3. Foreword
When I was born in 1962 most of the stocks; or we can take out a loan to course, one which all too often seems to
world’s countries were using resources be “repaid” at a future date, putting be more about maintaining the “right to
and emitting carbon dioxide at a rate more carbon into the air than nature collapse.” We must work with nature’s
that their own ecosystems could keep can currently absorb. But for how long budget, not against it, if we are to secure
up with. Today, less than 20 percent of can we do this, and at what cost in the human well-being for both current and
the world’s population lives in countries interim? Based on current United Nations future generations.
where this is still the case. agencies’ projections of moderate
population growth, a slight decline in To succeed, and to make this success
How do we know this? By using world hunger, partial decarbonization of last, we need to alter the path we are
Ecological Footprint accounting, a global energy systems, and a continued on today. I am an unwavering optimist
method for calculating society’s use of increase in agricultural productivity, by and am convinced we can. Consider
nature’s assets. Based on data from the late 2030s humanity will need the this: If the current trends in biocapacity
the United Nations, as well as in-country equivalent of two Earths to keep up with and Footprint represented financial
statistical sources, it compares humanity’s our demands. trajectories, every planner, economist
Ecological Footprint (the demand our or minister would recognize the urgency Mathis Wackernagel, Ph.D.
consumption places on the biosphere) With demand so far out of synch with of changing course, and develop an President, Global Footprint Network
with biocapacity (the biosphere’s ability supply, and ecological debt accumulating aggressive agenda for rectifying the
to meet this demand), providing a kind from decades of ecological overspending, situation. Nothing less is required with
of bank statement for the planet. The it is unrealistic to assume we can even our current ecological trajectory. After
results for 2006, which are presented in reach this level of consumption. There just all, more money can be printed, but
this report: Our Footprint now overshoots are not that many fisheries to overfish, nature’s assets cannot.
the Earth’s biocapacity by more than 40 forests to deforest, or atmospheres to
percent. In other words, the planet’s living fill up with CO2 before climate change
systems need to grow for about a year wreaks havoc with food and water
and five months to meet the demands we supplies.
are placing on them in a single year.
We have a choice: Maintaining the “right
Overshoot is possible only for a limited to develop” – a key motivation behind
time. Similar to the financial world, we this publication, and more broadly, the
can temporarily eat into our ecological activities of Global Footprint Network
savings by drawing down our resource – means moving away from our current
The Ecological Wealth of Nations 1
4. Exploring a new perspective
This report documents the demand that humanity is put- Conversely, what does it mean for those who are run- Global Footprint Network invites all countries and orga-
ting on the Earth’s ecological assets, and the capacity of ning an ecological deficit? nizations to participate in this debate, and to explore the
ecosystems to keep up with this demand, both globally implications of the Ecological Footprint and biocapacity
and by individual nation. The analysis is primarily based on What are the political, economic, social and strategic data for national development, valuation of ecological
statistical information that countries report to the United implications of eight countries controlling more than half services, and international agreements, such as those
Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UN FAO), the the planet’s biological capacity? designed to protect biodiversity. In addition, these data
UN Development Program (UNDP) and other international provide an important perspective for shaping and evaluat-
organizations How can nations work together to best manage ecologi- ing post-Copenhagen initiatives related to the emission
cal assets so that they are not depleted or degraded, and capture of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil
The purpose of this publication is to provide data rather but rather, can continue to meet human demands while fuels, deforestation and other sources.
than policy recommendations, and to open a creative maintaining a healthy biodiversity?
debate over the implications of living in a resource- In a world that is confronting simultaneous limits on food,
constrained world. Statistics show that humanity is using The data presented in this publication are intended to water, soil, energy, climate and biodiversity, this perspec-
resources and turning them into wastes faster than the enhance understanding of the extent, use and distribution tive brings current ecological realities into sharper focus.
Earth’s living systems can absorb these wastes or turn of ecological assets, and their relationship to human well- In particular, it can help gauge whether proposed solu-
them back into resources. This information is intended to being. It provides an objective and measurable starting tions will result in an absolute reduction in humanity’s
raise awareness and catalyze a discussion of the various point for politicians, decision-makers, opinion leaders and ecological overshoot, or will just transfer pressure from
risks and opportunities for individual countries created by citizens to address the sustainability challenge — how to one stressed ecosystem to another.
this imbalance, exploring questions such as: live well, while living within the means of the planet. This
challenge is perhaps the key issue of the 21st century,
What does this global ecological overshoot mean to those and how it is resolved will likely determine the fate of
countries that use less biological capacity than they have humanity and the rest of the Earth’s species.
available?
2 The Ecological Wealth of Nations
6. Global Ecological Limits
12
Figure 1: Human Demand on the Biosphere, 1961-2006 The Ecological Footprint measures the to keep up with our consumption. Stay-
1.5 area of biologically productive land and ing on this course would quickly diminish
Biocapacity
water required to provide the resources our room to maneuver, and the well-being
used and absorb the carbon dioxide of many of the planet’s residents would
Footprint
waste generated by human activity, under be increasingly at risk.
1 Earth
current technology. Accounting for a
country’s consumption Footprint starts In 2006, by September 11, humanity had
with all goods and services produced used all the combined resource produc-
in that country, then adds imports and tion and carbon sequestration capacity
0.5
subtracts exports. that the planet’s ecosystems had avail-
able for that entire year. Since the mid-
Ecological Footprint Biocapacity is the area of productive land 1980s, when global ecological overshoot
Biocapacity
and water available to produce resources first became a consistent reality, we
0.0
1960 1975 1990 2005
or absorb carbon dioxide waste, given have been drawing down the biosphere’s
current management practices. Both the principal rather than living off its annual
Ecological Footprint and biocapacity are interest. To support our consumption, we
measured in standard units called global have been liquidating resource stocks
Human Demand hectares (gha). One gha represents a and allowing carbon dioxide to accumu-
In 1961 we used a little hectare of forest, cropland, grazing land late in the atmosphere.
or fishing grounds with world average
more than half of the Earth’s productivity. Ecological overshoot is possible only for
a limited time before ecosystems begin
biocapacity; in 2006 we used While economies, populations and to degrade and possibly collapse. This
44% more than was available. resource demands grow, the size of the
planet remains the same. In 2006, hu-
can already be seen in water shortages,
desertification, erosion, reduced cropland
manity’s Footprint exceeded global bio- productivity, overgrazing, deforestation,
capacity by 44 percent (Figure 1). Moder- rapid extinction of species, collapse of
ate United Nations projections suggest fisheries and global climate change. New
demand will grow significantly faster than consequences of overshoot are regularly
biocapacity, and that by the late 2030s, being discovered, and others may only
the capacity of two Earths will be needed become apparent long into the future.
4 The Ecological Wealth of Nations
7. The biosphere is made up of complex, interactive systems that If these changes exceed certain thresholds conditions could de- Photo of anvil clouds over the Pacific Ocean. NASA, 21 July, 2003
are often unpredictable. Air, water, land, and life -- including hu- part from those that were present during the course of human
man life -- combine forces to create a constantly changing world. evolution, making the planet a less hospitable place to us to live.
The Ecological Wealth of Nations 5
8. Global hectares (millions) Global hectares (millions)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0
3000
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
6
United States
United States United States
United States
China
China China
China
Russian Federation
Russia India
India
Canada
Canada Russian Federation
Russia
India
India Japan
Japan
Argentina
Argentina United Kingdom
United Kingdom
Bolivia
Bolivia Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico Germany
Germany
The Ecological Wealth of Nations
Colombia
Colombia Italy
Italy
France
France France
France
Congo, DRC
Congo, Democratic Republic of Spain
Spain
Germany
Germany Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria Turkey
Turkey
Peru
Peru Canada
Canada
Turkey
Turkey Iran
Iran, Islamic Republic of
Sudan
Sudan Korea, South
Korea, Republic of
Ukraine
Ukraine Poland
Poland
United Kingdom
United Kingdom South Africa
South Africa
South Africa
South Africa Ukraine
Ukraine
Figure 3. Total Biocapacity, by country, 2006
Japan
Japan Pakistan
Pakistan
Myanmar
Myanmar Argentina
Argentina
Figure 2. Total Ecological Footprint, by country, 2006
Venezuela
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Thailand
Thailand
Poland
Poland Egypt
Egypt
Iran
Iran, Islamic Republic of Viet Nam
Viet Nam
Finland
Finland Colombia
Colombia
Ecological Footprint and biocapacity of nations
Thailand
Thailand Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia
Chile
Chile Sudan
Sudan
Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan Netherlands
Netherlands
Paraguay
Paraguay Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan
Italy
Italy Greece
Greece
Madagascar
Madagascar Algeria
Algeria
Pakistan
Pakistan Venezuela
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of
Spain
Spain Belgium
Belgium
Angola
Angola Romania
Romania
New Zealand
New Zealand Czech Republic
Czech Republic
Romania
Romania Chile
Chile
Congo
Congo Peru
Peru
Viet Nam
Viet Nam Myanmar
Myanmar
Cameroon
Cameroon Uzbekistan
Uzbekistan
CentralAfrican Republic
Central African Rep. Portugal
Portugal
Chad
Chad Congo, DRC
Congo, Democratic Republic of
Tanzania
Tanzania, United Republic of United Arab Emirates
United Arab Emirates
Zambia
Zambia Switzerland
Switzerland
Belarus
Belarus Morocco
Morocco
Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia Belarus
Belarus
Côte d'Ivoire
Côte d'Ivoire Austria
Austria
Ecuador
Ecuador Tanzania
Tanzania, United Republic of
Mali
Mali Denmark
Denmark
Norway
Norway Iraq
Iraq
Denmark
Denmark Ghana
Ghana
Morocco
Morocco Israel
Israel
Algeria
Algeria Ireland
Ireland
Guinea
Guinea Korea, North
Korea, Democratic People's Republic of
Czech Republic
Czech Republic Hungary
Hungary
Niger
Niger New Zealand
New Zealand
Hungary
Hungary Syrian Arab Republic
Syria
Ghana
Ghana Finland
Finland
Austria
Austria Slovakia
Slovakia
Uzbekistan
Uzbekistan Cuba
Cuba
Egypt
Egypt Ecuador
Ecuador
Papua New Guinea
Papua New Guinea Bulgaria
Bulgaria
Bulgaria
Bulgaria Niger
Niger
Burkina Faso
Burkina Faso Bolivia
Bolivia
Cropland
Cropland
Mauritania Madagascar
Fishing G
Mauritania Madagascar
Grazing L
Grazing L
Fishing Gr
Carbon Fo
Forest Lan
Built-up La
Forest Lan
Built-up La
9. Ghana
Ghana Finland
Finland
Austria
Austria Slovakia
Slovakia
Uzbekistan
Uzbekistan Cuba
Cuba
Egypt
Egypt Ecuador
Ecuador
Papua New Guinea
Papua New Guinea Bulgaria
Bulgaria
Bulgaria
Bulgaria Niger
Niger
Burkina Faso
Burkina Faso Bolivia
Bolivia
Cropland
Cropland
Mauritania
Mauritania Madagascar
Madagascar
Forest Land
Forest Land
Nicaragua
Nicaragua Guatemala
Guatemala
Built-up Land
Grazing Land
Built-up Land
Grazing Land
Fishing Ground
Fishing Ground
Ireland
Ireland Mali
Mali
Carbon Footprint
Namibia
Namibia Kuwait
Kuwait
Netherlands
Netherlands Yemen
Yemen
Syria
Syrian Arab Republic Paraguay
Paraguay
Turkmenistan
Turkmenistan Cameroon
Cameroon
Latvia
Latvia Singapore
Singapore
Senegal
Senegal Norway
Norway
Greece
Greece Burkina Faso
Burkina Faso
Yemen
Yemen Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan
Slovakia
Slovakia Tunisia
Tunisia
Korea, South
Korea, Republic of Libya
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
Guatemala
Guatemala Turkmenistan
Turkmenistan
Honduras
Honduras Chad
Chad
Somalia
Somalia Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka
Cambodia
Cambodia Côte d'Ivoire
Côte d'Ivoire
Korea, North
Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Angola
Angola
Portugal
Portugal Honduras
Honduras
Lithuania
Lithuania Croatia
Croatia
Cuba
Cuba Senegal
Senegal
Estonia
Estonia Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe
Tunisia
Tunisia Zambia
Zambia
Belgium
Belgium Guinea
Guinea
Panama
Panama BosniaHerzegovina
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe Dominican Rep.
Dominican Republic
Switzerland
Switzerland Somalia
Somalia
Libya
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Cambodia
Cambodia
Liberia
Liberia Nicaragua
Nicaragua
Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan Costa Rica
Costa Rica
Croatia
Croatia Jordan
Jordan
Eritrea
Eritrea Lithuania
Lithuania
Laos
Lao People's Democratic Republic Papua New Guinea
Papua New Guinea
1 Earth
1.5
0.0
0.5
Costa Rica
Costa Rica Panama
Panama
1960
Kyrgyzstan
Kyrgyzstan Latvia
Latvia
Botswana
Botswana Mauritania
Mauritania
Iraq
Iraq Oman
Oman
1965
Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka Benin
Benin
Benin
Benin Lebanon
Lebanon
BosniaHerzegovina
Bosnia and Herzegovina Estonia
Estonia
Global biocapacity
1970
Oman
Oman Albania
Albania
United Arab Emirates
United Arab Emirates Slovenia
Slovenia
Sierra Leone
Sierra Leone Botswana
1975
Botswana
Guinea-Bissau
Guinea-Bissau Kyrgyzstan
Kyrgyzstan
Dominican Rep.
Dominican Republic Moldova
Moldova
1980
Slovenia
Slovenia Namibia
Namibia
Moldova
Moldova CentralAfrican Republic
Central African Rep.
Tajikistan
Tajikistan Laos
Lao People's Democratic Republic
1985
Albania
Albania Tajikistan
Tajikistan
Haiti
Haiti Armenia
Armenia
Israel
Israel Haiti
Haiti
1990
Armenia
Armenia Sierra Leone
Sierra Leone
Figure x. Humanity’s Ecological Footprint, by component, 1961-2006
Fiji
Fiji Liberia
Liberia
Figure 4. Humanity’s Ecological Footprint, by component, 1961-2006
Gambia
Gambia Eritrea
Eritrea
1995
Solomon Islands
Solomon Islands Congo
Congo
Lebanon
Lebanon Fiji
Fiji
The Ecological Wealth of Nations
Jordan
Jordan Gambia
Gambia
2000
Kuwait
Kuwait Guinea-Bissau
Guinea-Bissau
7
data point doesn’t show up on the graph, white boxes were placed to cover them up.
Djibouti
Djibouti Solomon Islands
Solomon Islands
Singapore
Singapore Djibouti
Djibouti
2005
Note: in order to get x-axis starting at 1960, a data point of zero was included. So that this
Fishing
Carbon
Built-up
Croplan
Grazing
Forest L