 40 -51 25 -22 74 -39 46 -11 -77 120 -46 90 -42 -49 59 -8 -35 -6 26 -20 -20 -51 -21 46 -1

108.4 16.6 5.8 24.8 National Yield Biocapacity 47.4 [millions gha] 14.6

1.5 3.4 1.4 Per0.9 Capita 0.6 Biocapacity [gha per 0.7capita]

11,901.5 2,212.6

1.81 3.0

0.05 0.90 0.31 0.13 0.15 0.86 0.02 2.25 2 1.03 0.14 0.13 0.00 Biocapacity Components Grazing 0.03 0.52 0.23 Fishing 0.06 Forest Land Grounds 0.01 0.32 0.16 0.00 land Cropland Grazing Forest land Fishing grounds [gha 0.14 per capita] [gha 0.15 per capita] [gha per capita] [gha per capita] 0.28 0.05 0.56 1.01

0.26 0.19

0.74 1.43

0.18 0.28

-52 Change - in per capita Biocapacity, 1961-2006 -40 [percent] -51 -21

0.63 7,578 497 0.80 10,951 53,496 Gross Gross Human Human 2,002 Domestic Domestic Development Development 3,572 Product, -1961 Product, 2006 Index, 1980 Index, 2006 Country/Region1 0.72 3 [$ per capita]3 [$ per capita] 1,309 --

0.12 -0.42 0.46 1.51 0.45 -1,418.8 -68 0.09 0.53 0.20 4,607 1.0 0.12 -34 0.81 3.2 0.00 0.87 0.60 2.02 35,659 3.0 0.17 2,030 -15 0.95 24.9 0.01 -0.37 0.04 6,912 0.82 0.35 47527.2 -590.75 0.02 1.36 1.58 21,277 3.4 0.34 33.0 0.31 0.22 0.78 4,446 3.36 2.01 55.6 -70 0.55 0.05 0.87 0.32 0.28 33,784 1.1 0.12 1,968 -25 0.95 11.3 0.03 0.35 0.48 0.19 1,417 0.78 0.05 172 6.9 -68 0.49 0.00 0.58 0.86 1.7 0.13 6.5 0.33 -0.15 0.70 8,918 4.27 3.02 1537.9 0.10 1.20 0.99 9,605 2.7 0.19 -20.84 20.4 0.00 0.25 0.69 0.34 1,366 1.34 0.22 153 19.2 -47 0.38 0.34 0.22 0.98 13,593 1.8 0.15 8.2 0.13 0.460.59 1.14 2,776 2.05 0.13 35337.2 -720.52 0.00 1.11 1.22 21,184 2.6 0.14 26.9 0.00 0.34 0.65 7.31 871 8.41 0.38 297 35.9 -64 0.37 2.09 0.88 2.50 0.29 34,633 5.2 0.04 2,197 -24 0.95 28.2 0.10 0.60 1.07 2,766 3.38 1.54 275 35.3 -71 0.39 4.59 0.67 3.21 18,080 9.0 0.39 12.0 0.51 -0.23 8.35 5,202 13.20 4.05 220 48.7 -730.60 2.81 1.38 8.66 31,597 13.0 0.00 1,827 68.3 0.05 0.14 2.29 390 2.66 0.13 245 161.5 0.18 0.88 1.28 0.89 30,119 2.8 0.28 1,935 -90.96 173.7 0.01 0.74 0.48 2,295 1.65 0.36 316 31.3 -72 0.48 0.08 0.87 0.87 0.64 31,291 1.9 0.10 0 0.95 154.1 0.54 0.00 0.00 4,599 0.84 0.28 0.7 -88 0.52 0.25 0.84 0.79 0.14 27,532 1.4 0.10 1,241 1 0.94 15.2 0.02 0.50 0.21 0.00 5,587 0.32 0.00 304 23.8 -41 0.70 0.01 0.80 1.72 0.57 17,212 2.6 0.11 8 0.88 25.9 1.18 0.13 0.11 615 1.74 0.27 8.1 1.88 0.84 0.98 0.25 41,085 4.3 0.91 1,373 -22 0.96 18.0 0.42 0.38 0.21 1,415 1.19 0.14 222 2.0 -73 0.45 0.07 0.86 0.53 0.27 29,048 1.0 0.08 1,737 -21 0.95 60.8 0.06 0.51 0.18 1,656 1.12 0.32 413 25.8 2.08 1.03 3.34 13,905 7.2 0.72 16.6 0.60 0.42 0.80 3,722 2.94 1.06 666 27.0 -64 0.43 0.29 0.70 1.64 13,625 3.7 0.92 12.5 2.05 0.26 0.49 0.34 641 3.35 0.41 125 5.5 -64 0.39 0.01 0.95 0.07 3,588 1.1 0.05 4.3 0.37 0.37 0.19 1.19 381 2.59 0.81 9.3 -74 0.43 0.50 0.89 0.27 0.08 34,369 1.0 0.06 2,305 -27 0.96 17.2 0.00 0.37 0.02 21,907 1.57 1.14 9.5 2.01 0.69 3.23 50,794 6.1 0.03 2,301 28.5 0.21 0.28 0.92 880 3.17 1.70 251 60.8 -69 0.54 0.12 0.82 0.71 13,919 1.8 0.13 -38 0.88 70.1 0.07 0.25 0.64 0.76 1,383 2.53 0.98 141 30.3 -59 0.37 0.08 0.77 0.24 0.57 20,273 1.2 0.26 822 6 0.91 12.5 1.93 0.16 0.06 2,374 6.29 4.09 150 19.1 -69 0.52 0.10 0.84 1.00 9,348 2.3 0.18 332 -6 0.83 48.9 0.11 0.47 0.46 0.08 5,594 0.90 0.20 421 27.7 -37 0.65 0.21 1.55 4.18 13,073 6.3 0.33 906.2 5.87 0.40 0.41 6,642 8.71 1.99 805 17.8 0.00 0.83 1.60 16,214 2.7 0.09 14.4 0.00 1.09 0.07 881 1.92 0.72 257 26.4 -78 0.34 0.00 0.22 1.80 25,020 2.4 0.25 4.7 0.02 0.60 0.02 2,205 0.90 0.20 293 129.9 0.06 0.86 0.84 0.24 31,338 1.3 0.13 1,269 -27 0.95 58.0 0.21 0.37 0.52 1,942 1.37 0.22 530 0.46 16.5 -76 0.01 0.90 0.26 0.73 37,483 1.3 0.17 3,574 -28 0.96 9.5 0.21 0.15 0.18 1,817 0.99 0.41 389 0.36 5.7 -59 0.15 1.47 0.40 9,676 2.2 0.14 103.5 0.39 0.11 0.28 478 1.60 0.77 13.5 -66 0.56 0.86 0.62 0.11 32,103 1.6 0.11 2,192 1 0.95 95.7 0.25 0.66 0.68 0.02 10,375 1.72 0.70 1,047 0.68 82.9 -58 0.17 0.63 0.97 2,152 2.82 0.99 0.53 106.3 -71 0.33 0.72 3.40 5.4 0.90 -60 3,065.2 0.06 0.31 0.15 886 0.87 0.31 88 34.4 0.28 0.67 0.06 9,937 1.15 0.10 618 0.76 11.7 -37 1.91 0.79 0.78 15,119 7.1 1.94 1,894 -41 0.86 276.0 2.32 0.03 0.51 0.99 2,111 2.86 1.29 537 33.5 0.07 0.56 15.77United Nations 3,946 19.3 1180.9 515 -66 0.73 0.67 Regional are calculated using countries within each region; only selected shown here. Dashes data. 0.01 - or insufficient 0.18values from all2.75 0.14 2,281indicate missing 0.74 0.37 9.8 averages -72 countries are480 2 67.4 0.83page. 2.16 19,838 4.1 land biocapacity 0.53 land Footprint, 1,132 0.45equal to the Built-up Also includes Built-up shown on previous 3 In constant 2005 US $. 0.04 0.69 2.19 7,745 3.9 1.32 613 -63 0.80 175.8 0.22 0.10 0.33 0.15 0.7 0.08 2,867.1 -44 0.11 0.76 0.60 11,605 1.8 0.65 969 -72 0.85 8.0 0.35

Europe Albania Austria Belarus Belgium Bosnia/Herzegovina Bulgaria Croatia Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Moldova Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Russia Slovakia Slovenia Spain Switzerland Ukraine United Kingdom

References and Further Reading Sources for the National Footprint Accounts British Petroleum. 2007. Statistical Review of World Energy. http://www.bp.com/productlanding.do?cat egoryId=6929&contentId=7044622 (accessed July 2009).

International Energy Agency CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion Database. 2007. http://wds.iea. org/wds (accessed July 2009).

FAO. 1998. Global Fiber Supply Model. http:// ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/006/X0105E/X0105E.pdf (accessed July 2009).

IEA. Hydropower FAQ. http://www.ieahydro.org/ faq.htm (accessed July 2009).

Ewing B., S. Goldfinger, A. Oursler, A. Reed, D. Moore, and M. Wackernagel. 2009. The Ecological Footprint Atlas 2009. Oakland: Global Footprint Network.

Marland, G., T.A. Boden, and R. J. Andres. 2007. Global, Regional, and National Fossil Fuel CO2 Emissions. In Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Oak Ridge, TN: Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory and U.S. Department of Energy.

Ewing B., A. Reed, A. Galli, J. Kitzes, and M. Wackernagel. 2009. Calculation Methodology for the National Footprint Accounts, 2009 Edition. Oakland: Global Footprint Network. http://www. footprintnetwork.org/images/uploads/National_ Footprint_Accounts_Method_Paper_2009.pdf

Pauly D. and V. Christensen. 1995. Primary production required to sustain global fisheries. Nature. 374: 255-257.

Kitzes, J., A. Galli, A. Reed, B. Ewing, S. Rizk, D. Moore, and M. Wackernagel. 2009. Guidebook to the National Footprint Accounts, 2009 Edition. Oakland: Global Footprint Network. http://www. footprintnetwork.org/images/uploads/National_ Footprint_Accounts_Guidebook_2009.pdf

Corine Land Cover 2000. European Topic Centre on Land Use and Spatial Information, 2000. Barcelona: EIONET. http://terrestrial.eionet.europa. eu/CLC2000 (accessed July 2009).

FAO. 2000. Technical Conversion Factors for Agricultural Commodities. http://www.fao.org/es/ ess/tcf.asp. (accessed July 2009).

Corine Land Cover 1990. European Topic Centre on Land Use and Spatial Information, 1990. Barcelona: EIONET. http://terrestrial.eionet.europa. eu/CLC1990 (accessed July 2009).

Global Agro-Ecological Zones. FAO and International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis 2000. http://www.fao.org/ag/agl/agll/gaez/index. htm. (accessed July 2009).

Fishbase Database. Froese, R. and D. Pauly (Eds.) 2008. http://www.fishbase.org (accessed July 2009).

Global Land Cover 2000. Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Joint Research Center and European Commission. Italy: IES. http://www-tem. jrc.it/glc2000 (accessed July 2009).

Food and Agricuture Organization of the United Nations FAOSTAT Statistical Databases. http:// faostat.fao.org/site/291/default.aspx (accessed July 2009). FAO ForesSTAT Statistical Database. http://faostat. fao.org/site/626/default.aspx (accessed July 2009). FAO PopSTAT Statistical Database. http://faostat. fao.org/site/452/default.aspxÂ (accessed July 2009). FAO ProdSTAT Statistical Database. http://faostat. fao.org/site/526/default.aspx (accessed July 2009). FAO ResourceSTAT Statistical Database. http:// faostat.fao.org/site/348/default.aspx (accessed July 2009). FAO TradeSTAT Statistical Databases. http:// faostat.fao.org/site/406/default.aspx (accessed July 2009). FAO FishSTAT Fisheries Statistical Database. http://www.fao.org/fishery/figis (accessed July 2009).

The Ecological Wealth of Nations

Resources

FAO Supply Utilization Accounts Statistical Database. 2003.http://faostat.fao.org/site/355/ default.aspx#ancor (Archived from prior FAOSTAT)

Global Land Use Database. Center for Sustainability and the Global Environment, University of WisconsinMadison. 1992. http://www.sage.wisc.edu:16080/ iamdata (accessed July 2009). Goodland, R. 1997. Environmental Sustainability in the Hydro Industry. Large Dams: Learning from the Past, Looking at the Future.Â Washington DC: Workshop Proceedings, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK and the World Bank Group. Gulland, J.A. 1971. The Fish Resources of the Ocean. West Byfleet, Surrey, England: Fishing News. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2006. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Volume 4: Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Use. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/ public/2006gl/vol4.html (accessed July 2009). IPCC. 2001. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Sea Around Us Project. Fisheries Centre, Pew Charitable Trusts and the University of British Columbia. 2008. http://www.seaaroundus.org/ project.htm (accessed July 2009). United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics Database. 2007. http://comtrade.un.org (accessed July 2009).

Rice, A. 2009. Is there such a thing as agroimperialism? New York Times Magazine, November 16. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/ magazine/22land-t.html?_r=1&hpw (accessed February 2010).

UN Economic Commission for Europe and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2005. European Forest Sector Outlook Study. http://www.unece.org/timber/docs/sp/sp-20.pdf (accessed July 2009).

Rosenthal, E. 2007. World food stocks dwindling rapidly, UN warns. New York Times, December 17. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/17/world/ europe/17iht-food.html?emc=eta1 (accessed February 2010).

UNECE and FAO. 2000. Temperate and Boreal Forest Resource Assessment. Geneva: UNECE, FAO.

United Nations Environmental Programme, 2009. From Conflict to Peacebuilding: The Role of Natural Resources and the Environment. Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP.

Vaclav Smil. 2000. Feeding the World: A Challenge for the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge: MIT Press. World Resources Institute Global Land Cover Classification Database. http://earthtrends.wri.org (accessed July 2009).

UN Development Programme. 2009. Human Development Report 2009 Overcoming barriers: Human mobility and development. http://hdr. undp.org/en/media/HDR_2009_EN_Complete.pdf (accessed February 2010).

Global Footprint Network Partner Organizations INTERNATIONAL

• BioRegional Development Group • Earth Day Network • ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability • LEAD International • nrg4SD (Network of Regional Governments for Sustainable Development) • The Natural Step International • WWF

AFRICA & MIDDLE EAST

• AGEDI (Abu Dhabi Global Environmental Data Initiative) • Emirates Environmental Group • Emirates Wildlife Society-WWF • North West University Center for Environmental Management

ASIA • Agenda21 Action Council for Gyeonggi-do • CII (Confederation of Indian Industry) • Ecological Footprint Japan • GIDR (Gujarat Institute for Development Research) • WWF - Japan AUSTRALIA & OCEANIA

• Alberfield Pty Ltd • Eco-Norfolk Foundation • EcoSTEPS • EPA Queensland • EPA Victoria • New Zealand Centre for Ecological Economics • RMIT University Centre for Design • The GPT Group • Zero Waste SA

EUROPE

• Agir21 • Agrocampus Ouest • Ambiente Italia • Bank Sarasin & Co. Ltd • Best Foot Forward • BRASS Centre

• Carbon Decisions • Centre for Sustainable Tourism and Transportation • CERAG • CESTRAS (Centro de Estudos e Estratégias para a Sustentabilidade) • Charles University Environment Center • Conseil régional Nord Pas de Calais • DANDELION Environmental Consulting and Service Ltd. • De Kleine Aarde (The Small Earth) • Ecole Nationale Supérieur des Mines de Saint-Étienne • Ecolife • EcoRes • Empreinte Ecologique SARL • Finnish Ministry of the Environment • Foundation for Global Sustainability • IFF Social Ecology • IRES Piemonte Research Institute • KÖVET Association for Sustainable Economies • Nature Humaine • nef (new economics foundation) • Novatlantis • OeKU • Optimum Population Trust • Pictet Asset Management SA • Plattform Footprint • PROECOENO • Rete Lilliput • Skipso • St. Petersburg State University • SERI (Sustainable Europe Research Institute) • Tartu University • The Web of Hope • University of Siena - Ecodynamics Group • Water Footprint Network • Welsh Assembly Government

CENTRAL & SOUTH AMERICA

• Acuerdo Ecuador • Ecossistemas Design Ecológico • Fan (Fundación Amigos de la Naturaleza) • Instituto de Ecología Política • Libélula – Comunicación • RECYCLA Chile • (PUCP) The Pontifical Catholic University of Peru • Universidad de Colima

NORTH AMERICA

• AASHE (Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education) • British Columbia Institute of Technology • CASSE (Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy) • Children’s Environmental Literacy Foundation • Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center • EcoMark • Global Green USA • Hawaii County Resource Center • Info Grafik • Natural Logic, Inc. • One Earth Initiative • Paul Wermer Sustainability Consulting • Planet2025 Network • Portfolio 21 Investments, Inc. • Sustainable Earth Initiative • The City of Calgary • The Cloud Institute for Sustainability Education • The Sustainable Scale Project • Together Campaign • Utah Population and Environment Coalition • ZeroFootprint

“We must learn to view the Earth’s resources not as our own infinite pantry, but as a limited luxury that, if used responsibly, everyone – now and in the future – can continue to benefit from. This means using existing robust accounting tools to analyze the current situation and to track humanity’s path into the future. Global Footprint Network has developed such a tool, which measures not only how much biocapacity we have, and how much we use, but also who is using what and where. This data can serve not only as the starting point for meaningful and impactful dialogue between nations, but as a cornerstone for future policy decisions, as the sustainable governance of natural resources is sorely needed around the globe.” Freddy Ehlers, Secretary-General, Comunidad Andina (Andean Community)

GLOBAL FOOTPRINT NETWORK 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 and who uses what. By making ecological limits central to decision making, we are working to end overshoot and create a society where all people can live well, within the means of our one planet. Global Footprint Net has offices in Oakland (California, USA), Brussels (Belgium), Zurich (Switzerland) and Washington, DC (USA). www.footprintnetwork.org