Africa Factbook

Africas Ecological Footprint:
Human Well-Being and Biological Capital

Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation Global Footprint Network
FACTBOOK
July 19, 2006
Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation

www.sdc.admin.ch The Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) is Switzerlands international cooperation agency tion of development activities and cooperation with Eastern Europe, as well as humanitarian aid.The SDC carries out its activities in Switzerland and abroad, with an annual budget of CHF 1.3 billion (2005). The agency underby Swiss and international aid organisations.
Global Footprint Network

www.footprintnetwork.org The Global Footprint Network is committed to fostering a world where all people have the opportunity to live satispacity to meet these demands. Contact Information: Global Footprint Network 3270 Lakeshore Ave Oakland,CA 94610 USA Tel. +1-510-839-8879 (Time Zone -8 GMT) Fax +1-510-251-2410 Please address all enquiries to: Martin Krcher ([email protected]) or Audrey Peller ([email protected]) To access a PDF version of this document and questionnaire, please visit: http://www.footprintnetwork.org/Africa -
Table of Contents
1. Purpose of This Factbook 2. Africa and Ecological Limits 3. Measuring Human Development 4. Ecological Footprint 5. Ecological Limits and Development 6. Human Development and Biocapacity in Africa 7. Trading Biological Capacity 3 4 5 6 10 12 14
Figures and Tables

Figure 4.1 Figure 4.2 Figure 4.3 Figure 4.4 Figure 4.5 Figure 4.6 Figure 5.1 Figure 6.1 Figure 6.2 Table 7.1 Figure 8.1 Ecological Footprint per person, by country, 2002 Humanitys Ecological Footprint, 2002 Ecological Footprint by Region, 2002 Global Distribution of Ecological Footprint Intensity, 2001 Living on Less, Living on More, 2001 Ecological Debtor and Creditor Countries, 2001 Human Development Index and Ecological Footprint of Nations HDI of Africa by Component Ecological Footprint in Africa Biocapacity export of selected African countries Five Factors of Biological Supply and Demand 6 6 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14
15
8. Managing Ecological Assets to 15 Secure Human Well-Being: Five Factors at Play 9. Fact Pages for Selected Countries:
Africa Algeria Benin Brazil Burkina Faso Burundi China Egypt Ethiopia France Ghana India Kenya Madagascar Mali Mozambique 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 Niger Nigeria Rwanda South Africa Switzerland Tanzania Uganda United Kingdom United States of America World
17
52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70
Table 9.1 Figure 9.1.1 Figure 9.1.2 Table 9.1.1 Table 9.1.2 Table 9.1.3 Figure 9.2.1 Table 9.2.1 Table 9.2.2 Figure 9.3.1 Figure 9.3.2 Figure 9.3.3 Figure 9.3.4
Countries included in this study HDI Components, Indexed Income Distribution HDI Components, Absolutes Gender Related Development Public Health Human Development and Ecological Footprint of Nations Trade and Debt Population GDP and Ecological Footprint Population Trend Footprint and Biocapacity Trend Ecological Footprint by Component, 1961-2002 Biocapacity by Component, 1961-2002
Appendices
Appendix 1: Appendix 2. Appendix 3. Appendix 4. Ecological Footprint and Biocapacity Table Technical Notes Glossary of UNDP Terms Literature and Reference
1
72 74 81 82
Global Footprint Network : Africa 2006 -- the Ecological Footprint : Factbook
Global Footprint Network: Africas Ecological Footprint - 2006 Factbook
1. Purpose of this Factbook

This factbook on human well-being and ecological assets in Africa is the result of a joint project between the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) and Global Footprint Network. It is a collection of key indicators on human development and ecological performance derived from UN statistics. What is new is the attempt to show a link between human development and ecological performance. The purpose of the factbook is to open a conversation with you, the reader, and get your frank input. As a partner of SDC, Global Footprint Network, or an active organization in your region, you have been selected to participate in this collaborative effort. We value your expertise in African development, and we ask for your honest reactions and critical assessment of the presented information: Is this information valid? Does it capture the reality in your country? Does the discussion framework make sense to you? Your uninhibited and open feedback will be crucial for the project. Our goal is twofold: Provide more consistent and accessible information on ecological limits and sustainability; and Make this information relevant to existing debates on devel opment and long-term human prosperity in the region. This factbook provides a starting point for this discussion for the many people involved. It offers data to compare various countries development, as well as their supply and demand of biological capital the ultimate resource upon which all human well-being depends. scarcity in others, suggest that a debate informed by ecological realities could lead to more successful human development strategies. If overuse of ecological resources continues, we expect
capitalto play an increasingly dominant role in economic, social, and policy planning everywherenot only in Africa. Yet Africa hosts many countries that are already facing ecological bottlenecks. This makes, we believe, the debates suggested by this factbook particularly pertinent for Africa. At this stage the available data allows discussion on a national level however the debate must continue at a more local scale, especially as one takes into account growth in urbanization that some African countries are experiencing. This factbook builds on a simple tenet: Effective management strategy for biological capital requires accounting tools that track availability and use of this capital. Ecological Footprint accounting, presented here, is one tool for exactly this purpose. This factbook countries. The feedback from the attached questionnaire will inform four stakeholder workshops in Africa, which in turn will proman Well-Being to be released and distributed internationally. We invite your organization to participate in this process by responding to the attached questionnaire, and possibly by participating in one of the four workshops to be held in the later part of 2006. Considering the overuse of resources and accumulation of waste in the rest of the world, Africa is and will increasingly face serious human development and environmental challenges. By bringing the experience and analysis of your organization into an international arena, and informing local and regional work with a are hopeful that together we can create tools to help development experts face the 21st century challenges more effectively. Martin Sommer, Head of Environment Division Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation Mathis Wackernagel, Executive Director Global Footprint Network
3
Global Footprint Network : Africa 2006 -- the Ecological Footprint : Factbook
2. Africa and Ecological Limits

Humanity is living beyond the planets ecological means. Although the global economy and population continue to grow, our planet velopment, humanity has now entered into a state of global overshoot with demand for resources exceeding the Earths regenerative capacity by more than twenty percent. The global biosphere now takes nearly one year and three months to regenerate what humanity uses each year (see Section 4). This is the essence of overshoot: demand on nature exceeds supply, resulting in over harvesting of resources and accumulation of wastes. It inevitably leads to the degradation of the natural assets that society depends on. What are the consequences for human well-being of using up resources faster than nature can renew them? Feedback interactions between the planet and human society are not immediate. The resource demand of economies and societies can continue to grow while the biosphere is degraded. This state is possible only for a limited time, however, and the faster we can recognize and begin to reverse this over use, the better chance we will have to succeed with human development and create a sustainable and prosperous future for all people. Within the context of global overshoot, different regions show vastly different levels of consumption and ecosystem capacity. Africans, on average, use less biological capacity than people in any other region of the world. This demand on biological capital can be measured with the Ecological Footprint (see Section 4). Calculations by Global Footprint Network show that while the average world inhabitant has an Ecological Footprint of 2.2 global hectares, the African average is at 1.1 global hectares per capita. In comparison, Africas biocapacity is 1.3 global hectares per person, slightly more than what Africans use. Yet, Africas biocapacity is
4 Global Footprint Network: Africas Ecological Footprint - 2006 Factbook
28 percent lower than the world-average of 1.8 global hectares per person. Limited access to biocapacity can affect a societys well-being. Residents of countries with severe biocapacity constraints are often among the countries with the largest human development challenges. There are a number of historical reasons for which countries got into this situation. The assessment presented in this factbook documents where the countries chosen for this report are today, not the mechanisms that led them to their situation. In other words, we offer a description of the current state, not an analysis of the causes. Many of the challenges and opportunities facing the African continent are linked to biological capital. These include rapid demographic growth, food security and persistent malnutrition, violent access to resources. Coupled with other challenges, such as the HIV/AIDS epidemic, age its own ecological assets and advance human well-being. Healthy, productive ecosystems are the source of the materials and services that satisfy human needs. Accounting and management of biological capital will be critical to any attempt to meet human development challenges. In a world with rapidly growing resource demand, largely driven by high-income countries as well as emerging economies like China and India, African development and biocapacity constraints can no longer be seen in isolation. Managing biological assets becomes hence not only more critical, but also more challenging.
Considering both the necessary and desired human development in Africa and Africas biocapacity constraints, leads to the following ment goals? And how much biocapacity is necessary to meet the cient biocapacity is available for those who need to increase their resource demand in order to meet basic material needs? Further, a number of African countries are endowed with biological capacity that exceeds their own resource consumption. For these ecologically wealthy countries, there is a third question: How can these nations enhance their own resource security, both optimising the yield from their natural capital reserves and ensuring the future viability of these critical assets?
Development Programme created the Human Development In dex (HDI). Published annually in the Human Development Report which these three conditions have been achieved in any given nation. The HDI is an average of three sub-indices, each normalized on a scale of zero to one. These sub-indices are life expectancy at birth, education (combined gross enrollment and adult literacy rate) and GDP per capita (expressed in US dollars and adjusted for parity in purchasing power (PPP). While the HDI is a more reliable measure of well-being than per capita income or GDP, it still has limitations. These include the narrowness of the parameters it captures, the somewhat arbitrary weighting for aggregating its component indices, and its underlying mechanistic concept of well-being. The HDI is measured at a national scale and thereby reduces what would otherwise be large differences between rural and urban populations. Nevertheless, it is one of the few standardized and globally available well-being measures, allowing direct comparisons of different countries, and it is possibly the most cited measure of human development. For these reasons we have chosen to use HDI as the main measure of human development in this report.
3. Measuring Human Development

The goal of development is to create satisfying lives for all. How do we know we are achieving this goal, when human well-being is such a subjective concept? There is growing recognition that existing economic indicators metrics of human well-being and development. Richard Layard, a leading British economist and respected government advisor, explores this issue in his latest book Happiness: Lessons from a New Science. As Layard indicates, a science of human happiness is emerging, and the parameters of happiness include much more than just income. sensus that some bottom-line conditions are essential for a happy, healthy society. These include basic material security, longevity, and access to education. Recognizing this, the United Nations
4. Ecological Footprint
The Ecological Footprint is an accounting tool that measures a populations demand on nature. The Footprint of a country, for timber that the nation consumes, absorb its waste, and provide space for its infrastructure. Since a nation consumes resources and ecological services that come from all over the world, its Footprint is the sum of these areas, wherever they are located on the planet. In 2002, the global Ecological Footprint was 13.5 billion global hectares, or 2.2 global hectares per person. This demand on nature can be compared with the Earths biocapacity, a measure of natures ability to produce resources from its biologically productive area. In 2002, the Earths biocapacity was
Ecological Footprint by Region (2002)
11.2 billion global hectares, a quarter of the planets surface, or, given a global population of 6.2 billion people, 1.8 global hectares per person. In 2002, humanitys Ecological Footprint exceeded global biocapacity by 0.4 global hectares per person, or twenty-three per cent. This global overshoot began in the 1980s and has been growing ever since (see Figure 4.2). In overshoot, natures capital is being spent faster than it is being regenerated. Continued overshoot can permanently reduce ecological capacity.
ECOLOGICAL OVERSHOOT, 1961-2002 1.4

Global Hectares per Person
10
Width of bar is proportional to population (shown in millions)

North America Western Europe Central/Eastern Europe Middle East and Central Asia Latin America Asia Pacific Africa
1.2
Number of Earths
1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2
Earth's biological capacity
12.00 Built-up land Food, fibre, and timber

Global hectares (2002)
Hum anity's total Ecological Footprint
10.00
8.00
Energy
CO2 portion of hum anity's Ecological Footprint
0.0 1961
1971
1981
1991
2001
6.00
Figure 4.2 Humanitys Ecological Footprint
Figure 4.3 Ecological Footprint by Region, 2002
4.00
2.00
Trinidad and Tobago
New Zealand
Bosnia Herzegovina
Serbia and Montenegro
Papua New Guinea
Moldova Republic
0.00
Canada Finland Kuwait Australia United Arab Emirates United States of America
Slovenia
Lebanon
Thailand
Ireland
Jordan
Latvia
El Salvador
Japan
Iran
Honduras
Bolivia
Nicaragua
Slovakia
Hungary
Netherlands
Uruguay
Nigeria
Cuba
Norway
Romania
Sweden
Croatia
Tunisia
Korea Republic
Turkmenistan
Colombia
Lithuania
Ukraine
Mongolia
Denmark
Turkey
Mauritania
Argentina
Macedonia
Paraguay
Dominican Republic
Guatemala
United Kingdom
Germany
Saudi Arabia
Venezuela
Panama
Azerbaijan
Portugal
Korea DPRP
Ecuador
Jamaica
Senegal
Bulgaria
Namibia
Greece
Gambia
Poland
France
Algeria
Albania
Belgium & Luxembourg
Switzerland
Czech Republic
South Africa
Swaziland
Botswana
Belarus
Russia
Mauritius
-2.00
Figure 4.1 Ecological Footprint per person, by country 2002
Burkina Faso
Costa Rica
Austria
Estonia
Uzbekistan
Malaysia
Kazakhstan
Mexico
Kyrgyzstan
Gabon
Belize
China
Israel
Spain
Libya
Brazil
Egypt
Chad
Niger
Chile
Italy
Syria
Colombia Guatemala Nicaragua Gambia Senegal Nigeria Swaziland Burkina Faso Gabon Chad Uganda Ghana Armenia Sudan Indonesia Benin Philippines Iraq Guinea Lesotho Morocco Angola Central African Rep Peru Togo Zimbabwe Myanmar Mali Laos Sri Lanka Sierra Leone Cameroon Ethiopia Kenya Vietnam India Cote divoire Georgia Burundi Rwanda Tanzania Yemen Guinea-Bissau Eritrea Tajikistan Madagascar Liberia Mozambique Pakistan Nepal Zambia Congo Congo Malawi Haiti Cambodia Bangladesh Somalia Afghanistan
Figure 4.4 Global Distribution of Ecological Footprint Intensity, 2001
World average Ecological Footprint: 2.2 global hectares World average biocapacity per person: 1.8 global hectares, with nothing set aside for wild species
Global Footprint Network: Africas Ecological Footprint - 2006 Factbook 7
Figure 4.5 Living on Less, Living on More, 2001
In the global context, Footprints in Africa are some of the lowest in the world. Low Footprints can place material constraints on meeting human development objectives.
biocapacity beyond what they consume. These reserves can be used for biodiversity protection, for increased consumption by their own sures from the global economy will require robust accounting and planning tools.
5. Human Development and Ecological Limits

The health and well-being of human society is intricately linked to to the health of the biological capital on which it depends. Recognizing and accounting for biological capacity available to, and used by a society can help identify opportunities and challenges in meeting human development goals. The loss in human well-being due to ecological degradation often many years before catches start to plummet) yet such degradation tion, basic medicine, or electricity for hospitals. These strategies are essential in their own right. question the importance of conventional methods that provide term interventions need to be complemented by effective resource management. Short-term interventions can neither address nor reverse the cumulative ecological degradation that results from continued overshoot. Failing to address the causes of overshoot leads to resource stress, an insecure future, and a trap from which Human demand on ecosystems can exceed biocapacity for some time, by liquidating resource stocks, and allowing wastes, such as carbon dioxide to accumulate in the biosphere. As overshoot will become scarce, and forest will disappear. A reduction in availfor those who cannot immigrate to more plentiful regions, or afford to import increasingly expensive necessities. The challenge of maintaining a high level of human well-being while preserving our resource base is illustrated on the global level in Figure 5.1 (Similar graphs can be generated for populations of any region or country). Plotting HDI results against Ecological Footprint links resource consumption with human development. Some countries achieve high levels of development (as measured by HDI) with relatively small resource demand (as measured by average per-person Footprint). By taking an HDI of 0.8 as the boundary between medium and high development and 1.8 global hectares per person as the largest Footprint that could be replicated globally divides Figure 5.1 into four quadrants. Only countries located in the lower right quadrant meet the minimum requirements for sustainability: A high level of human development and a lifestyle that could be extended globally. Hardly any country has been able to meet this challenge. Figure 5.1 also demonstrates the different challenges facing regions throughout the world. Higher-income countries in Europe without compromising quality-of-life for their citizens. Currently, by reducing material throughput of the economy, however there is resource savings. Four more factors exist for closing the gap between human demand on biocapacity and the supply of biocapacity. Whether in Africa or the rest of the world, all of these factors need to be employed in order to be successful. The four additional factors are: Population size and per capita consumption on the demand side, and available area and its bioproductivity on the supply side (see Section 8 and Figure 8.1).
10
USA
Brazil Algeria South Africa France, UK Switzerland
Niger Burkina Faso Mali Ethiopia Ghana Benin Mozambique Rwanda Uganda Nigeria Burundi Madagascar Tanzania
India
Egypt
China
Human Development Index (HDI)
Figure 5.1 Human Development Index (HDI) and Ecological Footprint of Nations (2002 data).
11
6. Human Development and Biocapacity in Africa

Between 1990 and 2003, twelve African countries (out of eighteen worldwide) experienced reversals in human development as measured by HDI, affecting some 240 million people. The number increased from seventeen countries in 1990 to thirty countries in 2005 (UNDP 2005). Many African nations with an HDI of less than 0.5 have been able to improve their quality of life without radically increasing demand on natural resources (see p. 12). African nations with medium levels of development (an HDI of 0.5 to 0.8), have witnessed examples of high-income nations that followed a development path linking improvements in quality of life to rapid growth in Ecological Footprint. As appealing as such a development path appears for nations and individuals, these paths will prove increasingly risky While not always obvious, disparities in the level of ecological de demand among countries with high levels of development (such as the United States at 9.7 gha per person and Italy at 4.0 gha per person) shows that nations do have a choice about the Footprintintensity of their development. Figure 6.2 shows how individual nations contribute to Africas overall Footprint. The height of each bar is proportional to a nations average Footprint per person and the width is proportional to its print. As individual countries and the African region work toward improving sustainable development, decision makers will need solid information and metrics in order to set goals and track progress. Measures such as the Ecological Footprint will be critical to managing demand and supply of an increasingly scarce resource, ecological capital.
Figure 6.1 HDI by components (GDP, adult literacy, and life expectancy)
Li
a by
.4 (5
u So
th
Af
a ri c
4. (4
8)
.8 (2 au a M n i .8 ) ) a ) rit (1 1.7 9.7 2.0) ( ( a u a (3 5) M wan ria sia bia 0. (7 ts g e u n i m i pt T Na Bo Al y Eg
iu ri t
. (1
2) on . (1 3) ot es ho (1 ) .8 ca f ri lA ) ra (4 . 8 nt Ce ogo T n
Re
ic bl pu
(3
) .8
) .4 ) (1 . 9 a (9 ig bi al N am eg G en S ( er
. 11
5)
ab G 9)
g Ni
er
ia
(1
. 20
) L .6 1) 12 1. o ( ( s d a 5) an F ) ) 0) 0. zil ina 9) ) 8) .6 ) 8) .3 5. (2 4) 2. .1 4. ) 2. (6 . 4 wa urk (8 a (2 ) 2) a 6. (3 S B (1 ) n e ( 5 . 7 n d d i n a (8 (3 0 .4 3. 2) (1 e .6 o (1 (1 ) (1 ha ) an ha an o ) en ne 0) 1. e 6) ) u 6.9 G B i C g ir .5 b w (1 2 L e n 9. .3 la (5 cc . 3) ud .5 u 1 s a (1 U (6 S p 18 ro ba li rra roo 36 ivo i (6 (8. go s ( G ( o (3 D d m a ia e ) ) Bi ar Re a An M a 7) Zi M Sie me te u n d a op ni a- sc .2) qu 0 . 6 ) .9 .5 m ny hi (1 (3. i (11 a (9 Co Bur an nza uine aga a (3 mbi Ca De Et Ke i a o Rw Ta G ad eri oza bi ngo law al ng m M Li b M a m Za Co M So Co
Figure 6.2 Ecological Footprint in Africa
13
7. Trading Biological Capacity

For any nation, the Ecological Footprint can be measured from a number of angles. The angle used most commonly is the one retion Footprint. It is the Footprint of all of the ecological goods and services consumed by the residents of the nation. Another angle is to measure the Footprint of all the demands put on the ecosystems within the borders of the nation. The difference comes from two sources: a) net imports and b) demands the nation makes on the global commons (such as carbon dioxide emisBecause of imports and demands on the commons, a nations consumption is not always constrained by the biocapacity limits of their territory. While at the global level, overshoot leads to the degradation of biological capital, nations can run an ecological means to import biological capacity from elsewhere in the world. Inversely, nations with ecological reserves (those who consume, in net terms, less than what their ecosystems can regenerate) might still experience overuse of their ecological assets due to export pressures or overuse of particular ecosystems (such as local deLike all regions, Africa is both an importer and an exporter of biological capacity. Overall, the region receives imports of cropland and pasture land capacity from elsewhere and supplies other newable resources such as diamonds, oil and ore, many nations also supply the rest of the world with large quantities of biological capacity.
Table 7.1 Biocapacity export of selected African countries (in global hectares, 2002 data)
Cropland 4,300,000 8,000,000 7,300,000 2,200,000 2,700,000 Fishing Grounds 1,500,000 5,200,000 1,700,000 Forest 1,100,000 1,800,000 4,600,000 -
Cameroon Cote DIvoire Gabon Morocco Namibia South Africa Sudan Zambia
As rapidly growing economies around the world continue to increase their consumption of resources, export pressures and demand on African countries renewable resources will continue to increase. The available biocapacity within the African region will become even more important on a global stage in a future with growing global overshoot.
14
8. Managing Ecological Assets to Secure Human Well-Being: Five Factors at Play

Local overshoot occurs when ecosystems are exploited beyond ing stock of ecological capital. Local overshoot has occurred in many places such as the Mediterranean basin, sometimes leaving behind indelible scars and ecosystems with permanently reduced productivity. Today, however, humanity has entered into an era of global overshoot, as described in Section 4. Global overshoot inevitably leads to the degradation of the ecological capital base on which human societies depend. The recent Millennium Ecosystem Assessment gives detailed information on the current status (www.greenfacts. org). At the regional and national scale, however, countries can consume more resources than their domestic ecosystems can provide without depleting their own capital if they are able to import capacity from elsewhere. Furthermore, countries can demand less than their ecosystems can provide, but still experience local overshoot due to export pressures or poor management. Countries with a consumption Footprint larger than their own biocapacity, including while countries with biocapacity that exceed their Footprint, includdomestic ecological capital or by importing biocapacity from elsewhere. Five factors able biocapacity and demand on biocapacity. Three factors determine the Ecological Footprint and two determine the amount of available biocapacity. Three Ecological Footprint Factors: Ecological Footprints - or total demand on biocapacity - are a function of three factors: population, consumption per person, and resource intensity: Population growth can be reduced and eventually reversed through measures that support families who choose to have fewer children. Offering women better education, economic opportunities and health care are three proven approaches. To meet regional development challenges, consumption per person in the region may need to rise. In some cases, this increase can be offset by technology and management systems that intransportation systems). Two Biocapacity Factors: The total available biocapacity or ecosystem supply is determined by two factors: the amount of biologically productive area available, and the productivity or yield of that area. cially in arid regions), improved technology and management can help to increase yields on already productive land. Biocapacity can be maintained by protecting soil from erosion and degradation and preserving cropland for agriculture. This involves protecting river basins, wetlands and watersheds to secure freshwater supplies, action to protect ecosystems from climate change and eliminating the use of toxic chemicals that degrade ecosystems.
15
x
Population Per Capita Consumption
x
Resource Intensity
Ecological Footprint (Demand)
Area
Bioproductivity
Biocapacity (Supply)
Gap Between Biological Demand and Supply
Figure 8.1 Five factors of Biological Supply and Demand. Five factors determine the gap between biological demand and supply.
16
9. Fact Pages for Selected Countries

The key information in this factbook is displayed in a country-spetables. These graphs and tables provide a quantitative description of human development, ecological performance and links between 21 summarize the situation for Africa as a whole, using the same layout. Each fact page (Section 9) is divided into three sections: 9.1 Human development benchmarks 9.2 Human development and ecological performance 9.3 Ecological time trends 9.1. Human development benchmarks Figure 9.1.1 shows the countrys Human Development Index (HDI) for the year 2003 broken down into its three components: life expectancy, education, and per capita income or GDP. Tables 9.1.1 9.1.3 provide the same information in absolute values rather than in an indexed format. Figure 9.1.1 compares the countrys HDI performance against the world average (dotted lines), and the pie chart in Figure 9.1.2 shows the percentage of the national income going to the top and bottom income quintiles. Africas income distribution pattern among income groups is similar to other countries. The income distribution in the UK, for example, resembles Africas average, where the richest twenty percent of the population control about forty percent of the national income. However, the overall per capita income in the UK is much higher than in Africa and, as a result this disparity deprives the poorest segments of African society from meeting basic material needs. Among the HDI component indicators, life expectancy is the category in which Africa scores visibly lower than many other regions ancy is the HIV/AIDS epidemic that affects African communities, most dramatically in the Southern Africa sub-region. Diseases like malaria are also widespread and contribute to increased infant mortality and decreased life expectancy. The Human Development Index parallels the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in how it frames the development challenges. Table 9.1.2 summarizes development impacts on gender. According to the World Health Organization, the adult literacy rate is the both read and write a short, simple statement about their everyday life. The combined gross enrollment ratio, according to UNESCO, is the total enrollment in all levels of education, regardless of age, sponds to primary, secondary, and tertiary schooling. The GDP Index looks at earned income normalized by purchasbuy different amount of goods in different countries. PPP US$ are calibrated according to what one dollar can buy within the US. While most African countries lag behind the world average in the progress in improving the basic education and literacy rates for both males and females. This is indeed an extremely promising development as education is strongly interlinked with other human development outcomes such as health and gender equity. All data presented in this factbook are taken from the Human Development Report of UNDP. 9.2. Human development and ecological performance Figure 9.2.1 is the key diagram used in this report to discuss the link between human development and ecological assets. Globally, sustainable development can be assessed using the Human Development Index (HDI) as an indicator of socio-economic
development and the Ecological Footprint as a measure of human demand on the biosphere. The United Nations considers an HDI of print less than 1.8 global hectares per person makes a countrys resource demands globally replicable. Despite growing adoption of sustainable development as an explicit policy goal, most countries do not meet both minimum requirements. formation and to put each country in context with the rest of the world. The dark line on the graph represents change in Ecological Footprint and HDI over time, for most countries from 1975 to 2003. In all but one case (South Africa), either or both Ecological Footprint and HDI have increased over time. (Note: Footprint data reported through year 2002; HDI data reported through year 2003). Tables 9.2.1 and 9.2.1 show economic outcomes. Trade is depicted in Table 9.2.1, which show imports, exports, and the trade balance in both dollar terms and Footprint terms. A negative Footprint balance of 10 million global hectares, for example, would indicate that the country imported 10 million more global hectares than it exported. The dollar intensity of imports and exports shows to what extent imports or exports are more resource intensive. Higher numbers here indicate lower resource intensity. Table 9.2.1 also shows the percentage of development assistance as well as debt service payments as a percentage of the countrys GDP. Table 9.2.2 compares population, income in absolute dollars and the countrys Ecological Footprint per capita. 9.3. Ecological time trends Biocapacity and Ecological Footprints are measured in global hectares. A global hectare is an area-normalized unit of productivity, equal to the annual productivity of one hectare of biologically
productive land or sea with world-average productivity. Use of global hectares as a productivity measure allows world-wide comparisons of biocapacity and demand, while recognizing large differences in ecosystem productivities. cal reserves. In 1961, Africa had an available biocapacity of 3.5 global hectares per person compared to an Ecological Footprint of 1.2 global hectares per person. By 2002, this ecological reserve had shrunk from 2.3 to 0.2 global hectares per person. Today, the average African has a Footprint of 1.1 global hectares compared with an available biocapacity of 1.3 global hectares per person. Considering recent population growth rates and the age distribution of Africas population, it is likely that Africas Ecological Footprint will soon overtake its biocapacity. This will leave Africa, for Rapid population growth over the past half-century has played a per capita biocapacity was approximately equal to the world averity of biocapacity in Africa decreased at a more rapid rate than in the rest of the world. Consequently, Africas present endowment of natural capital is substantially less than the world average. A major driver of this reduction is population growth, where Africa has outpaced other continents. Over the last half-century, advances in agricultural technology have helped Africa increase the productivity of each global hectthan in 1961. This means that despite maintaining a constant Ecological Footprint of 1.3 global hectares per person over the last cent more biocapacity per person than in 1961. Africa, on average, has also kept pace with other regions in the world in boosting its absolute biocapacity.
Yet, as shown in Figure 9.3.1 in Africa, in spite of the stable (but Footprint components have shifted. For instance, all food-oriented show a decline. This decrease is offset by an increase in Africas banization. Africas present urban population of thirty-nine percent exhibiting the fastest growth rate in the world at 3.5 percent per year. Most striking are the overall comparisons of Ecological Footprint and biocapacity trends as depicted in Figure 9.3.2. Overall, countries that have the economic ability to purchase resources from abroad are less constrained by their own biocapacity.
Footprint any further. South Africa shows a particularly dramatic shift in Footprint growth after exceeding its own biocapacity. Further, the curves in Figure 9.3.4 show that Ghana and Tanzania might be running into similar resource constraints as Kenya, Niger, South Africa, or Nigeria within decades if not years. Algeria provides an example of the opposite effect. Due to its oil exports, Algeria has been able to afford extra imports. Additionally, because of Algerias access to cheap fossil fuel, it has been able to transcend its own biocapacity, externalizing the CO2 costs on the rest of the world much like many other high or middle-income countries. Figures 9.3.2 and 9.3.4 show details of each countrys Ecological Footprint and Biocapacity.
For instance, the Footprints of France, the UK, the US, Switzerland and even China far exceed their own biocapacity. Yet for most Fact pages for the following countries and regions are included in of these nations, the Footprint increase seems to slow down or the Section 9: stabilize as their Footprint continues to exceed domestic biocapacAlgeria Mali ity. These graphs are consistent with the economic news today Benin Mozambique dominated by Chinas demand for resources. Brazil Niger resources from abroad, such as Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Rwanda, and Uganda, show a remarkable trend of Footprint being constrained by domestic biocapacity. These countries are experiencing real ecological constraints that directly impact their ability to increase in the Footprint curve, attributed to receipt of food aid in the late 1990s. Other countries have experienced such limitations only more recently. Kenya, Niger and Nigeria, for example, once exceeding their domestic biocapacity were not able to increase their Burkina Faso Burundi China Egypt Ethiopia France Ghana India Kenya Madagascar Nigeria Rwanda South Africa Switzerland Tanzania Uganda United Kingdom US World Africa
19
Africa
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0.44
9.1 Human Development Benchmarks

Africa World Average 0.77 0.70 0.58 0.47 50% 44%
9.2 Human Development and Environmental Performance

6
Africa
Footprint (gha/capita)
0.75
5 4 3 2 1
Top 20% Middle 60%
5%
0
Bottom 20% Life Expectancy Index Education Index GDP Index
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
Human Development Index
Life Expectancy (years) Gross Enrollment (%) Adult Literacy Rate (%) GDP per capita (PPP US$)
51 55% 59% $2,424

Imports Exports Net (Exports - Imports) ODA (% of GDP) Debt Service (% of GDP) Billion US$ $229.4 $218.2 -$11.2 3.6% 4.0% Million gha 178.2 136.5 -41.7 $/gha 1,287 1,598
Female adult literacy rate (%) Male adult literacy rate (%) Female combined gross enrollment ratio (%) Male combined gross enrollment ratio (%) Female estimated earned income (PPP US$) Male estimated earned income (PPP US$)
50% 67% 44% 51% $1,457 $3,395
World Population (Millions) GDP per capita (US$) Footprint (gha/capita) Biocapacity (gha/capita) 6225 $5,801 2.20 1.80
Africa 824 $794 1.10 1.30
Africa 824 $794 1.10 1.30
Urban population with access to improved sanitation facilities (%) Urban population with access to improved water source (%) Percentage of population undernourished
44% 65% 22%
20
9.3 Ecological Time Trends
900 800 Footprint (gha/ capita) 700 Million People 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 1961
Nuclear Footprint Carbon Footprint Built-up Land Footprint Fishing Ground Grazing Footprint Forest Footprint Cropland Footprint
1966
1971
1976
1981
1986
1991
1996
2001
Built-up Land Biocapacity

Footprint and Biocapacity (gha/ capita)
Fishing Ground
4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Footprint National Biocapacity World Biocapacity 4.0 Biocapacity (gha/ capita) 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001
Grazing Biocapacity Forest Biocapacity Cropland Biocapacity
Africa
Algeria
1 Algeria World Average 0.71 0.77 0.70 0.77 0.75 43% 50% 0.69
6
0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Life Expectancy Index
Algeria
5 4 3 2 1 0
World Biocapacity 2002: 1.8 gha per capita
Top 20% Bottom 20% Education Index GDP Index Middle 60%
7%
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
71 74% 70% $6,107

Imports Exports Net (Exports - Imports) ODA (% of GDP) Debt Service (% of GDP) Billion US$ $16.0 $25.9 $10.0 0.3% 6.5% Million gha 18.6 4.2 -14.4 $/gha 860 6,249
60% 80% 72% 76% $2,896 $9,244
Africa 824 $794 1.10 1.30
Algeria 31 $2,090 1.50 0.60
Urban population with access to improved sanitation facilities (%) Urban population with access to improved water source (%) Percentage of population undernourished (%)
99% 87% 5%
22
35 30 Footprint (gha/ capita) Million People 25 20 15 10 5 0 1960
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
0.0 1961
1966
1971
1976
1981
1986
1991
1996
2001
4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990
Biocapacity (gha/ capita)
Footprint National Biocapacity World Biocapacity
2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 1961
Built-up Land Biocapacity Fishing Ground Grazing Biocapacity Forest Biocapacity Cropland Biocapacity
1995
2000
1966
1971
1976
1981
1986
1991
1996
2001
Algeria
Benin
1 Benin World Average
6
0.9 0.8 0.70
Benin
0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0
0.7
0.77
0.75
5 4 3 2 1
0.48 0.41 0.40
*Income distribution data for Benin unavailable
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
Life Expectancy Index
Education Index
GDP Index
54 55% 34% $1,115
Billion US$ Imports Exports Net (Exports - Imports) ODA (% of GDP) Debt Service (% of GDP) $0.9 $0.5 -$0.5 8.5% 1.7%
Million gha 1.6 0.9 -0.7
$/gha 580 544
23% 46% 43% 66% $910 $1,316
Africa 824 $794 1.10 1.30
Benin 7 $517 1.00 0.80
58% 68% 15%
24
7 6 Footprint (gha/ capita) Million People 5 4 3 2 1 0 1960
1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 1961
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
1966
1971
1976
1981
1986
1991
1996
2001

Fishing Ground
4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Footprint National Biocapacity World Biocapacity 1.2 Biocapacity (gha/ capita) 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 1961
1966
1971
1976
1981
1986
1991
1996
2001
Benin
Brazil
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Life Expectancy Index Education Index GDP Index 63% 2% Top 20% Bottom 20% Middle 60%
0

6
Brazil World Average 0.76 0.70 0.89 0.77
Brazil
0.75 0.73 34%
5 4 3 2 1
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
71 91% 88% $7,790

Imports Exports Net (Exports - Imports) ODA (% of GDP) Billion US$ $64.0 $83.7 $19.7 0.1% 11.5% Million gha 34.8 135.7 100.9 $/gha 1,837 617
89% 88% 93% 89% $4,704 $10,963
Debt Service (% of GDP)
Africa 824 $794 1.10 1.30
Brazil 176 $2,788 2.10 10.10
83% 89% 9%
26
200 180 160 Million People 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Footprint (gha/ capita)
2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 1961
1966
1971
1976
1981
1986
1991
1996
2001
25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 1960
Footprint National Biocapacity World Biocapacity
25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 1961
Built-up Land Biocapacity Fishing Ground Grazing Biocapacity Forest Biocapacity Cropland Biocapacity
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
1966
1971
1976
1981
1986
1991
1996
2001
Brazil
Burkina Faso
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Life Expectancy Index Education Index GDP Index 0.16 0.38 0.41 5% Top 20% Bottom 20% Middle 60% 0.70 35% 61% 0.77 Burkina Faso World Average

6
Burkina Faso
0.75
5 4 3 2 1 0
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
48 24% 13% $1,174

Imports Exports Net (Exports - Imports) ODA (% of GDP) Debt Service (% of GDP) Billion US$ $1.0 $0.4 -$0.6 10.8% 1.2% Million gha 1.7 0.8 -1.0 $/gha 553 487
8% 19% 20% 27% $986 $1,357
Africa 824 $794 1.10 1.30
Burkina Faso 13 $345 1.10 1.00
45% 51% 19%
28
14 12 Million People 10 8 6 4 2 0 1960 Footprint (gha/ capita)
1.5
1.0
0.5
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
0.0 1961
1966
1971
1976
1981
1986
1991
1996
2001

Fishing Ground
4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Footprint National Biocapacity World Biocapacity 1.5 Biocapacity (gha/ capita)
1.0
0.5
0.0 1961
1966
1971
1976
1981
1986
1991
1996
2001
Burkina Faso
Burundi
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Life Expectancy Index Education Index GDP Index 0.31 0.51 47% 48% 0.70 0.77 Burundi World Average

6
Burundi
0.75
5 4 3 2 1
0.31
5% Top 20% Bottom 20% Middle 60%
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
44 35% 59% $648

Imports Exports Net (Exports - Imports) ODA (% of GDP) Billion US$ $0.1 $0.0 -$0.1 37.6% 4.9% Million gha 0.4 0.1 -0.3 $/gha 267 632
52% 67% 31% 40% $545 $758
Africa 824 $794 1.10 1.30
Burundi 7 $83 0.70 0.60
36% 79% 68%
30

7 6 Footprint (gha/ capita) 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Million People 5 4 3 2 1 0 1960 1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0 1961
1966
1971
1976
1981
1986
1991
1996
2001

Fishing Ground
1.0
0.5
0.0 1961
1966
1971
1976
1981
1986
1991
1996
2001
Burundi
China
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Life Expectancy Index Education Index GDP Index Top 20% 5%
0

6
China World Average

0.78 0.70
0.84 0.77
0.75
China
5 4 3 2 1
0.65 45%
50%
Bottom 20% Middle 60%
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
72 69% 91% $5,003

Imports Exports Net (Exports - Imports) ODA (% of GDP) Debt Service (% of GDP) Billion US$ $453.4 $481.8 $28.3 0.1% 2.6% Million gha 421.5 238.0 -183.5 $/gha 1,076 2,024
87% 95% 68% 70% $3,961 $5,976
Africa 824 $794 1.10 1.30
China 1302 $1,100 1.60 0.80
69% 77% 11%
32

1400 1200 Footprint (gha/ capita) Million People 1000 800 600 400 200 0 1960 2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
0.0 1961
1966
1971
1976
1981
1986
1991
1996
2001

Fishing Ground
1.0
0.5
0.0 1961
1966
1971
1976
1981
1986
1991
1996
2001
China
Egypt
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Life Expectancy Index Education Index GDP Index Top 20% 9%
0

6
Egypt World Average 0.77 0.75 0.70 0.62 0.61 48% 44% 0.75
5
Egypt
4 3 2 1
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
70 74% 56% $3,950

Imports Exports Net (Exports - Imports) ODA (% of GDP) Debt Service (% of GDP) Billion US$ $0.2 $0.2 $0.0 1.1% 3.4% Million gha 28.3 3.4 -24.9 $/gha 8 65
44% 67% N/A N/A $1,614 $6,203
Africa 824 $794 1.10 1.30
Egypt 71 $1,220 1.40 0.40
Urban population with access to improved sanitation facilities (%) Urban population with access to improved water source (%) Percentage of population undernourished
98% 68% 3%
34
80 70 60 Million People 50 40 30 20 10 0 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Footprint (gha/ capita)
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0 1961
1966
1971
1976
1981
1986
1991
1996
2001

Fishing Ground
4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Grazing Biocapacity
Biocapacity (gha/ capita) Footprint Biocapacity World Biocapacity 1.0
Forest Biocapacity Cropland Biocapacity
0.5
0.0 1961
1966
1971
1976
1981
1986
1991
1996
2001
Egypt
Ethiopia
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Life Expectancy Index Education Index GDP Index 0.38 0.40 0.33 52% 0.70 39% 0.77 Ethiopia World Average 0.75
5 6
Ethiopia
4 3 2 1 0
Top 20% Bottom 20% Middle 60%
9%
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
48 36% 42% $711

Imports Exports Net (Exports - Imports) ODA (% of GDP) Debt Service (% of GDP) Billion US$ $2.5 $1.1 -$1.3 22.6% 1.4% Million gha 5.3 1.3 -4.0 $/gha 467 878
34% 49% 29% 42% $487 $931
Africa 824 $794 1.10 1.30
Ethiopia 69 $97 0.80 0.50
19% 22% 46%
36

80 70 60 Million People 50 40 30 20 10 0 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Footprint (gha/ capita)
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0 1961
1966
1971
1976
1981
1986
1991
1996
2001

Fishing Ground Grazing Biocapacity Forest Biocapacity Cropland Biocapacity
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0 1961
1966
1971
1976
1981
1986
1991
1996
2001
Ethiopia
France
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Life Expectancy Index Education Index GDP Index Top 20% Bottom 20% Middle 60% 7% 53% 0.70 0.77 0.75 0.91 0.97 0.94 France World Average

6
France
5 4 3 2 1 0
40%
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
80 92% NA $27,677
Imports Exports Net (Exports - Imports) ODA (% of GDP) Debt Service (% of GDP) Billion US$ $439.4 $457.0 $17.6 0.0% 0.0% Million gha 169.1 169.0 -0.1 $/gha 2,598 2,704
NA NA 94% 90% $20,642 $35,123
Africa 824 $794 1.10 1.30
France 60 $29,410 5.60 3.20
38
NA NA NA
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
6.0 5.5 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 1961
1966
1971
1976
1981
1986
1991
1996
2001
Built-up Land Biocapacity Fishing Ground

Footprint and Biocapacity (gha/ capita) 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 1960 Footprint National Biocapacity World Biocapacity Biocapacity (gha/ capita)
Grazing Biocapacity
4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
France
Ghana
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Life Expectancy Index Education Index GDP Index Top 20% Bottom 20% Middle 60% 6%
0

6
Ghana World Average 0.75

Ghana
5 4 3 2 1
0.77 0.70 0.53 0.51 0.52
48%
47%
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
57 46% 54% $2,238
Billion US$ Imports Exports Net (Exports - Imports) ODA (% of GDP) Debt Service (% of GDP) $4.0 $3.0 -$0.9 11.9% 6.3%
$/gha 823 1,139
46% 63% 43% 48% $1,915 $2,567
Africa 824 $794 1.10 1.30
Ghana 20 $369 1.00 1.30
74% 79% 13%
40

1.5 25 20 Million People 15 10 5 0 1960 0.0 1961 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 1966 1971 1976 1981 Footprint (gha/ capita)
1.0
0.5
1986
1991
1996
2001

4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Footprint National Biocapacity World Biocapacity 3.5 Biocapacity (gha/ capita) 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 1961
1966
1971
1976
1981
1986
1991
1996
2001
Ghana
India
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Life Expectancy Index Education Index GDP Index Top 20% Bottom 20% Middle 60% 9%
0

6
India World Average 0.70 0.64 0.75

India
5 4 3 2 1
0.77 0.61 0.56 48% 43%
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
63 60% 61% $2,892

Imports Exports Net (Exports - Imports) ODA (% of GDP) Billion US$ $96.1 $84.1 -$12.0 0.2% 3.4% Million gha 89.5 49.2 -40.3 $/gha 1,074 1,709
48% 73% 56% 64% $1,569 $4,130
Africa 824 $794 1.10 1.30
India 1050 $564 0.70 0.40
58% 86% 21%
1200 1.0 1000 800 600 400 200 0 1960 Footprint (gha/ capita) Million People
0.5
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
0.0 1961
1966
1971
1976
1981
1986
1991
1996
2001

0.5
0.0 1961
1966
1971
1976
1981
1986
1991
1996
2001
India
Kenya
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Life Expectancy Index Education Index GDP Index 0.37 0.39 Top 20% Middle 60% 6% 0.70 0.66 45% Kenya World Average 0.77

6
Kenya
0.75
5 4 3 2 1 0
49%
Bottom 20%
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
47 52% 74% $1,037

Imports Exports Net (Exports - Imports) ODA (% of GDP) Debt Service (% of GDP) Billion US$ $4.2 $3.6 -$0.6 3.4% 4.0% Million gha 3.4 1.3 -2.1 $/gha 1,218 2,731
70% 78% 50% 53% $1,001 $1,078
Africa 824 $794 1.10 1.30
Kenya 32 $450 0.80 0.60
56% 62% 33%
44

35 30 Million People 25 20 15 10 5 0 1960 Footprint (gha/ capita) 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0 1961
1966
1971
1976
1981
1986
1991
1996
2001

4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Footprint National Biocapacity World Biocapacity 2.5 Biocapacity (gha/ capita) 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 1961
1966
1971
1976
1981
1986
1991
1996
2001
Kenya
Madagascar
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Life Expectancy Index Education Index GDP Index 0.35 Top 20% 5%
0

6
Madagascar World Average 0.70 0.64 0.51 42% 54% 0.77
Madagascar
0.75
5 4 3 2 1
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
55 51% 71% $809

65% 76% 40% 41% $603 $1,017
Africa 824 $794 1.10 1.30
Madagascar 17 $324 0.60 3.00
49% 45% 37%
46

18 16 Footprint (gha/ capita) 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 14 Million People 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 1960
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0 1961
1966
1971
1976
1981
1986
1991
1996
2001

10.0 9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Footprint National Biocapacity World Biocapacity 10.0 Biocapacity (gha/ capita) 9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001
Madagascar
Mali
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Life Expectancy Index Education Index GDP Index 0.38 0.23 0.38 Top 20% 5% 39% 56% 0.70 Mali World Average
6

Mali
5
0.77
0.75
4 3 2 1 0
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
48 32% 19% $994

Imports Exports Net (Exports - Imports) ODA (% of GDP) Debt Service (% of GDP) Billion US$ $1.3 $1.1 -$0.2 12.2% 1.8% Million gha 0.8 0.9 0.1 $/gha 1,659 1,281
12% 27% 27% 38% $742 $1,247
Africa 824 $794 1.10 1.30
Mali 13 $371 0.80 1.30
59% 48% 29%
1.5
1.0
0.5
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
0.0 1961
1966
1971
1976
1981
1986
1991
1996
2001
4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985
Footprint National Biocapacity World Biocapacity Biocapacity (gha/ capita)

4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
1990
1995
2000
0.0 1961
1966
1971
1976
1981
1986
1991
1996
2001
Mali
Mozambique
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Life Expectancy Index Education Index GDP Index 0.28 0.45 0.40 Top 20% Bottom 20% Middle 60%
0

6
Mozambique World Average 0.70 0.77

Mozambique
5
0.75
4 3 2 1
47%
47%
7%
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
42 43% 47% $1,117

31% 62% 38% 48% $910 $1,341
Africa 824 $794 1.10 1.30
Mozambique 19 $230 0.60 2.10
51% 42% 47%
20 18 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Footprint (gha/ capita) 16 Million People
1.0
0.5
0.0 1961
1966
1971
1976
1981
1986
1991
1996
2001

6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 1960 Footprint National Biocapacity World Biocapacity 5.5 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 1961
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
1966
1971
1976
1981
1986
1991
1996
2001
Mozambique
Niger
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Life Expectancy Index Education Index GDP Index 0.17 0.32 0.35 Top 20% Middle 60% 3%
0

6
Niger World Average 0.70 0.77

Niger
5
0.75
4 3 2 1
44% 53%
Bottom 20%
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
44 21% 14% $835

Imports Exports Net (Exports - Imports) ODA (% of GDP) Billion US$ $0.7 $0.4 -$0.2 16.6% 1.2% Million gha 2.2 0.4 -1.9 $/gha 304 1,232
9% 20% 17% 25% $601 $1,056
Africa 824 $794 1.10 1.30
Niger 12 $232 1.30 1.20
43% 46% 34%
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
0.0 1961
1966
1971
1976
1981
1986
1991
1996
2001

4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Footprint National Biocapacity World Biocapacity 3.0 Biocapacity (gha/ capita) 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 1961
1966
1971
1976
1981
1986
1991
1996
2001
Niger
Nigeria
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Life Expectancy Index Education Index GDP Index 0.39 0.31 Top 20% 4% 0.70 0.66 40% 56% Nigeria World Average
6

Nigeria
0.77
0.75
5 4 3 2 1 0
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
43 64% 67% $1,050

Imports Exports Net (Exports - Imports) ODA (% of GDP) Billion US$ $23.9 $29.2 $5.3 0.5% 2.8% Million gha 25.7 2.3 -23.4 $/gha 933 12,690
59% 74% 57% 71% $614 $1,495
Africa 824 $794 1.10 1.30
Nigeria 121 $428 1.20 1.00
48% 60% 9%
54
1.5
1.0
0.5
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
0.0 1961
1966
1971
1976
1981
1986
1991
1996
2001

4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Footprint National Biocapacity World Biocapacity 2.5 Biocapacity (gha/ capita) 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 1961
1966
1971
1976
1981
1986
1991
1996
2001
Nigeria
Rwanda
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Life Expectancy Index Education Index GDP Index 0.31 Top 20% Bottom 20% Middle 60% 51% 0.42 10% 0.70 0.61 Rw anda World Average
6

Rwanda
5
0.77
0.75
4 3 2 1 0
39%
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
44 55% 64% $1,268
Billion US$ Imports Exports Net (Exports - Imports) ODA (% of GDP) $0.4 $0.1 -$0.3 20.3% 1.3%
$/gha 526 1,686
59% 71% 53% 58% $985 $1,583
Africa 824 $794 1.10 1.30
Rwanda 8 $195 0.70 0.60
56% 73% 37%
56
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0 1961
1966
1971
1976
1981
1986
1991
1996
2001

Fishing Ground Grazing Biocapacity Forest Biocapacity
1.0
Cropland Biocapacity
0.5
0.0 1961
1966
1971
1976
1981
1986
1991
1996
2001
Rwanda
South Africa
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Life Expectancy Index Education Index GDP Index 0.39 4% Top 20% Bottom 20% Middle 60% 0.70 0.81 0.77 34% South Africa World Average 0.75

6
South Africa
0.77
5 4 3 2 1 0
62%
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
48 78% 82% $10,346

Imports Exports Net (Exports - Imports) ODA (% of GDP) Billion US$ $41.6 $44.8 $3.2 0.4% 2.7% Million gha 12.9 46.1 33.2 $/gha 3,220 971
81% 84% 78% 78% $6,505 $14,326
Africa 824 $794 1.10 1.30
South Africa 45 $3,489 2.40 2.00
86% 87% NA
58
50 45 40 Million People 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Footprint (gha/ capita) 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 1961
1966
1971
1976
1981
1986
1991
1996
2001

Footprint and Biocapacity (gha/ capita) Footprint National Biocapacity World Biocapacity Biocapacity (gha/ capita)
Grazing Biocapacity
4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001
4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985
1990
1995
2000
South Africa
Switzerland
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Life Expectancy Index Education Index GDP Index Top 20% Bottom 20% Middle 60% 7% 53% 40% 0.70 0.93 0.96 0.77 Sw itzerland World Average 0.75

6
Switzerland
5 4 3 2 1 0
0.96
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
81 90% NA $30,552
Imports Exports Net (Exports - Imports) ODA (% of GDP) Billion US$ $118.4 $140.8 $22.4 0.0% 0.0% Million gha 26.9 19.8 -7.2 $/gha 4,399 7,127
NA NA 88% 92% $28,972 $32,149
Africa 824 $794 1.10 1.30
Switzerland 7 $43,553 4.70 1.60
NA NA NA
60
8 7 Footprint (gha/ capita) 6 Million People 5 4 3 2 1 0 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 5.5 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 1961
1966
1971
1976
1981
1986
1991
1996
2001

Footprint and Biocapacity (gha/ capita) 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 1960 Footprint National Biocapacity World Biocapacity Biocapacity (gha/ capita)
Grazing Biocapacity
2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 1961
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
1966
1971
1976
1981
1986
1991
1996
2001
Switzerland
Tanzania
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Life Expectancy Index Education Index GDP Index 0.30 0.35 Top 20% Bottom 20% Middle 60% 7% 0.60 48% 46% Tanzania World Average 0.70 0.75

6
Tanzania
0.77
5 4 3 2 1 0
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
46 41% 69% $621

Imports Exports Net (Exports - Imports) ODA (% of GDP) Billion US$ $2.8 $1.9 -$0.9 16.2% 0.9% Million gha 3.8 1.5 -2.3 $/gha 739 1,242
62% 78% 40% 42% $516 $725
Africa 824 $794 1.10 1.30
Tanzania 36 $287 0.70 1.10
54% 73% 44%
62

40 35 Footprint (gha/ capita) 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 30 Million People 25 20 15 10 5 0 1960
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0 1961
1966
1971
1976
1981
1986
1991
1996
2001
4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985
Footprint National Biocapacity World Biocapacity Biocapacity (gha/ capita)

4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001
1990
1995
2000
Tanzania
Uganda
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Life Expectancy Index Education Index GDP Index 0.37 0.45 Top 20% 6% Bottom 20% Middle 60% 44% 50% Uganda World Average
6

Uganda
0.70 0.71
0.77
0.75
5 4 3 2 1 0
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
47 74% 69% $1,457

59% 79% 72% 75% $1,169 $1,751
Africa 824 $794 1.10 1.30
Uganda 25 $249 1.10 0.80
53% 56% 19%
64

30 25 Footprint (gha/ capita) 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Million People 20 15 10 5 0 1960
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0 1961
1966
1971
1976
1981
1986
1991
1996
2001

Footprint and Biocapacity (gha/ capita) 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Footprint National Biocapacity World Biocapacity Biocapacity (gha/ capita)
Fishing Ground
2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 1961
1966
1971
1976
1981
1986
1991
1996
2001
Uganda
United Kingdom
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Life Expectancy Index Education Index GDP Index Top 20% Bottom 20% Middle 60% 6% 50% 44% 0.89 0.70 0.99 0.77 0.94 United Kingdom World Average
5

6
United Kingdom
0.75
4 3 2 1 0
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
78 123% NA $27,147
NA NA 113% 113% $20,790 $33,713
Africa 824 $794 1.10 1.30
United Kingdom 59 $30,253 5.60 1.60
NA NA NA
6.0 5.5 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 1961
1966
1971
1976
1981
1986
1991
1996
2001

Grazing Biocapacity
2.0
6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 1960
1.5
1.0
0.5
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
0.0 1961
1966
1971
1976
1981
1986
1991
1996
2001
United Kingdom
United States of America

1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Life Expectancy Index Education Index GDP Index Top 20% Bottom 20% Middle 60% 5% 49% 46% United States of America World Average 0.87 0.70 0.97 0.77 0.99

10 9
Footprint (gha/ capita)
0.75
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
Hum an Developm ent Index
77 93% NA $37,562
Imports Exports Net (Exports - Imports) ODA (% of GDP) Debt Service (% of GDP) Billion US$ $1,532.8 $1,094.9 -$437.9 0.0% 0.0% Million gha 513.5 559.1 45.6 $/gha 2,985 1,958
NA NA 97% 89% $29,017 $46,456
Africa 824 $794 1.10 1.30
United States of America 291 $37,648 9.70 4.70
NA NA NA
15.0
10.0
5.0
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
0.0 1961
1966
1971
1976
1981
1986
1991
1996
2001

Grazing Biocapacity
10.0
12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 1960
5.0
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
0.0 1961
1966
1971
1976
1981
1986
1991
1996
2001

World
1 0.9 0.8 0.70 0.77 0.75

6 5 4 3 2 1 0
World Average
World
0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0
*Income distribution data unavailable
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
Life Expectancy Index
Education Index
GDP Index
67 67% NA $8,229
Billion US$ Imports Exports Net (Exports - Imports) ODA (% of GDP) $8,654 NA NA NA NA
Million gha 1,711 NA NA
$/gha 5,058 NA
NA NA NA NA NA NA
Africa 824 $794 1.10 1.30
79% 82% NA
70
2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 1961
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
1966
1971
1976
1981
1986
1991
1996
2001

Grazing Biocapacity
4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001
4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 1960 1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
World
Appendix I. Ecological Footprint and Biocapacity Table

Population GDP per person Total Ecological Footprint Total food, fiber, and timber Footprint Total energy Footprint Built-up land Hydro
2002 data
Included in food, fiber, and timber Grazing Fishing Cropland Forest land ground
Included in total energy CO2 from fossil fuels Fuelwood Nuclear
(millions)
WORLD High income countries Middle income countries Low income countries AFRICA Algeria Benin Burkina Faso Burundi Egypt Ethiopia Ghana Kenya Madagascar Mali Mozambique Niger Nigeria Rwanda South Africa Tanzania Uganda
6,225.0 925.6 2,989.4 2,279.8 828.4 31.3 6.6 12.6 6.6 70.5 69.0 20.5 31.5 16.9 12.6 18.5 11.5 120.9 8.3 44.8 36.3 25.0
(PPP $US 2003)
8,200.0 2,400 6,100 1,100 1,200 600 4,000 700 2,200 1,000 800 1,000 1,100 800 1,000 1,300 10,300 600 1,500
(global ha/person)
(global (global (global (global (global ha/person) ha/person) ha/person) ha/person) ha/person) 0.49 0.17 0.14 0.14 2.2 0.9
(global ha/person)
(global (global (global (global (global ha/person) ha/person) ha/person) ha/person) ha/person) 1.05 0.06 0.09 0.00 1.2 0.1
6.4 1.9 0.8 1.1 1.5 1.0 1.1 0.7 1.4 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 1.3 1.2 0.7 2.4 0.7 1.1
2.1 0.9 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.4 1.1 0.8 0.5 0.8 0.5 0.7
0.80 0.48 0.36 0.43 0.46 0.56 0.66 0.33 0.51 0.29 0.47 0.24 0.26 0.43 0.28 0.93 0.69 0.41 0.38 0.29 0.55
0.76 0.11 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.06 0.04 0.19 0.04 0.09
0.28 0.17 0.04 0.09 0.10 0.04 0.13 0.03 0.01 0.13 0.01 0.20 0.14 0.24 0.03 0.14 0.05 0.04 0.20 0.10 0.05
0.27 0.11 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.10 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.00
4.1 0.9 0.3 0.4 0.9 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 1.6 0.2 0.3
3.57 0.85 0.20 0.26 0.80 0.15 0.04 0.02 0.56 0.03 0.18 0.12 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.17 0.03 1.48 0.05 0.03
0.02 0.05 0.08 0.13 0.05 0.19 0.18 0.25 0.05 0.27 0.21 0.13 0.12 0.08 0.18 0.15 0.10 0.12 0.05 0.12 0.29
0.49 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00
0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
OTHER NATIONS Brazil China France India Switzerland United Kingdom United States of America
72
176.3 1,302.3 59.9 1,049.5 7.2 59.3 291.0
7,800 5,000 27,700 2,900 30,600 27,000 38,000
2.1 1.6 5.6 0.7 4.7 5.6 9.7
1.5 0.8 2.0 0.4 1.3 1.7 2.9
0.54 0.42 0.89 0.34 0.52 0.71 0.97
0.32 0.09 0.53 0.02 0.42 0.48 1.27
0.58 0.12 0.30 0.00 0.29 0.27 0.46
0.05 0.14 0.27 0.04 0.12 0.25 0.20
0.5 0.7 3.4 0.3 3.1 3.6 6.3
0.33 0.70 1.94 0.26 2.33 3.25 5.71
0.16 0.03 0.01 0.06 0.02 0.00 0.03
0.02 0.00 1.48 0.00 0.77 0.30 0.57
0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01
0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.4
Notes:
* Built-up land is included in both Total Footprint and pacity are equal for built-up land). positive numbers an Ecological Reserve Numbers may not always add due to rounding.
Built-up land Hydro
Total Biocapacity*
Included in total Biocapacity* Cropland Grazing land Forest Fishing ground
Ecological Deficit or Reserve**
(global (global a/person) ha/person) 0.00 0.1 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
(global (global (global (global (global ha/person) ha/person) ha/person) ha/person) ha/person) 0.52 0.27 0.80 0.13 1.8
(global ha/person)
-0.4 -3.0 0.2 -0.1 -0.2 -0.9 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 -0.9 -0.3 0.3 -0.2 2.3 0.4 1.5 -0.1 -0.2 -0.1 -0.4 0.4 -0.2
0.74 0.50 0.72 0.43 0.32 0.38 0.66 0.37 0.52 0.47 0.50 0.33 0.38 0.28 0.45 0.45 0.66 0.42 0.51
World total population includes countries not listed in table. Table includes all countries with populations greater for Ecological Footprint calculations. High income countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium/ Luxembourg, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Rep, Kuwait, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States of America. Middle income countries: Algeria, Argentina, Belarus, Belize, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Czech Republic, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Gabon, Georgia, Guatemala, Hungary, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Lithuania, Macedonia, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Namibia, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Syria, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela. Low income countries: Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Central African Rep, Chad, Congo, Congo Dem Rep, Cote Divoire, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, GuineaBissau, Haiti, Honduras, India, Kenya, Korea, DPR, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Moldova, Rep., Mongolia, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Togo, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Vietnam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
3.4 2.1 0.7 1.3 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.6 0.4 0.5 1.3 0.6 3.0 1.3 2.1 1.2 1.0 0.6 2.0 1.1 0.8
1.08 0.51 0.30 0.37 0.24 0.54 0.60 0.30 0.29 0.23 0.49 0.19 0.24 0.42 0.22 0.79 0.57 0.34 0.59 0.24 0.50
0.20 0.30 0.18 0.49 0.34 0.06 0.23 0.21 0.00 0.15 0.34 0.34 1.17 0.76 1.38 0.34 0.23 0.08 0.71 0.68 0.22
1.57 1.07 0.10 0.28 0.01 0.09 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.09 0.36 0.04 1.29 0.04 0.41 0.04 0.09 0.08 0.47 0.11 0.06
0.33 0.13 0.05 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.20 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00
0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01
0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.4
10.1 0.8 3.2 0.4 1.6 1.6 4.7
0.79 0.35 1.61 0.27 0.31 0.55 1.66
1.17 0.12 0.14 0.00 0.16 0.15 0.28
7.97 0.17 1.20 0.02 0.94 0.19 1.99
0.09 0.07 0.10 0.03 0.00 0.36 0.35
8.0 -0.8 -2.4 -0.4 -3.1 -4.0 -4.9
0.79 0.76 0.94 0.60 0.94 0.94 0.94
73
Appendix 2. Technical Notes

The Ecological Footprint The Ecological Footprint is a measure of how much biologically productive land and water area an individual, a city, a country, a region or humanity uses to produce the resources it consumes and to absorb the waste it generates, using prevailing technology and resource management schemes. This land and water area can be physically located anywhere in the world. This report documents national, per person footprints for consumption. Footprints can be calculated for any activity of organizations and populations or for urban development projects, services and products. The Ecological Footprint is measured in global hectares. A global hectare is 1 hectare of biologically productive space with world average productivity. In 2001 (the most recent year for which consistent data are available), the biosphere had 11.3 billion hectares of biologically productive area, corresponding to roughly one quarter of the planets surface. These 11.3 billion hectares include 2.3 billion hectares of water (ocean shelves and inland water) and 9.0 billion hectares of land. The land area is composed of 1.5 billion hectares of cropland, 3.5 billion hectares of grazing land, 3.9 billion hectares of forest land and 0.2 billion hectares of built-up land. In this report, the Ecological Footprint of consumption is calculated for each country. This includes the embodied resources contained within the goods and services that are consumed by people living in that country, as well as the associated waste. Resources used for the production of goods and services that are later exported are counted in the footprint of the country where the goods and The global Ecological Footprint is the area required to produce the material throughput of the human economy under current management and production practices. Typically expressed in global hectares, the Ecological Footprint can also be measured
in number of planets, whereby one planet represents the biological capacity of the Earth in agiven year. Results could also be expressed, for example, in Austrian or Danish hectares (hectares counts can express the same total value in different currencies. Ecological Footprint and biocapacity analyses are based primarily on data published by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the International Energy Agency (IEA), the UN Statistics Division (UN Commodity Trade Statistics Database UN Comtrade), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Other data sources include studies in peer-reviewed science journals and thematic collections. Biocapacity and Bioproductivity Biocapacity (biological capacity) is the total usable biological production capacity of a biologically productive area in a given year. Biocapacity can also be expressed in global hectares. Biologically productive area photosynthetic activity and production of biomass. Marginal areas with patchy vegetation and non-productive areas are not included in biocapacity estimates. There are 11.3 billion global hectares of biologically productive land and sea area on the planet. The remaining three quarters of the Earths surface, including deserts, ice caps and deep oceans, support comparatively low levels of bioproductivity, too dispersed to be harvested. Bioproductivity (biological productivity) is equal to biological production per unit area per year. Biological productivity is typically measured in terms of annual biomass accumulation.
Biocapacity available per person is calculated by dividing the 11.3 billion global hectares of biologically productive area by the number of people on Earth (6.15 billion in 2001). This ratio gives the average amount of biocapacity that exists on the planet per person: 1.8 global hectares. Assumptions Underlying the Calculations Ecological Footprint calculations are based on the following assumptions: It is possible to track the majority of the resources people consume and the wastes they generate. terms of the biologically productive area necessary to maintain these excluded from the assessment. This approach tends to underestimate the true Ecological Footprint. By weighting each area in proportion to its usable bioproductivity, different types of areas can be converted from hectares to global hectares, Footprint measurement. Since these different areas represent mutually exclusive uses and each global hectare represents the same amount of biomass production potential for a given year, they can be added up. This is the case for both the aggregate human demand (the Ecological Footprint) and the aggregate supply of biocapacity. Human demand expressed as the Ecological Footprint and natures supply expressed in global hectares of biocapacity can be directly compared. Area demanded can exceed area supplied. For example, the footprint of forest products harvested from a forest at twice its regeneration rate is twice the size of the actual forest. Use that exceeds the regeneration rate of nature is called ecological overshoot.
What is not Counted The results presented tend to underestimate human demand on nature and overestimate the available biocapacity by: choosing more optimistic bioproductivity estimates when in doubt (e.g. carbon absorption) excluding human demands on the biosphere for which there are excluding those activities that systematically erode natures capacity to regenerate, such as: cant assimilation capacity (e.g. plutonium, polychlorinated biphe- processes that irreversibly damage the biosphere (e.g. species The national footprint and biocapacity accounts also do not directly account for freshwater use and availability, since withdrawal of a cubic metre of freshwater affects biocapacity differently depending on local conditions. Removing one cubic metre from a wet area may make little difference to the local environment, while in arid areas every cubic metre removed can directly compromise ecosystem production. Hence, water assessments require very and availability indirectly, however, since this affects biocapacity through changes in crop and forest yields.
75
For consistency and to keep the global hectares additive, each area is only counted once in Ecological Footprint and biocapacity estimates, even if an area provides two or more ecological services. Also, the accounts include the productivity of cropland at the level of current yields, with no deduction for possible degradation. tions in future biocapacity assessments. Ecological Footprint calculations avoid double counting counting the same area twice. Considering bread, for example, wheat is can track these sequential processes and report the amounts of same wheat grain appears throughout the production process counting, the wheat is counted at only one stage of the process, while energy consumed at each stage of the process is added to the footprint. Methodology The Ecological Footprint methodology is in constant development and continually incorporates more detail and better data as they become available. Coordination of this task is being led by the Global Footprint Network, Oakland, California. This report uses the most current national footprint and biocapacity accounts methodology, building on Monfreda et al. (2004). An electronic copy of a sample data sheet and its underlying formula along with a detailed description of the calculation methodology are available at www. footprintnetwork.org. New features in the 2004 edition include: existing pasture areas unless livestock density is lower than half the carrying capacity of the pasture as calculated from net primary productivity estimates using FAOs Global Fibre Supply Model (FAO 2000) and omplementary FAO sources
A more complete data source for CO2 emissions (IEA 2003) New data sources for built-up area (FAO/IIASA 2000, EEA 1999). This analysis reports the footprint of consumption for nations and the world. Although, globally, the footprint of all goods and services produced must equal the footprint of all goods and services consumed, this is not the case at a national level. A nations footprint of consumption equals that nations footprint of production plus stocks). Domestic production is adjusted for production waste and, in the case of crops, the amount of seed necessary for growing the crops. The footprint of consumption is computed for all countries that are represented in UN statistical data from 1961 to 2001. The analysis uses approximately 3,500 data points and 10,000 calculations per country in each year. More than 200 resource categories are resource uses are translated into global hectares by dividing the total amount consumed in each category by its global average yield and then multiplying by the equivalence factor for the land type that produces those resources. Biomass yields, measured in dry weight, are taken from international statistics (FAO 2004b). Manufactured or derivative products, for example furniture or bread, are converted into parent product equivalents, in this case raw timber or wheat, for footprint calculations. For example, if 1 tonne of bread is exported, the amount of cereals and energy required to produce this tonne of bread are estimated. These quantities of primary products are then translated into a corresponding biologically productive area, then subtracted from the exporting countrys footprint and added to that of the importing country. Due to data limitations, a few categories of consumption activities, such as tourism, are attributed to the country in which they occur rather than to the consumers country of origin. This distorts the relative size of some countries footprints but does not affect the global result.
Area Types of the Ecological Footprint and Biocapacity Accounts The accounts track six main bioproductive area types. Once the human impacts are expressed in global hectares for each area type, these components are added together to obtain an aggregate footprint or biocapacity estimate. Cropland most productive land type. The FAO estimates that there are about 1.5 billion hectares of cropland worldwide. Using FAO harvest and yield data for 74 major crops, the cropland area corresponding to a given amount of crop production can be calculated. The accounts do not track possible decreases in long-term productivity due to degradation, however, as many impacts of current agricultural practices, such as topsoil erosion, salination and contamination of aquifers with agro-chemicals are not accounted for. Still, such damage will affect future bioproductivity as measured by these accounts. Grazing land Grazing animals for meat, hides, wool and milk requires grassland and pasture area. Worldwide, there are 3.5 billion hectares of natural and semi-natural grassland and pasture. The analysis assumes that 100 per cent of pasture is utilized, unless pasture is estimated to produce more than twice the feed requirement necessary for the grass-fed livestock. In this case, pasture demand is counted at twice the minimum area requirement. This means that the pasture footprint per unit of animal product is capped at twice the lowest possible pasture footprint per unit of animal product. This may lead to an underestimate of pasture demand since, even in low productivity grasslands, grazing animals are usually afforded full range and thus create human demand on the entire available grassland. by animals in each country. ach source of animal food is charged to the respective account (crop feed to the cropland footprint, exports of animal products, the embodied cropland and pasture is used with FAO trade data to charge animal product footprints to the country consuming the livestock products. Forest Area Harvesting trees and gathering fuelwood require natural or plantation forests. The FAOs most recent survey indicates that there are 3.9 billion hectares of forests worldwide. Forest productivities timber and fuelwood come from FAO data as well. The footprint of fuelwood consumption is calculated using timber growth rates that than roundwood alone is used for fuel and that lessmature forests with higher productivity can be used for fuelwood production. The dividing line between forest areas and grasslands is not sharp. For instance, FAO has included areas with 10 per cent of tree cover in the forest categories, while in reality these may be primarily grazed. While the relative distribution between forest and grassland areas may not be precisely determined, the accounts are constructed to ensure no single area is counted in more than one category of land.
77
Fishing ground located on continental shelves, which, excluding inaccessible or unproductive waters, total 1.9 billion hectares. Although this is a only a fraction of the oceans 36.3 billion hectare area, continental Inland waters comprise an additional 0.4 billion hectares, makbillion hectares of ocean and inland water that exist on the planet.
Energy land Burning fossil fuels adds CO2 to the atmosphere. The footprint of fossil fuel consumption is calculated by estimating the biologically productive area needed to sequester enough CO2 to avoid any increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Since the worlds oceans absorb about 1.8 gigatonnes of carbon every year (IPCC 2001), only the remaining carbon emissions are counted in the Ecological Footprint. To the extent that oceanic absorption negatively impacts the productivity of marine habitats, this approach underestimates the true footprint of carbon emissions. The current capacity of world average forests to sequester carbon is based on FAOs Global Fibre Supply Model and corrected where better data are available from other FAO sources such as FAO/UNECE 2000, FAO 1997b and FAO 2004b. Sequestration capacity changes with both the maturity and composition of forests and with shifts in bioproductivity due to higher atmospheric CO2 levels and associated changes in temperature and water availability. Other possible methods to account for fossil fuel use result in larger footprint estimates (Wackernagel and Monfreda 2004, Dukes 2003). Each thermal unit of nuclear energy is counted as equal in footpossibility of a negative longterm impact from nuclear waste. The hydropower footprint is the area occupied by hydroelectric dams and reservoirs, and is calculated for each country using the average ratio of power output to inundated reservoir area for the worlds 28 largest dams.
Built-up land Infrastructure for housing, transportation and industrial production occupies built-up land. This space is the least documented, since low-resolution satellite images are not able to capture dispersed infrastructure and roads. Data from CORINE (EEA 1999), GAEZ (FAO/IIASA 2000), and GLC (JRC/GVM 2000) are used to estimate existing built-up land areas. Best estimates indicate a global total of 0.2 billion hectares of built-up land. Built-up land is assumed to have replaced cropland, as human settlements are predominantly located in the most fertile areas of a country. As such, the 0.2 billion hectares of demanded and supplied built-up land appear in the Ecological Footprint accounts as 0.44 billion global hectares. Areas occupied by hydroelectric dams and reservoirs, used for the production of hydropower, are also counted as built-up land.
78
Embodied energy is the energy used during a products entire life cycle for manufacturing, transportation, product use and disposal. The net embodied energy in each product category is calculated with the COMTRADE database from the United Nations Statistical categories. The energy intensities (embodied energy per unit) for each product category are drawn from a variety of sources (IVEM 1999, Hofstetter 1992). Normalizing Bioproductive Areas tivity. In order to produce Ecological Footprint results in a single unit, global hectares, the calculations normalize areas across nations and area types to account for differences in land and sea productivity. Equivalence factors and yield factors are used to convert the actual areas in hectares of different land types into their equivalents in global hectares. These factors are used to calculate both footprints and biocapacities. Equivalence factors relate the average primary biomass productivities of different types of land (i.e. cropland, pasture, forest, ity of all land types in a given year. In 2001, for example, primary cropland had an equivalence factor of 2.19 (Table 7), indicating that primary cropland was more than twice as productive as a hectare of land with world average productivity. That same year, pasture had an equivalence factor of 0.48, showing that pasture was approximately half as productive as the average bioproductive hectare on Earth. Equivalence factors are calculated on a yearly basis, since the relative productivity of land-use types varies due to change in technology and resource management schemes. Yield factors account for the difference in productivity of a given type of land across nations. For example, a hectare of pasture in New Zealand produces more meat than a hectare of pasture in Jordan. To account for these differences, the yield factor compares the production of a national hectare to a world average hectare of
a given land type. Each country and each year has its own set of yield factors. To calculate the total biocapacity of a nation, each of the different types of bioproductive area within that nations borders, cropland, land, is multiplied by the equivalence factor for that land type (the same for every country in a given year) and the yield factor for that versions produce a biocapacity or footprint in terms of productivity adjusted area, biologically productive area expressed in world average productivity. To calculate the total biocapacity of a nation, each of the different types of bioproductive area within that nations borders, cropland, land, is multiplied by the equivalence factor for that land type (the same for every country in a given year) and the yield factor for that versions produce a biocapacity or footprint in terms of productivity adjusted area, biologically productive area expressed in world average productivity. The unit for productivity adjusted area in the accounts is the global hectare. Worldwide, the number of biologically productive hectares and the number of global hectares are the same. Natural Accounting Natural capital is the stock of natural assets that yield goods and services on a continuous basis. Major functions of natural capiwaste assimilation (such as CO2 absorption, sewage decomposition) and life support services (UV protection, biodiversity, water cleansing, climate stabilization).
79
print of a population exceeds the biocapacity of the populations which a countrys footprint exceeds its biocapacity. A national offset through trade, however, and leads to depletion of natural capital a global ecological overshoot. Ecological debt are expressed in planet-years, with one planet-year equal to the annual production of the global biosphere. Countries with footprints smaller than their locally available biocapacity have an ecological reserve, the opposite of an ecological be occupied by the footprints of other countries through production for export.
80
Appendix 3. Glossary of UNDP Terms

See http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2005/pdf/HDR05_backmatter.pdf for more details Education index One of the three indices on which the human development index is built. It is based on the adult literacy rate and the combined gross enrolment ratio for primary, secondary and tertiary schools. For details on how the index is calculated Enrolment ratio, gross, combined for primary, secondary and tertiary schools The number of students enrolled in primary, secondary and tertiary levels of education, regardless of age, as a percentage of the GDP (gross domestic product) The sum of value added by all resident producers in the economy plus any product taxes (less subsidies) not included in the valuation of output. It is calculated without making deductions for depreciation of fabricated capital assets or for depletion and degradation of natural resources. Value added is the net output of an industry after adding up all outputs and subtracting intermediate inputs. GDP (US$) rate reported by the International Monetary Fund. An alternative diverge by an exceptionally large margin from the rate effectively applied to transactions in foreign currencies and traded products. Human development index (HDI) The HDI is a summary measure of human development. It measures the average achievements in a country in three basic dimensions of human development: A long and healthy life, as measured by life expectancy at birth.
Knowledge, as measured by the adult literacy rate (with twothirds weight) and the combined primary, secondary and tertiary gross enrolment ratio (with one-third weight). A decent standard of living, as measured by GDP per capita (PPP US$). Before the HDI itself is calculated, an index needs to be created for each of these dimensions. To calculate these dimension indices the life expectancy, education and GDP indicesminimum and maximum values (goalposts) are chosen for each underlying indicator. Life expectancy at birth The number of years a newborn infant would live if prevailing patthe same throughout the childs life. Literacy rate, adult The percentage of people ages 15 and above who can, with understanding, both read and write a short, simple statement related to their everyday life. PPP (purchasing power parity) A rate of exchange that accounts for price differences across countries, allowing international comparisons of real output and incomes. At the PPP US$ rate (as used in this Report), PPP US$1 has the same purchasing power in the domestic economy as $1 has in the United States.
Appendix 4. Literature and References

Footprint Resources Global Footprint Network (www.footprintnetwork.org) Latest Footprint results for nations co- sponsored by European Environment Agency http://org.eea.eu.int/news/Ann1132753060 Footprint Draft Standards (2005) www.footprintstandards.org World-Wide Fund for Nature International (WWF), Global Footprint Ecological Wealth, WWF, Gland, Switzerland. editor: Mathis Wackernagel and Justin Kitzes. http://www.footprintnetwork.org/newsletters/gfn_blast_ap_report_2005.html Mathis Wackernagel, Chad Monfreda, Dan Moran, Steve Golding calculation method Global Footprint Network, Oakland, www. footprintnetwork.org. Earlier version published in Land Use Policy, 21 (2004) 231246. Mathis Wackernagel, Niels B. Schulz, Diana Deumling, Alejandro Callejas Linares, Martin Jenkins, Valerie Kapos, Chad Monfreda, Jonathan Loh, Norman Myers, Richard Norgaard, & Jorgen RandProc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 99, Issue 14, 9266-9271, July 9, 2002 [direct access to abstract www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/ 142033699v1 World-Wide Fund for Nature International (WWF), Global Footprint Network, 2005, Europe 2005: The Ecological Footprint, WWF, Gland, Switzerland. Editor: Mathis Wackernagel and Dan Moran. http://www.footprintnetwork.org/newsletters/gfn_blast_europe05. html Boutaud A. Dveloppement durable: quelques vrits embarras
santes. Economie et Humanisme 363: 4-6. (2002). WWF (World-Wide Fund for Nature International, Global Footprint Network, UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre). 2004. Living Planet Report 2004. WWF, Gland, Switzerland. www. panda.org/livingplanet WWF (World-Wide Fund for Nature International, Global Footprint Network, UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre). 2005. WWF, Gland, Switzerland. www.panda.org/livingplanet Development and Environment Resources The World Commission on Environment and Development (WCSD). Our Common Future, Chair: Gro Harlem Brundtland. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 8, 44. (1987). Edward O. Wilson (Foreword), Norman Myers (Editor), Jennifer Kent (Editor) (2005) The New Atlas of Planet Management. The University of California Press United Nations Development Programme. Human Development Report 2004. New York. (2005). Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis Report. Island Press. (2005). Development Centre of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 2006. The Rise of China and India: Whats in it for Africa? Paris, France. Dennis. L. Meadows, Fishbanks Game, UNH, Durham NH. [ComIllustrates principles for management of renewable resources.
Acknowledgements
This report was written and edited by Julia Beers, Brooking Easy to play by everyone from high schools students to government Justin Kitzes*, Audrey Peller*, Mathis Wackernagel*, Paul Wermer. We gratefully acknowledge the guidance of Franois Droz from SDC. Much of the background research for this Jared Diamond, 2005, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or factbook would not have been possible without the generous Succeed. NY: Viking Penguin. support from Dudley Foundation, the Flora Family Fund, the Lawrence Foundation, the Max and Anna Levinson FoundaDavid Pearce, E. Barbier and A. Makandya, 1989. Blueprint for a tion, the San Francisco Foundation, the Soup Community, the Green Economy, Earthscan London. Roy A Hunt Foundation, Grant Abert, Margrit and Frank BalmDonella Meadows, Jorgen Randers & Dennis Meadows, 2004. Lim- er, Gerald O. Barney, Urs and Barbara Burckhardt, the estate its to Growth: The 30-Year Update. White River Junction, Vermont: of Lucius Burckhardt, Max and Rosemarie Burkhard, Leslie Christian, Anthony D. Cortese, Sharon Ede, Eric Frothingham, Chelsea Green Margaret Haley, Alfred Hoffmann, Tamas Makray, Charles McNeill, Ruth and Hans-Edi Moppert, Kaspar Mller, Lutz United Nations Environment Programme: Africa Environment Outlook 2, Nairobi (2006). http://www.unep.org/dewa/africa/aeo2_ Peters, William G. Reed, Peter Seidel, Peter Schiess, Daniela Schlettwein, Dieter Steiner, Dale and Dianne Thiel, Lynne and launch/index.asp Bill Twist, Caroline Wackernagel, Hans and Johanna WackRichard Layard, (2005), Happiness: Lessons from a New Science, ernagel, Isabelle Wackernagel, Marie-Christine Wackernagel, Oliver and Bea Wackernagel, Yoshihiko Wada, Tom Welte, the Penguin, London, 320 p. 70 partner organizations of the Global Footprint Network, and Nadya Bodansky, John Crittenden, Katherine Loo, and Gary Moore from Cooley Godward LLP for their generous support of D. Deumling and M. Murray. 2005. National Footprint and BiocaEcological Footprint research. pacity Accounts 2005: The Underlying Calculation Method. http:// www.footprintnetwork.org/download.php?id=5 *Global Footprint Network project leaders
Cover photograph (giraffes) courtesy of Nick Baum

Contact Information
Global Footprint Network www.footprintnetwork.org Global Footprint Network 3270 Lakeshore Ave Oakland,CA 94610 USA Tel. +1-510-839-8879 (Time Zone -8 GMT) Fax +1-510-251-2410 Please address all enquiries to: Martin Krcher ([email protected]) or Audrey Peller ([email protected]) To access a PDF version of this document and questionnaire, please visit: http://www.footprintnetwork.org/Africa
84
85

Africa Factbook

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Africa Factbook

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Africa Factbook

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Africas Ecological Footprint:

Human Well-Being and Biological Capital

Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation

Global Footprint Network

Figures and Tables

Global Footprint Network : Africa 2006 -- the Ecological Footprint : Factbook

Global Footprint Network: Africas Ecological Footprint - 2006 Factbook

1. Purpose of this Factbook

Global Footprint Network : Africa 2006 -- the Ecological Footprint : Factbook

2. Africa and Ecological Limits

3. Measuring Human Development

Global Footprint Network: Africas Ecological Footprint - 2006 Factbook

ECOLOGICAL OVERSHOOT, 1961-2002 1.4

Width of bar is proportional to population (shown in millions)

1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2

Earth's biological capacity

12.00 Built-up land Food, fibre, and timber

Hum anity's total Ecological Footprint

CO2 portion of hum anity's Ecological Footprint

Figure 4.2 Humanitys Ecological Footprint

Figure 4.3 Ecological Footprint by Region, 2002

Trinidad and Tobago

Serbia and Montenegro

Papua New Guinea

Belgium & Luxembourg

Figure 4.1 Ecological Footprint per person, by country 2002

Global Footprint Network: Africas Ecological Footprint - 2006 Factbook

Figure 4.4 Global Distribution of Ecological Footprint Intensity, 2001

Global Footprint Network: Africas Ecological Footprint - 2006 Factbook 7

Figure 4.5 Living on Less, Living on More, 2001

Global Footprint Network: Africas Ecological Footprint - 2006 Factbook

5. Human Development and Ecological Limits

Global Footprint Network: Africas Ecological Footprint - 2006 Factbook

Brazil Algeria South Africa France, UK Switzerland

Human Development Index (HDI)

Global Footprint Network: Africas Ecological Footprint - 2006 Factbook

6. Human Development and Biocapacity in Africa

.8 (2 au a M n i .8 ) ) a ) rit (1 1.7 9.7 2.0) ( ( a u a (3 5) M wan ria sia bia 0. (7 ts g e u n i m i pt T Na Bo Al y Eg

Figure 6.2 Ecological Footprint in Africa

Global Footprint Network: Africas Ecological Footprint - 2006 Factbook

7. Trading Biological Capacity

Global Footprint Network: Africas Ecological Footprint - 2006 Factbook

8. Managing Ecological Assets to Secure Human Well-Being: Five Factors at Play

Global Footprint Network: Africas Ecological Footprint - 2006 Factbook

Ecological Footprint (Demand)

Gap Between Biological Demand and Supply

Global Footprint Network: Africas Ecological Footprint - 2006 Factbook

9. Fact Pages for Selected Countries

Global Footprint Network: Africas Ecological Footprint - 2006 Factbook

9.1 Human Development Benchmarks

9.2 Human Development and Environmental Performance

Top 20% Middle 60%

Bottom 20% Life Expectancy Index Education Index GDP Index

Human Development Index

51 55% 59% $2,424

50% 67% 44% 51% $1,457 $3,395

Africa 824 $794 1.10 1.30

Africa 824 $794 1.10 1.30

44% 65% 22%