CONTENTGlobal Footprint Network 1 Global Footprint Network EDITOR Foreword Promotes a sustainable economy by Alessandro Galli advancing the Ecological Footprint, Scott MattoonForeword Plan Blue 2 a tool that makes sustainabilityIntroduction 3 measureable. AUTHORSThe Ecological Footprint 8 Alessandro Galli Funded by:of World Regions David Moore MAVA Foundation Established in 1994, it is a family-led, Nina BrooksDrivers of Mediterranean EcologicalFootprint and biocapacity changes Swiss-based philanthropic foundation Katsunori Iha 10over time whose mission is to engage in strong Gemma Cranston partnerships to conserve biodiversityMapping consumption, production 13 for future generations. CONTRIBUTORS AND REVIEWERand trade activities for theMediterranean Region Jean-Pierre Giraud In collaboration with: Steve GoldﬁngerMediterranean Ecological Footprint 17 WWF Mediterranean Martin Halleof nations Its mission is to build a future in which Pati Poblete people live in harmony with nature.Linking ecological assets and 20 Anders Reed The WWF Mediterranean initiative aimseconomic competitiveness Mathis Wackernagel at conserving the natural wealth of theToward sustainable development: 22 Mediterranean and reducing humanhuman welfare and planetary limits footprint on nature for the beneﬁt of all. DESIGN MaddoxDesign.netNational Case Studies 24 UNESCO VeniceConclusions 28 Is developing an educational and ADVISORS training platform on the application Deanna KarapetyanAppendix A 32 of the Ecological Footprint in SEE and Hannes Kunz Calculating the Ecological Footprint Mediterranean countries, using in (Institute for Integrated Economic particular the network of MAB BiosphereAppendix B 35 Research - www.iier.ch) Reserves as special demonstration and The carbon-plus approach Paolo Lombardi learning places.Appendix C (WWF Mediterranean Programme) 36 Ecological Footprint: Frequently asked Plan Bleu André Schneider questions Plan Bleu aims to produce information (André Schneider Global Advisory SA) and knowledge in order to alert Yves de SoyeGlossary of Ecological Footprint terms 38 decision-makers and other stakeholdersReferences 40 to environmental risks and sustainable development issues in the Mediterranean,Biocapacity and Ecological Footprint Data 42 and to shape future scenarios to guide decision-making processes.
GLOBAL FOOTPRINT NETWORK FOREWORD Yes, ecological health is important—all agree—but what’s in it for our economies? This is the question we address with the Mediterranean Footprint report. We believe that if we carefully look at the resource trends, the link will be obvious. We will see that it is in each I n a world of growing ecological overshoot—when our demands for nature’s products and services exceed country’s most central self-interest to combat ecological deﬁcits and overreliance on fossil fuel quickly and aggressively. the planet’s ability to renew them—the winning economic strategies will be Such action does not depend on whether our global neighbors follow suit. In fact, each country’s own actions will become more urgent and valuable the less others do. those that manage biocapacity on the one hand, and reduce demand for it Let me spell out the argument: Why would it be in any individual country’s interest to address a problem that seems to be global in nature? on the other.Mathis Wackernagel Consider the nature of the most prominent environmental challenge: Climate change. Even Those countries and cities trappedPresident, Global Footprint Network though climate change transcends country boundaries, the fossil fuel dependence that in energy- and resource-intensivewww.footprintnetwork.org contributes to it carries growing economic risks for the emitting country—particularly for infrastructure (and economic activities)many of the Mediterranean countries paying for expensive oil-imports. Working our way out of this addiction takes time, and thelonger we wait to radically rethink and retool our societies, the costlier and harder it will be. will become dangerously fragile, and will not be able to adapt in time to meetBut climate change is not an issue in isolation. Rather, it is a symptom of a broader challenge: Humanity’s systematic overuse of theplanet’s ﬁnite resources. the emerging resource constraints. But those which do, and build economiesOur natural systems can only generate a ﬁnite amount of raw materials (ﬁsh, trees, crops, etc.) and absorb a ﬁnite amount of waste(such as carbon dioxide emissions). Global Footprint Network quantiﬁes this rate of output through a measure called “biocapacity.” that work with, rather than against,Biocapacity is as measurable as GDP—and, ultimately, more signiﬁcant, as access to basic living resources underlies every economic nature’s budget will be able to secureactivity a society can undertake. the wellbeing of their people.For centuries, we have treated biocapacity as an essentially limitless ﬂow. Today, though, humanity’s demand for biocapacityoutstrips global supply by 50 percent. In the Mediterranean region, as this report shows, demands on biocapacity now exceed theregion’s supply by more than 150 percent.
PLAN BLEU FOREWORD T In 1989, Plan Bleu published a pioneering report on “Futures for the Mediterranean he “State of the Environment and Basin” which recommended a design for the Mediterranean Strategy for Development in the Mediterranean”, Sustainable Development (MSSD). With the issuance of an update in 2005, published by Plan Bleu in 2009, attempted to entitled “A sustainable future for the Mediterranean: the Blue Plan’s environment and development outlook” the report’s recommendations were adopted by the provide answers regarding water and energy. Barcelona Convention Contracting Parties at their 14th conference in Portoroz, The promotion of water demand management Slovenia, 8-11 November 2005. and the use of related indicators, such as Plan Bleu’s key function as the “Mediterranean Environment and Development efﬁciency demand per sector and exploitation Observatory” (MEDO), draws heavily upon its expertise in sustainable index of the renewable resources, should aid development indicators. Within MEDO, 134 initial indicators were selected better inclusion of water scarcity. The main and adapted to the follow-up of the implementation of Agenda 21 in theHugues Ravenel responses to the growth of the major Mediterranean. Of these, 34 priority indicators were subsequently chosen toDirector, Plan Bleu monitor the progress made by the Mediterranean countries focusing upon the socio-economic drivers and environmentalwww.planbleu.org objectives deﬁned for 9 MSSD priority issues including: pressures are a) to develop more sustainable energy consumption and b) encourage Improving integrated water resource and water demand management; diversiﬁcation of energy sources with a bigger Ensuring sustainable management of energy; share of renewable energy. Mitigating and adapting to the effects of climate change. The MSSD and the related indicators are being revised by taking into account the impact ofIn addition, some composite indicators such as the Human Development Index (HDI) and Ecological Footprint wereconsidered to monitor overall progress in terms of sustainable development. climate change on the Mediterranean environment and society. All this work on indicators and MSSDThe MSSD priority indicators are unable to fully describe the complexity and diversity of sustainable developmentissues in the Mediterranean regions. Some additional indicators were thus selected, deﬁned and populated in order to is also linked to the activities of the Centre fortackle priority issues such as: water, energy, tourism, the conservation of rural and coastal areas. These analyses, widely Mediterranean Integration in Marseille and thedisseminated in Plan Bleu publications and continuously updated, are nicely complemented by the analysis of Ecological priority areas of the Union for the Mediterranean.Footprint and biocapacity trends in the Mediterranean region that is included in this report.2
MEDITE RRANEAN E CO LO GIC AL FO OTP RINT TRENDSINTRODUCTIONWHAT’S AT STAKE TRACKING HUMAN DEMAND ONSince the rise of agriculture, the the performance of their economies are BIOCAPACIT Y:Mediterranean region has been shaped undermining the health of their ecological INTRODUCING THE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINTby its diverse and vast ecological assets and mortgaging their long-termresources. Ecological changes, from security. Pursuing a more sustainable approach to development and economic prosperity means better understanding the choices before us. For this, governments need theforest loss to desertiﬁcation, have knowledge and tools to manage their ecological assets as well as their demand Never has the situation been so critical:always been part of its history, but for renewable resources and ecological services. The Ecological Footprint The Mediterranean’s accessibility tonever has human pressure on the methodology offers a way to do so, globally and at the regional and country level. essential life-supporting ecologicalMediterranean’s ecological assets been The Ecological Footprint is an accounting tool that measures one aspect of resources and services is increasingly atas intense as it is today. sustainability: How much of the planet’s regenerative capacity humans demand to risk. At a time when the world is going produce the resources and ecological services for their daily lives and how muchGrowing demands on the Mediterranean further into ecological overshoot, failure regenerative capacity they have available from existing ecological assets. It doesregion’s limited ecological resources and to take action is becoming a fundamental so by means of two indicators:services now threaten the foundation threat.of its social and economic well-being. O N T H E D E M A N D S I D E the Ecological Footprint measures the biologically productive land and sea area—the ecological assets—that aIn 2008, every country in the region population requires to produce the renewable resources and ecologicalbut one demanded more ecological services it uses.resources and services than were ON THE SUPPLY SIDE Biocapacity tracks the ecological assetsavailable within their respective borders. available in countries, regions or at the global level and their capacity to produce renewable resources and ecological services.Simply stated, the Mediterranean regionis running a severe ecological deﬁcit, In economic terms, assets are often deﬁned as something durable that is not directly consumed, but yields a ﬂow of products and services that people do consume.a situation that will only worsen unless Ecological assets are thus here deﬁned as the biologically productive land andeffective resource management becomes sea areas that generate the renewable resources and ecological services thatcentral to policy-making. humans demand. They include: cropland for the provision of plant-based food and ﬁber products; grazing land and cropland for animal products; ﬁshing groundsTo achieve lasting socio-economic (marine and inland) for ﬁsh products; forests for timber and other forest products;success, solutions are needed that uptake land to sequester waste (CO2, primarily from fossil fuel burning); and spacemanage Earth’s limited ecological assets. for shelter and other urban infrastructure (see box 1).Instead, however, we see that many ofthe actions taken by Greece, Italy andother Mediterranean countries to improve 3
CARBON GRAZING LAND accounts for the amount of forest land represents the area of grassland used, in required to accommodate for the carbon addition to crop feeds, to raise livestock Footprint, meaning to sequester CO2 for meat, diary, hide and wool products. emissions, primarily from fossil fuels It comprises all grasslands used to burning, international trade and land use provide feed for animals, including practices, that are not uptake by oceans. cultivated pastures as well as wild grasslands and prairies. FOREST FISHING GROUNDS represents the area of forests required to represent the area of marine and inland support the annual harvest of fuel wood, waters necessary to generate the annual pulp and timber products. primary production required to support catches of aquatic species (fish and seafood) and from aquaculture. CROPLAND BUILT-UP LAND consists of the area required to grow all represents the area of land covered by crop products required for human human infrastructure such as consumption (food and fibre), as well transportation, housing, industrial as to grow livestock feeds, fish meals, structures and reservoirs for oil crops, and rubber. hydroelectric power generation. Box 1: Land use categories comprising the Ecological Footprint (see Borucke et al., 2013 for additional information on the calculation methodology for each of these categories).4
MEDITE RRANEAN E CO LO GIC AL FO OTP RINT TRENDSA country’s Ecological Footprint ofconsumption is derived by tracking theecological assets demanded to absorbits waste and to generate all thecommodities it produces, imports andexports (see box 2).All commodities (or CO2 waste) carrywith them an embedded amount ofbioproductive land and sea areanecessary to produce (or sequester)them; international trade ﬂows can thus Ecological Footprint of Consumption Ecological Footprint of Production Net Ecological Footprint of Tradebe seen as ﬂows of embedded EcologicalFootprint. The Ecological Footprint of consumption The Ecological Footprint of production indicates the The Ecological Footprint of imports and indicates the consumption of biocapacity consumption of biocapacity resulting from production exports indicate the use of biocapacity within by a country’s inhabitants. processes within a given geographic area, such as a international trade. country or region. Embedded in trade between countries is a use of In order to assess the total domestic demand for biocapacity, the net Ecological Footprint of trade resources and ecological services of a It is the sum of all the bioproductive areas within a country (the Ecological Footprint of imports minus the population, we use the Ecological Footprint of necessary for supporting the actual harvest of primary Ecological Footprint of exports). If the Ecological consumption (EFc). EFc accounts for both the products (cropland, pasture land, forestland and fishing Footprint embodied in exports is higher than that export of national resources and ecological grounds), the country’s built-up area (roads, factories, of imports, then a country is a net exporter of cities), and the area needed to absorb all fossil fuel carbon renewable resources and ecological services. services for use in other countries, and the import of resources and ecological services for emissions generated within the country. Conversely, a country whose Footprint of imports domestic consumption. is higher than that embodied in exports depends This measure mirrors the gross domestic product (GDP), on the renewable resources and ecological EFc is most amenable to change by individuals which represents the sum of the values of all goods and services generated by ecological assets from through changes in their consumption behavior. services produced within a country’s borders. outside its geographical boundaries. Box 2: Tracking production, consumption and net trade with the Ecological Footprint: The Ecological Footprint associated with each country’s total consumption is calculated by summing the Footprint of its imports and its production, and subtracting the Footprint of its exports. This means that the resource use and emissions associated with producing a car that is manufactured in China, but sold and used in Italy, will contribute to Italy’s rather than China’s Ecological Footprint of consumption. 5
Both Ecological Footprint and biocapacity results are GLOBAL ECOLOGICAL OVERSHOOT 2011). In other words, in 2008 human demand on theexpressed in a globally comparable, standardized unit Earth’s ecological assets was 50 percent greater than While ecological assets have long been ignored ascalled a “global hectare” (gha)—a hectare of biologically their capacity to keep up with this demand. irrelevant to a country’s economy, the goods and servicesproductive land or sea area with world average that sustain a healthy human society (access to food, safe This situation is known as “ecological overshoot” and itsbioproductivity in a given year (see Borucke et al., 2013 water, sanitation, manufactured goods and economic consequences can be seen in the form of climate change,for details). opportunity) all depend on the functioning of healthy water scarcity, land use change and land degradation,While the Ecological Footprint quantiﬁes human ecosystems. declining ﬁsheries, loss of biodiversity, food crises anddemand, biocapacity acts as an ecological benchmark soaring energy costs. According to Global Footprint Network’s most recentand quantiﬁes nature’s ability to meet this demand. A National Footprint Accounts, in 2008 humanity consumed If human demand on nature continues to exceed whatpopulation’s Ecological Footprint can be compared resources and ecological services 1.5 times faster than Earth can regenerate, then substantial changes inwith the biocapacity that is available—domestically or Earth could renew them—a 100 percent jump from the resource base may occur, undermining economicglobally—to support that population, just as expenditure is 1961, when approximately 74 percent of the planet’s performance and human welfare.compared with income in ﬁnancial terms. If a population’s biocapacity was consumed (Global Footprint Network,demand for ecological assets exceeds the country’ssupply, that country is deﬁned as running an ecological—ormore precisely, a biocapacity—deﬁcit. Conversely, when 20demand for ecological assets is less than the biocapacityavailable within a country’s borders, the country is said to Global Hectares (billions) 15 OVERSHOOThave an ecological—or biocapacity—reserve.The total Ecological Footprint of a country is a functionof the average consumption pattern of each individual, 10the efﬁciency in production and resource transformation,and the number of individuals in the country. Biocapacity BIOCAPACITY = Area x Yieldis determined by the available biologically productive (SUPPLY)land and sea areas and the capacity of these assets 5 ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT = Population x Consumption x Resourceto produce resources and services useful for humans (SUPPLY) per person intensity(this is determined by the prevailing technology and 0management practices implemented in these areas). 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Figure 1: Trends in total Ecological Footprint and biocapacity between 1961 and 2008. The increase in biocapacity is due to an increase in land bioproductivity as well as in the areas used for human purposes. However, the increase in the Earth’s productivity is not enough to compensate for the demands of a growing global population.6
MEDITE RRANEAN E CO LO GIC AL FO OTP RINT TRENDSHumanity crossed the threshold in Spain offer a particular example of the1971, when the world went into global interplay between ecological constraints In this report, the Mediterranean regionecological overshoot. Recent studies and economic performance. Using the(Moore et al., 2012) project that, if we Ecological Footprint and biocapacity is deﬁned as those countries that directly bordercontinue on a “business-as-usual” path, it measures, we investigate the main driverswill take twice the ecological assets of the of increased human pressure in the the Mediterranean Sea plus three countries, Jordan,biosphere to meet our demands by the region and explore the likely implications Macedonia and Portugal, which are ecologicallyearly 2030s. This level of overshoot is of growing ecological deﬁcits for thephysically impossible in the long run. With Mediterranean region’s ecosystems and characterized by biomes that are typical ofgrowing resource scarcity and exceeded economies. the Mediterranean region. Only countries withplanetary boundaries, leaders need to Global Footprint Network published this populations greater than 500,000 are included inbe informed not only by value-added report in October 2012 as a foundation formeasures of economic activities, but also the debate on the strategies and policies Ecological Footprint results.asset balances and how they impact our required to best guarantee a sustainablequality of life. future for all in the region. Key ﬁndings ofGlobal Footprint Network launched its the report that were published in advanceMediterranean initiative to bring the in “Why Are Resource Limits Nowreality of ecological constraints to the Undermining Economic Performance?”center of Mediterranean policy debate, (Global Footprint Network, 2012) mightand to support decision-makers with tools be considered the ﬁrst discussion on thisthat will help them weigh policy trade-offs. critical issue. Global Footprint NetworkThese tools will enable policy analysts now invites governments and otherand decision-makers to more fully identify decision-makers to join the dialogue, andthe risks that resource and ecosystem act to safeguard their economies andlimitations pose to their countries’ their peoples’ well-being.economic and social well-being.In this report, we examine the nature ofand trends in the demands that residentsin the Mediterranean region are placingon the Earth’s ecological assets. Thechapter on Greece, Italy, Portugal and 7
THE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT OF WORLD REGIONSIn less than 50 years, humanity doubled its demand for renewable resources and North Americaecological services (see Figure 2). At a global level, the causes are easily identiﬁed. 1961 EUPopulation growth recorded a 118 percent increase from 1961 to 2008, the period Other Europe 8 Ecological Footprint (gha per capita)studied for this report, while the world’s per capita Ecological Footprint increased by 15 Latin Americapercent (from 2.4 to 2.7 gha per person). 7 Middle East/Central Asia 6 Africa 5 Built-up Land Forest Land Fishing Grounds Grazing Land Cropland Carbon 4 2.0 3 Ecological Footprint (# of Earths) 2 1.5 1 World biocapacity 0 1.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Population (billions) 0.5 2008 0.0 8 Ecological Footprint (gha per capita) 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2008 7Figure 2: Humanity’s Ecological Footprint by land use type, 1961-2008. The largest component of theEcological Footprint today is the carbon Footprint (55 percent). This component represents more than half the 6Ecological Footprint for one-quarter of the countries tracked, and it is the largest component for approximatelyhalf the countries tracked. All Ecological Footprint and biocapacity values provided in this study are reported 5in constant 2008 global hectare value. Details on constant gha can be found in Borucke et al., 2013. 4 3These global trends, however, hide the huge variability that exists at the regional level.Europe and Middle East/Central Asia experienced the largest increase in their per 2capita Ecological Footprint (+1.2 and +1.1 gha per person, respectively), but while 1Europe’s population growth was relatively slow (+29 percent), population grew 330percent in Middle East/Central Asia. North America had a smaller increase in per capita 0consumption (+ 0.6 gha per person) and a 63 percent growth in population. At the other 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7end of the spectrum, Africa saw its per capita Ecological Footprint decline (-0.1 gha per Population (billions)person), while its population increased by 255 percent. In the Asia-Paciﬁc region, percapita Ecological Footprint increased slightly (+0.6 gha per person), while population Figure 3: Ecological Footprint and population by world’s regions in 1961 and 2008.The area within eachgrew by 136 percent (See Figure 3). bar represents the total Ecological Footprint for each region.8
MEDITE RRANEAN E CO LO GIC AL FO OTP RINT TRENDSThe Mediterranean region experienced signiﬁcant increases in both population and per later, residents in this income group (approximately 279 million people) fell into morecapita consumption. From 1961 to 2008, the region’s population grew from 242 million to Footprint ranges, suggesting a greater disparity in access to ecological resources and478 million, a 96 percent increase, while its per capita Ecological Footprint increased by services. (Despite this increased variability, approximately 126 million people living52 percent. Together these increases led to a 197 percent increase of the Mediterranean’s in middle-income countries in 2008 had a per capita Ecological Footprint ranging from 1.5 to 2.0 gha, evidence of a higher consumption level for more people). Built-up Land Forest Land Fishing Grounds Grazing Land Cropland Carbon ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT (GHA PER CAPITA) 1961 1500 100 Ecological Footprint (million gha) Middle income 1200 80 Population (millions) High income 900 60 600 40 300 20 0 0 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2008 0.0 - 0.5 0.5 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.5 1.5 - 2.0 2.0 - 2.5 2.5 - 3.0 3.0 - 3.5 3.5 - 4.0 4.0 - 4.5 4.5 - 5.0 5.0 - 5.5 5.5 - 6.0Figure 4: Mediterranean’s total Ecological Footprint, by land-use type, 1961-2008. The largest componentof the Ecological Footprint today is the carbon Footprint (47 percent), followed by cropland (28 percent).In 1961, cropland was the largest component (33 percent), followed by the carbon Footprint (25 percent). ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT (GHA PER CAPITA) 2008 200total demand for ecological resources and services during the 47-year period studied 150 Population (millions)for this report (see Figure 4). The region’s income levels indicate how population andper capita Footprint values go hand in hand with the Mediterranean’s growing demandfor ecological resources and services (Figure 5). While Mediterranean high-income 100countries’ total Footprint grew primarily because of an increase in individual consumptionlevels—that is, an increase in their per capita Footprint—middle-income countries’ growingtotal Footprint was driven by both an increase in per capita consumption levels andpopulation growth. But these different patterns of change were also marked by shifts in 50residents’ access to ecological assets. Growing per capita consumption trends in high-income countries was accompanied by greater equality in access to ecological resources 0and services—by 2008, almost all residents in Mediterranean high-income countries 0.0 - 0.5 0.5 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.5 1.5 - 2.0 2.0 - 2.5 2.5 - 3.0 3.0 - 3.5 3.5 - 4.0 4.0 - 4.5 4.5 - 5.0 5.0 - 5.5 5.5 - 6.0(approximately 178 million people) had a per capita Footprint ranging from 4.5 to 5.0 gha. Figure 5: Distribution of Ecological Footprint and population by national income in 1961 and 2008. PerChanges in middle-income countries brought the opposite effect, however. While in capita Footprint ranges are indicated on the x-axis, while the height of each bar is proportional to the number of people in that range. Mediterranean countries are here divided in income groups according to1961 residents in middle-income countries (approximately 95 million people) fell into their per capita GNI values in 2008, as indicated by the World Bank. Additional information on the incometwo per capita Footprint ranges (0.5 to 1.0 gha and 1.5 to 2.0 gha), almost 50 years thresholds used in deﬁning groups can be found in the Glossary section. 9
DRIVERS OF MEDITERRANEAN ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT AND BIOCAPACITY CHANGES OVER TIMEThe Mediterranean region is characterized by its geographic, climatic and cultural Built-up Land Forest Land Fishing Grounds Grazing Land Cropland Carbondiversity. Countries in the region have varying development levels and a wide range of 3.5economic activities. A crossroads of the East and West, the region has lived and still lives Ecological Footprint (gha per capita)through a turbulent, intertwined history. But every country in the Mediterranean shares an 3.0environmental fragility, with residents demand for ecological resources and services farexceeding the regenerative capacity of their own ecological assets. 2.5From 1961 to 2008, the Mediterranean’s per capita Ecological Footprint grew by 52 2.0percent (from 2.1 to 3.1 gha), mainly because of the region’s 185 percent increase in the 1.5carbon Footprint component. Demand on other ecological assets increased only slightlyor even decreased—cropland +29 percent; forest +23 percent; grazing -6 percent; ﬁshing 1.0-54 percent. Demand for built-up land increased 20 percent (see Figure 6). 0.5 0.0 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2008 Figure 6: Per capita Ecological Footprint within the Mediterranean region, by component, 1961-2008 (top) and the role of per capita Footprint and population in determining the total From 1961 to 2008, the Mediterranean’s per capita regional Footprint (bottom). Ecological Footprint grew by 52 percent (from 2.1 to 3.1 gha), mainly because of the region’s 185 percent Total Ecological Footprint Ecological Footprint per capita Population increase in the carbon Footprint component. 3 Relative value (1961=1) Per capita biocapacity decreased by 16 percent—from 2 1.5 gha to 1.3 gha—from 1961 to 2008. 1 Between 1961 and 2008, the Mediterranean region’s ecological deﬁcit had increased by 230 percent. 0 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 200810
MEDITE RRANEAN E CO LO GIC AL FO OTP RINT TRENDS Built-up Land Forest Land Fishing Grounds Grazing Land Cropland During this time, improvements in agricultural practices and other environmental factors 2.0 slightly increased the productivity of the Mediterranean region’s ecological assets, thus contributing to an increase in the region’s total biocapacity. However, as population growth outstripped gains in productivity (Figure 7), per capita biocapacity decreased by Global Hectares Per Capita 1.5 16 percent—from 1.5 gha to 1.3 gha—from 1961 to 2008. These changes in biocapacity, consumption and population trends had a profound impact on the region’s ability to meet its own demands. In 1961, residents in the region had 1.0 already used more resources and ecosystem services than the Mediterranean ecosystems’ could renew. Less than 50 years later, the region’s ecological deﬁcit had increased by 0.5 230 percent (Figure 8). 4 0.0 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2008 Global hectares per capita 3Figure 7: Per capita biocapacity within the Mediterranean region, by component, 1961-2008 (top)and its contributing factors (bottom). 2 1 Area Bioccapacity per capita Yield Population 3 0 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Relative value (1961=1) Figure 8: Mediterranean region’s per capita Ecological Footprint (red line), and biocapacity (green line). 2 The widening gap between demand and supply expanded the ecological deﬁcit (shaded red) 230 percent from 1961 to 2008, ever increasing the region’s ecological debt over time. 1 Today, the Mediterranean region’s total Ecological 0 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2008 Footprint exceeds local biocapacity by more than 150 percent. 11
IN 2008, THE COMPONENTS Decisions made by governments and businesses have a substantial inﬂuence onOF THE MEDITERRANEAN’S the region’s Ecological Footprint. Citizens Gross Fixed Capital FormationECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT have no direct control over how a country Other produces its electricity, for example, orWERE: the intensity of its agricultural production. Government Recreation and culture Food and non- alcoholic beverages However, individuals’ daily activities Alcoholic beverages, are also primary Footprint drivers: tobacco and narcotics short-lived goods and services Socio-economic factors, development level and wealth, the food, goods and directly paid by households services consumed, as well as the wastes Transportation (driven by individual behavior, generated, all contribute to the region’s per Housing, water, capita Footprint. Households electricity, gas and other fuels 78 percent of the total Footprint); Figure 9 and 10 further break down the Ecological Footprint of Mediterranean consumption of ecological residents. They indicate who is demanding what and where the pressures (Ecological Figure 9: Breakdown of the per capita Ecological Footprint of an average Mediterranean resident, in 2008. resource and services due to Footprint hotspots) lie. The left chart indicates how much of the Ecological Footprint of consumption is paid for directly by household for short-lived goods (HH), how much by government, and how much is for expenditure of long-lasting goods (GFCF). long-term capital investments Among the daily consumption and service The second graph breaks down the consumption directly paid for by households (HH) into its main categories. undertaken by households, categories shaping the “household” component, those that contributed the businesses and governments most to the Ecological Footprint of the average Mediterranean resident were (Gross Fixed Capital Formation, “Food and non-alcoholic beverages” (35 Carbon Cropland Grazing Land or GFCF, 15 percent); percent of the household total), “Housing, Fishing Grounds Forest Land Built-up Land water, electricity, gas and other fuels” (19 Food and non-alcoholic beverages percent) and human “Transportation” (19 Alcoholic beverages, tobacco and narcotics Clothing and footwear services directly paid by percent). While “Food and non-alcoholic Housing, water, electricity, gas and other fuels beverages” put more demand on cropland Furnishings, household equipment and routine household maintenance Health government, which ultimately assets than it did on other land-use Transportation Communication beneﬁt households, that are not types, the other two household activities Recreation and culture caused a demand mainly on the carbon Education Restaurants and hotels for long-term investments, such sequestration capacity of the planet Miscellaneous goods and services Gov. as law enforcement, education, (see Figure 10). GFCF 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% public health, and defense (7 percent of the total Footprint). Figure 10: Percentage contribution to the household Ecological Footprint of an average Mediterranean resident of each category of biologically productive land, in 2008. Footprint values by land category for government consumptions as well as capital formation are also provided as reference.12
MAPPING CONSUMPTION PRODUCTION AND TRADE ACTIVITIES FOR THE MEDITERRANEAN REGIONEvaluating a country or region’s demand reported in Figure 11 and compared with more than 50 years. From 1961 to 2008, gha of Mediterranean ecological assetsfor biocapacity does not completely inform the region’s biocapacity trend for the Mediterranean countries’ gap between were exported to the top ten tradingus of the risks to domestic production period 1961–2008. Ecological Footprint of production and partners. Of these, the biggest exportssystems, since an ecological deﬁcit can biocapacity more than tripled from 0.3 of biocapacity were to the Netherlandsbe maintained not only through domestic In 1961, Mediterranean biocapacity met gha per person (14 percent of the total (6.5 million gha), the United States (6.2overuse, but also through imports and/ only 73 percent of the region’s demand— demand) to 1.1 gha per person (34 million gha) and the United Kingdom (5.3or a reliance on the global commons its Ecological Footprint of consumption— percent of total demand). million gha). Netherlands’ imports wereas a sink for carbon emissions. To more for renewable resources and ecological mostly composed of renewable resourcesfully understand a population’s resource services. By 2008, only 40 percent of Already by 1961, Mediterranean trade from cropland (50 percent) and ﬁshingdemands, then, means to track both local the region’s Footprint of consumption was patterns had made the region a net importer grounds assets (49 percent); the carbonproduction and consumption trends, as met by local biocapacity. of Ecological Footprint, with 13 percent of Footprint embedded in electricity, fossilwell as trends in trade. local demand (EFC) satisﬁed by resources Production activities within the fuels and energy-intensive commodities and ecological services generatedTrends in the Ecological Footprint Mediterranean geographical boundaries was the biggest component of the exports by ecological assets from outside theembedded in Mediterranean’s production have demanded more resources and to United States and United Kingdom (93 region’s geographical boundaries. The(EFP) and consumption (EFC) activities are services than are regionally available for percent and 88 percent of the total). Mediterranean’s dependence on trade continuously increased over the decades, From 1977 to 2008, growth in the so much that by 2008 the Ecological physical quantity of exports—and their Footprint embedded in net trade imports embedded Footprint—was particularly Ecological Footprint of consuption Ecological Footprint of production Biocapacity accounted for 26 percent of total Footprint strong, especially to the EU. In 2008, 4 of consumption. the Ecological Footprint embedded in exports to the top ten trading partners Comparing EFC and EFP indicates the net was approximately 88 million gha. The ﬂows of Ecological Footprint embedded 3 biggest Footprint export ﬂows were toGlobal hectares per capita in trade among countries. However, it Belgium (26 million gha), the United does not inform us of the actual imports Kingdom (17 million gha) and the United and exports ﬂows and the Ecological 2 States (11 million gha). Footprint exports Footprint embedded in each of them. to Belgium were composed of carbon Figure 12 shows the detailed breakdown Footprint (50 percent) as well as cropland 1 of the Ecological Footprint embedded in (25 percent) and ﬁshing grounds assets exports from the Mediterranean region (25 percent). Carbon Footprint was also to its top ten trading partners for the year the biggest component for the United 0 1977 and 20081; Figure 13 illustrates the Kingdom (90 percent of total) and the 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2008 Footprint embedded in Mediterranean’s United States (95 percent).Figure 11: Mediterranean region’s Ecological Footprint of production (EFP) and consumption (EFC) imports from top ten trading partners andcompared to available biocapacity (BC), 1961-2008. EFP can be said to represent the biocapacity used its changes over the same period.for producing GDP within a country while EFC represents the biocapacity embedded in all commodities,goods and services consumed by the residents of that country. Comparing EFC vs. BC indicates the extent In 1977, resources and ecologicalof the total ecological deﬁcit, which is made up by trade, resource overuse and use of global commons as 1 1977 is the ﬁrst year that comprehensive data iscarbon sinks. The difference between EFC and EFP indicates the Footprint embedded in net trade activities. services worth approximately 24 million available to run the multi-lateral trade analysis.
ECOLOGICAL DEBTORS ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINTFOOTPRINT IS E X P O R T S I N 197 7 24 MILLION GHA 0-50% larger than Biocapacity 50-100% larger than Biocapacity 100-150% larger than Biocapacity 150% larger than Biocapacity Data not availableECOLOGICAL CREDITORSBIOC APACIT Y IS 0-50% larger than Footprint 50-100% larger than Footprint ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT 100-150% larger than Footprint EXPORTS IN 2008 150% larger than Footprint 88 MILLION GHA Data not availableECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT Carbon Fishing Grounds CroplandThe size of the arrows is a function of the extent of thetrade ﬂows, and the color represents the correspondingland use type.For ease in visualization only the main three traded Foot-print components are reported in the mapsFigure 12: Ecological Footprint exports to majortrade partners of the Mediterranean region in1977 (inset) and 2008, and the ecological deﬁcit(red) or reserve (green) status of those partners.UN COMTRADE and FAO bilateral trade datawere used to calculate the Ecological Footprintembedded in exports. Intra-regional trade was notincluded in the analysis.14
ME DITE RRANEAN E CO LO GIC AL FO OTP RINT TRENDSThe large contribution of the carbon gha) and Saudi Arabia (1.8 million gha). The same situation, however, also offersFootprint in the region’s exports, and the opportunity. The majority of the region’s The Ecological Footprint embedded infact that export revenues are needed to ecological resource and service exports the Mediterranean’s imports increasedpay for imports, suggest that the region is are now to countries that are experiencing to 142 million gha in 2008, primarilyhighly exposed to energy price volatility. ecological deﬁcits (Brazil and the Russian because of the carbon FootprintSuch volatility is likely to expand with oil Federation are the primary exceptions). In component. In 2008, carbon Footprintshortages or carbon pricing. an era of tightening resource constraints, accounted for 52 percent of the total Mediterranean countries that improveAt the same time, carbon Footprint imports, followed by imports of resources their resource efﬁciency and sustain aexposes importing countries to risk as well: from cropland and ﬁshing grounds assets positive ecological trade balance wouldThe increasing costs of imported fossil (24 percent each). Electricity, fossil beneﬁt from increased commodity pricesfuels are already a signiﬁcant burden on fuels and energy-intensive commodities and improve their economic performanceeconomies depending on importing them; (determining carbon Footprint imports) and the well-being of their populations.carbon taxes would cause even more were mostly imported from Germanystress on economies, with the greatest (19 million gha), China (15 million gha)impact on those countries with a high and the Russian Federation (11 millioncarbon Footprint demand. gha), while renewable resources were imported primarily from Belgium (7.5The Ecological Footprint embedded in million gha), Netherlands (7 million gha)imports to the Mediterranean from the and Germany (6 million gha).region’s top ten trading partners alsochanged signiﬁcantly from 1977 to As the region increased its Ecological2008, from approximately 30 million Footprint imports, trade patterns shiftedglobal hectares to approximately 142 and the Mediterranean’s major trade Between 1977 and 2008, the Ecological Footprintmillion gha (see Figure 13). partners moved toward larger ecological deﬁcits. In a few instances, trade embedded in the Mediterranean’s importsOf the 30 million global hectares imported relationships from 1977 to 2008 shifted increased from 30 to 142 million global hectares.in 1977, 38 percent was composed from countries that had ecological reservesof renewable resources from cropland (Canada, Argentina, and Saudi Arabia)assets followed by ﬁshing grounds assets to countries with ecological deﬁcits(37 percent) and carbon Footprint (25 (Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and During this same period, trade patterns shifted andpercent). Renewable resources were China). the Mediterranean’s major trade partners movedimported primarily from Norway (3.7million gha), Argentina (2.1 million gha) This situation exposes the Mediterraneanand United Kingdom (2.0 million gha), region to risks: Growing dependence toward larger ecological deﬁcits.while electricity, fossil fuels and energy- on exporting countries that themselvesintensive commodities (determining run ever larger ecological deﬁcits maycarbon Footprint imports) were imported amplify possibilities for future resourcefrom mainly the United States (2.1 million disruptions in the region. 15
ECOLOGICAL DEBTORS ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINTFOOTPRINT IS I M P O R T S I N 197 7 30 MILLION GHA 0-50% larger than Biocapacity 50-100% larger than Biocapacity 100-150% larger than Biocapacity 150% larger than Biocapacity Data not availableECOLOGICAL CREDITORSBIOC APACIT Y IS 0-50% larger than Footprint 50-100% larger than Footprint ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT 100-150% larger than Footprint IMPORTS IN 2008 150% larger than Footprint 14 2 M I L L I O N G H A Data not availableECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT Carbon Fishing Grounds CroplandThe size of the arrows is a function of the extent of thetrade ﬂows, and the color represents the correspondingland use type.For ease in visualization only the main three traded Foot-print components are reported in the mapsFigure 13: Ecological Footprint imports frommajor trade partners of the Mediterranean regionin 1977 (inset) and 2008, and the ecologicaldeﬁcit (red) or reserve (green) status of thosepartners. UN COMTRADE and FAO bilateraltrade data were used to calculate the EcologicalFootprint embedded in imports. Intra-regionaltrade was not included in the analysis.16
ME DITE RRANEAN E CO LO GIC AL FO OTP RINT TRENDSMEDITERRANEAN ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT OF NATIONSIn 1961, only six countries in the debtor status during this period, while were Algeria (1.6 gha), Syria (1.5 gha), and Syria (49 percent), cropland forMediterranean region had more the other Mediterranean countries saw Morocco (1.3 gha), Montenegro (1.2 gha) Morocco (45 percent) and the Occupiedecological assets available to produce a worsening of their ecological deﬁcits. and the Occupied Palestinian Territories Palestinian Territories (71 percent), andthe resources and services, on aggregate, Cyprus’ ecological deﬁcit grew by 3.1 (0.5 gha). Carbon was the main Footprint forest for Montenegro (39 percent).than their residents consumed. All other gha per capita, the largest deﬁcit increase component for Algeria (37 percent)countries consumed signiﬁcantly more in the region. Jordan reported the smallest Footprint 0-50% greater than biocapacity Biocapacity more than 150% greater than Footprintthan their domestic ecosystems produced deﬁcit increase, at + 0.3 gha per capita. Footprint 50-100% greater than biocapacity Biocapacity 100-150% greater than Footprint Footprint 100-150% greater than biocapacity Biocapacity 50-100% greater than Footprint(see Figure 14). Footprint more than 150% greater than biocapacity Biocapacity 0-50% greater than Footprint The large variability in the per capitaBy 2008, the deﬁcit situation had spread Footprints of individual countries reﬂectsto every Mediterranean country but the existing socio-economic differences inthe possible exception of Montenegro the region—the more afﬂuent a country, 1961(data set for this country is not sufﬁciently the greater its demand for ecologicalreliable). resources and services (and the higher its per capita consumption). On the supplyAlgeria experienced the largest change side, differences in per capita biocapacityin per capita ecological deﬁcit, moving are mainly due to biophysical and climaticfrom a reserve of +0.7 gha per person conditions—for example, water shortagesin 1961 to an ecological deﬁcit of -1.1 affecting land productivity—as well asgha per person in 2008. This was due population density.to both consumption increases (causingthe total Ecological Footprint to grow) In 2008, the Former Yugoslavianand population growth (which decreased Republic of Macedonia was found tothe per capita biocapacity budget). have the highest per capita EcologicalOnly Algeria’s oil revenues allowed it to Footprint value (5.4 gha) among themaintain its ecological deﬁcit for the ﬁrst 2008 Mediterranean countries (Figure 15),few decades after independence. But followed by Slovenia (5.2 gha), Greeceby the late 1980s, declining oil prices (4.9 gha), France (4.9 gha) and Spaintook a toll on Algeria’s petroleum-based (4.7 gha). In all of these countries, carboneconomy, diminishing its capacity to was the main Footprint component,pay for importing external ecological ranging from 46 percent (France) to 72resources and services. As revenues percent (Macedonia TFYR) of the totaland imports declined, Algeria’s value. The second highest componentEcological Footprint stabilized limiting was cropland, with a contribution rangingresidents’ access to ecological resources from 15 percent (Macedonia TFYR) to 27and services. percent (Spain). Figure 14: Ecological deﬁcit (red) or reserve (green) status of the Mediterranean countries in 1961 (top)Morocco, Libya, Syria, Tunisia and Turkey The ﬁve countries with the smallest per and 2008 (bottom). Ecological reserve is deﬁned as a domestic Ecological Footprint of consumption lessalso shifted from ecological creditor to than domestic biocapacity; ecological deﬁcit as a domestic Ecological Footprint of consumption greater than capita Ecological Footprint in 2008 domestic biocapacity. 17