Ecological Wealth of Nations

Title
THE ECOLOGICAL WEALTH OF NATIONS

Earths 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
10
Human Development Index and Ecological

Footprint of countries, 2006
12
Biocapacity constraints and national well-being
16
A new map of the world
18
Investment risks and opportunities
20
Interpreting national Footprint

and biocapacity trends
22
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
28
References and further reading
36
Global Footprint Network partner organizations
37
EDITORS
Steven Goldfinger
Pati Poblete
TEXT AND GRAPHICS
Susan Burns
William Coleman
Brad Ewing
Katsunori Iha
Alessandro Galli
Steven Goldfinger
David Moore
Juan Alfonso Pea
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 Pea
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
Earths 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 Pea, 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
Fundacin Terra.
Cover photo: Canada. Quebec Province.
Charlevoix forest. Yann Arthus-Bertrand.
Page 2: Plantation. Juan Alfonso Pea;
Carrots. Juan Alfonso Pea; Tomatoes.
Juan Alfonso Pea; Corn. Juan Alfonso
Pea; Herbs. Juan Alfonso Pea; 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; Andr 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 Networks 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
worlds 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 worlds population lives in countries
where this is still the case.
How do we know this? By using

Ecological Footprint accounting, a
method for calculating societys use of
natures assets. Based on data from
the United Nations, as well as in-country
statistical sources, it compares humanitys
Ecological Footprint (the demand our
consumption places on the biosphere)
with biocapacity (the biospheres 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 Earths biocapacity by more than 40
percent. In other words, the planets 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 natures
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
natures 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 Earths 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
Earths 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
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 planets 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 Earths 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 humanitys
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 humanitys health and well-being
depend on the health and well-being
of the Earths 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.
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 Earths
biocapacity; in 2006 we used
44% more than was available.
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
countrys 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, humanitys 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 planets 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 planets 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 biospheres
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
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
Republic of
Poland
Poland
Iran
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
Cte
Cted'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
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
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
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
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
Turkmenistan
Turkmenistan
Chad
Chad
SriSriLanka
Lanka
Cte
Cted'Ivoire
d'Ivoire
Angola
Angola
Honduras
Honduras
Croatia
Croatia
Senegal
Senegal
Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe
Zambia
Zambia
Guinea
Guinea
Bosnia\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
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
2005
Figure 4. Humanitys Ecological Footprint, by component, 1961-2006
Figure x. Humanitys 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 doesnt 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)
20
16
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
Paraguay
Paraguay
Croatia
Croatia
Lithuania
Lithuania
Bulgaria
Bulgaria
Mexico
Mexico
Hungary
Hungary
Panama
Panama
Libya
Mauritania
Mauritania
Chile
Chile
Argentina
Argentina
Namibia
Namibia
Turkey
Turkey
South
SouthAfrica
Africa
Costa
CostaRica
Rica
Romania
Romania
Ukraine
Ukraine
Iran
of
Albania
Albania
Bolivia
Bolivia
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
Built-up
Forest
Fishing
Grazin
Cropla
Carbon
18
14
Figure 6. Per Capita Biocapacity, by country, 2006
12
10
8
Built-up
6
Fishing
Forest
Grazin
2
Cropla
Germany
Poland
Costa Rica
Croatia
Eritrea
South Africa
Mexico
Bosnia\Herzegovina
Cte 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
of
Albania
Albania
Bolivia
Bolivia
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
Nigeria
Nigeria
Ghana
Ghana
Somalia
Somalia
Guinea
Guinea
Central
African
Rep.
Central African
Republic
Korea,
North
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
Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe
Tanzania, United Tanzania
Republic of
Viet
VietNam
Nam
Benin
Benin
Guinea-Bissau
Guinea-Bissau
Yemen
Yemen
Myanmar
Myanmar
Congo
Congo
Cte
Cted'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
Development that fits on one Earth
Humanitys 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 Earths ecological limits. This means that the average
persons 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 Earths biocapacity. However, if we want
to ensure the stability of the worlds 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
10
Title
11
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 individuals 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
12
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 Earths 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
88
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 Earths 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
Figure 7. Human Development Index and Ecological Footprint, 2006
13
Title
14
Were going to have to think of ourselves as a subsystem,

part of the natural world and that we depend upon it in two ways:
well have to take from the natural world resources
at a rate at which the natural world can regenerate and well 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
15
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
-200
-400
-600
-800
-1,000
-1,200
Canada
Russia
Argentina
Bolivia
Congo, DRC
Colombia
Peru
Congo
Paraguay
Angola
Finland
Madagascar
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.
17
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 dont.
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 countrys 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
18
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 countrys total consumption Footprint with the biocapacity available within
its own borders. In 1961, most of the worlds 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
worlds 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 Earths 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 Earths 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
Biocapacity 0-50% larger than Footprint
1961

Biocapacity more than 150% larger than Footprint
Insufficient data
2006
19
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 countrys, or the worlds, 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
20
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 worlds 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.
21
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
12
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
10
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
22
1975
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, Cameroons 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: Ecuadors Footprint and biocapacity, per

person,EF21961-2006. In 1961, Ecuadors biocapacity
was more than four times its Footprint, meaning the
consumption
BC1 demand of Ecuadors residents could be
met, in net terms, using less than one-quarter the capacity
of its EF1
own ecosystems. But by 2006, the countrys
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 Ecuadors net ecological surplus is largely
due to a decline in per capita biocapacity, mostly driven
by the countrys 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
Japan
Biocapacity
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1960
1975
1990
2005
12
10
Mali
Biocapacity
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1960
1975
1990
Figure 10: Japans Footprint and biocapacity, per

person, 1961-2006. While Japans Footprint in 1961
BC2
was about twice its biocapacity, Japans 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, Japans 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: Malis Footprint and biocapacity, per person, 1961-2006. Malis 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
Malis overall Footprint. With climate change, Malis next
BC1
decades
may be more strongly influenced by the impact
of climate on its biocapacity than by the size of its carbon
EF1 Malis 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, Malis per capita biocapacity has declined more
rapidly than the worlds. 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.

23
World, Latin America, North America, and Oceania Ecological Footprint and Biocapacity, per capita,1961-2006
World
World
World
5
5
Argentina
15
BC1
BC1
10
4
4
1960
1975
1990
2005
BC1
30
EF1
5
EF1
EF1
1960
1975
12
1990
2005
Cuba
EF2
BC1
BC1
BC1
EF1
EF1
EF1
1975
1990
2005
Ecuador
1960
1975
1990
2005
Guatemala
Nicaragua
Panama
15
BC2
EF2
EF2
10
BC1
10
BC1
EF1
EF1
1960
2005
Paraguay
50
BC2
1960
24
1975
1990
2005
1960
1975
1990
2005
1960
BC2
EF2
EF1
BC1
BC1
EF1
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
15
BC1
5
EF1
20
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
Biocapacity
Honduras
2005
BC2
2005
2005
1990
4
EF2
12
1990
1990
1975
4
EF2
10
1975
1975
1960
10
BC1
BC2
1960
0
0
1960
1960
EF2
40
BC1
BC2
1
1
BC2
EF2
10
2
2
Colombia
10
BC2
20
Costa Rica
3
3
50
EF2
EF1
EF1
Bolivia
60
BC2
1975
1990
2005
1960
1975
1990
2005
1960
1975
1990
2005
12
Angola
15
12
12
Benin
5
BC2
4
EF2
10
Africa Ecological Footprint and Biocapacity, per capita,1961-2006
1960
12
Burkina Faso
12
Cameroon
10
BC2
12
25
BC2
EF2
20
EF2
BC1
BC1
15
5
EF1
1960
12
1975
1990
2005
Cte d'Ivoire
10
1960
1975
12
1990
2005
Eritrea
1960
1975
12
1990
2005
Madagascar
10
12
2005
Chad
1990
12
2005
Gambia
1960
EF1
1960
1975
12
1990
2005
EF1
20
12
2005
Guinea
1960
12
1975
1990
2005
1960
1975
1990
12
2005
Somalia
2005
Liberia
EF2
BC1
BC1
BC1
BC1
BC1
EF1
EF1
5
EF1
5
EF1
5
EF1
EF1
1960
1975
1990
12
2005
Mali
10
BC2
1960
1975
12
1990
2005
Mauritania
20
BC2
1960
1975
12
1990
2005
Niger
10
BC2
1960
1975
12
1990
10
BC2
2005
12
Senegal
10
BC2
1960
BC2
1975
1990
2005
Sierra Leone
BC2
BC2
EF2
EF2
EF2
4
EF2
EF2
BC1
BC1
BC1
BC1
BC1
BC1
EF1
5
10
EF1
5
EF1
5
EF1
EF1
EF1
1960
12
15
1975
1990
2005
South Africa
1960
1975
12
1990
2005
Sudan
1960
1975
12
1990
2005
Tanzania
1960
10
BC2
EF2
4
EF2
BC1
BC1
EF1
5
EF1
1960
1975
12
BC2
1990
2005
1975
1990
2005
1960
1990
2005
1990
2005
Zimbabwe
BC2
EF2
4
EF2
EF2
BC1
BC1
BC1
BC1
EF1
5
EF1
EF1
EF1
1975
1975
12
Zambia
1
0
1960
BC2
Countries not shown to same vertical scale. Gap in line indicates interpolation due to data anomaly.
Biocapacity
1990
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
12
Guinea-Bissau
5
0
2005
10
BC2
10
BC2
1990
10
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
10
BC1
10
EF2
BC1
EF2
EF1
BC2
EF2
Botswana
15
BC2
1960
1975
1990
2005
1960
1975
1990
2005
1960
1975
1990
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
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
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
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
0.37 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
29
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
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
Cte 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

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
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
Product,
1980
Index,
2006 Country/Region1
Gross1961 Product,
Gross 2006 Index,
Human
Human
3 [$ per capita]3
[$
per
capita]
Domestic
Domestic
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
shown here. Dashes
0.01
- or insufficient data.
0.14United Nations
0.74
9.8 averages
2
0.10page.
0.33
0.15
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
Chad
Congo
Congo, DRC
Cte 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
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
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
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
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
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
shown here. Dashes
data.
0.01
- or insufficient
0.14United Nations
0.74
0.37
9.8 averages
2 33.0
0.02page.
1.36equal to the Built-up
1.58
21,277
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
33
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
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
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
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
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
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
shown here. Dashes
data.
0.01
- or insufficient
0.14
0.74
0.37
9.8 averages
2 67.4
0.83page.
2.16
19,838
1,132
0.45equal to the 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
35
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.aspx (accessed July
2009).
FAO ProdSTAT Statistical Database. http://faostat.
fao.org/site/526/default.aspx (accessed July 2009).
FAO ResourceSTAT Statistical Database. http://
July 2009).
FAO TradeSTAT Statistical Databases. http://
July 2009).
FAO FishSTAT Fisheries Statistical Database.
http://www.fao.org/fishery/figis (accessed July
2009).
36
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. 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
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
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 Estratgias para a
Sustentabilidade)
Charles University Environment Center
Conseil rgional Nord Pas de Calais
DANDELION Environmental Consulting and Service Ltd.
De Kleine Aarde (The Small Earth)
Ecole Nationale Suprieur des Mines de Saint-tienne
Ecolife
EcoRes
Empreinte Ecologique SARL
Finnish Ministry of the Environment
Foundation for Global Sustainability
IFF Social Ecology
IRES Piemonte Research Institute
KVET 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 Ecolgico
Fan (Fundacin Amigos de la Naturaleza)
Instituto de Ecologa Poltica
Liblula Comunicacin
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)
Childrens 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 Earths 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 humanitys 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

Ecological Wealth of Nations

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Ecological Wealth of Nations

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Title

THE ECOLOGICAL WEALTH OF NATIONS

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

Biocapacity constraints and national well-being

A new map of the world

Investment risks and opportunities

Interpreting national Footprint

Biocapacity & Ecological Footprint over time

References and further reading

Global Footprint Network partner organizations

Global Footprint Network, promotes a

Published in April 2010 by Global

Photograph courtesy of NASA was taken by

This report was made possible through

How do we know this? By using

Overshoot is possible only for a limited

stocks; or we can take out a loan to

With demand so far out of synch with

course, one which all too often seems to

To succeed, and to make this success

Mathis Wackernagel, Ph.D.

We have a choice: Maintaining the right

The Ecological Wealth of Nations

Exploring a new perspective

The purpose of this publication is to provide data rather

The Ecological Wealth of Nations

The data presented in this publication are intended to

Increasing economic globalization and

ongoing ecological challenge. We have

Countries that import food, fiber and timber

Image The Ministry for the Environment, New Zeland

Biocapacity and the sustainability challenge

than their own ecosystems can sequester;

and will help ensure that

Throughout this publication, you will

The Ecological Wealth of Nations

Global Ecological Limits

In 1961 we used a little

The Ecological Wealth of Nations

The Ecological Footprint measures the

Biocapacity is the area of productive land

In 2006, by September 11, humanity had

The biosphere is made up of complex, interactive systems that

The Ecological Wealth of Nations

Global hectares (millions)

Global hectares (millions)

Ecological Footprint and biocapacity of nations

Figure 2. Total Ecological Footprint, by country, 2006

Figure 3. Total Biocapacity, by country, 2006

The Ecological Wealth of Nations

The Ecological Wealth of Nations

Figure 4. Humanitys Ecological Footprint, by component, 1961-2006

Figure x. Humanitys Ecological Footprint, by component, 1961-2006

Global hectares (per capita)

Global hectares (per capita)

The Ecological Wealth of Nations

The Ecological Wealth of Nations

Development that fits on one Earth

Humanitys challenge is to live well, while living within the capacity of

Figure 9. Footprint of Consumption