División de la psicomotricidad

7.6.1 Background and description

The method of analysis known as the ecological footprint was developed by, among others, Ma- this Wackernagel and William E. Rees. Originally, the two researchers referred to it as ‘appropriated carrying capacity’, but in 1996, in order to make the method more accessible, they introduced the term ‘ecological footprint’ in their book Our Eco-

logical Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. Since then, the concept has become

well established in literature and thinking in fields

190.Villner et al. (2009). 191.Villner et al. (2009). 192.Chapagain & Orr (2008a). 193.WWF (2008a). (Online.) 194.Chapagain & Orr (2008a). 195.Chapagain et al. (2006). 196.Chapagain & Hoekstra (2007). 197.Aldaya & Hoekstra (2009).

such as sustainable development, ecologically sustainable development and environmental eco- nomics.198

The ecological footprint is a measure of how much of the earth’s biologically productive area we as humans make use of to maintain our con- sumption of goods and services. It thus corresponds to the biologically productive area needed to enable the goods and services we consume to be produced, distributed and, where relevant, disposed of, and to absorb the waste in the form of carbon dioxide that they generate.199 _{To calculate this footprint, our}

consumption is related to the components crop- land, grazing land, forest, built-up land, fishing grounds, and land to absorb carbon dioxide.200 _To

enable the ecological footprints of different coun- tries to be compared, the areas arrived at are ex- pressed in global hectares per person.

7.6.2 Method

The commonest type of ecological footprint is one that includes all the consumption occurring in a country – that is, the area required for the country’s consumption. The footprint of con- sumption (in global hectares) consists of the foot- print attributable to all the goods and services produced in the country, plus the footprint of im- ported goods and services, minus the footprint of exported goods and services.

A global hectare is defined as a hectare of bio- logically productive land or water with world- average productivity in a given year. In 2002 the biosphere included 11.4 billion hectares of biologi- cally productive land or water, of which 2 billion hectares was sea and 9.4 billion hectares land. One

global hectare is a hectare representing the average productivity of these 11.4 billion hectares.

Within a particular type of land, an area’s abil- ity to produce goods and services varies, depending on factors such as climate and topography. Yield factors take account of differences between coun- tries in the productivity of a given land type. For each country and each year, there are yield factors for cropland, grazing land, forest and fisheries.

To be able to compare the ecological footprints of different countries, use is made of equivalence factors, which convert a hectare of a given land type in a country into global hectares. Equiva- lence factors are the same for all countries, but vary from one year to another, owing to changes in the productivity of ecosystems or land types. These variations may be due to environmental factors, such as weather conditions.201

By comparing ecological footprint and bio- capacity, we obtain a balance sheet of natural re- sources. If the difference between biocapacity and ecological footprint is negative, there is said to be an ‘ecological deficit’, and if positive, an ‘ecologi- cal reserve’.

When the Global Footprint Network (GFN), an international think tank, calculates ecological footprints and biocapacity, it uses data from na- tional and international statistical and research bodies, such as the UN and countries’ statistical agencies in fields such as agriculture, forestry and energy. Consumption and final use are calcu- lated taking into account domestic production and trade. When official data are not available, information is obtained from a variety of aca- demic, private and other sources.202

198.SOU 2009:83, Bilagedel.

199.C. Borgström-Hansson (email, 27 Nov. 2009). 200.C. Borgström-Hansson (email, 4 Dec. 2009). 201.Villner et al. (2009).

The footprint for Sweden published as part of GFN’s National Footprint Accounts and in WWF’s Living Planet Report 2008 is based on international data from the Food and Agricul- ture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the International Energy Agency (IEA), the United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).203, 204

Standards exist to define the framework for any project wishing to use the ecological foot- print concept as agreed within the Global Foot- print Network. The most recent standards are from 2009.205

The ecological footprint is a composite meas- ure made up of several components. If Statistics Sweden, for example, were to develop a simi- lar metric, it would begin by breaking it down

into several elements. Carbon dioxide emissions associated with Swedish consumption, for in- stance, would be calculated using environmental accounts. Land use linked to the country’s con- sumption would also have to be calculated separ- ately. This would require methods development, as no such calculations are performed at present. The measure would probably be more interesting if it could also distinguish between different types of land use. It is unlikely, though, that Statistics Sweden would combine the various elements and compare the total with the earth’s or Sweden’s estimated biocapacity, in the way the ecological footprint approach does. Instead, users of the statistics would have to make such comparisons themselves.206

Quantity consumed

(tonnes/year) / x =

x

x =

Average global yield

(tonnes/ha/year) Equivalence factor (gha/ha) Area required (gha)

Available land

(ha) National yield factor Equivalence factor (gha/ha) Biocapacity (gha)

Biocapacity Ecological footprint

figure 19. Formulas for calculating ecological footprint and biocapacity

source: von stokar et al.

Biocapacity – a measure of biological productivity – is the capacity of ecosystems to produce biological materials useful to people and to absorb man-made emissions of carbon dioxide. The biocapacity of an area indicates its

average biological productivity during the year to which the statistics relate. It depends not only on natural factors, but also on methods of land use, such as agriculture and forestry.

203.C. Borgström-Hansson (email, 27 Nov. 2009). 204.WWF (2008c). (Online.)

205. C. Borgström-Hansson (email, 4 Nov. 2009). 206.Villner et al. (2009).

7.6.3 Advantages and weaknesses

Advantages of the ecological footprint include: • The method covers several aspects of resource

use.

• It is known and widely used around the world, in both government and industry, and forms a basis for the work of many international re- searchers.

• Results for Sweden, and for many other coun- tries in the world, are already available and can be compared.

• The method can be used for areas of varying size. • Data and time series are available.

• The method lends itself to continuous follow- up (e.g. every five years).

Weaknesses of this approach include:

• Use of other data sources and modifications in the choice of variables included and the weight- ing system applied can significantly change the resulting message.

• There are gaps in the statistics available, re- quiring some method of imputation to calcu- late the missing data. Often, different types of data sources, of varying quality, are used to fill the gaps.

• To gain full access to the variables, weighting factors, imputation techniques etc. involved, a li- cence has to be obtained and a licensing fee paid. • The ecological footprint includes a large

number of variables to which weighting factors are applied. How these factors are calculated is not documented in sufficient detail to allow independent audits.

• The ecological footprint includes an estimate of the area of forest that would be needed to absorb carbon dioxide emissions. This calcu- lation assumption enables a uniform measure to be obtained from a multidimensional col- lection of parameters of environmental pres- sure.207, 208 _{However, the inclusion of estimated}

values may be perceived as a disadvantage. • The method cannot be used to describe con-

sumption of resources, or disposal of waste which nature is unable to absorb, such as minerals, heavy metals, radioactive waste and persistent organic pollutants.209

7.6.4 usefulness

The ecological footprint is most clearly of rele- vance to the environmental quality objective Re-

duced Climate Impact, but more generally it has a

bearing on most of the environmental objectives. The initial impression is that, for the time be- ing, this approach could be difficult to use with- in the environmental objectives system to meas- ure and monitor the global impacts of Swedish consumption. On the other hand, it could serve in this context as an example of a method that makes it clear, in broad terms, that there is a limit to our use of natural resources and that there are significant differences in resource use in different parts of the world.

In making this assessment, particular account has been taken of the considerable complexity of the ecological footprint approach. It is based on a wide array of statistics and associated co- efficients, which vary in their scope, design and transparency.210

207. Villner et al. (2009).

208.V. Palm (email, 25 Mar. 2010). 209.SOU 2009:83, Bilagedel. 210.Villner et al. (2009).

7.6.5 development projects relating to ecological footprints

The ecological footprint method is widely used around the world, in both government and indus- try, and forms a basis for the work of many inter- national researchers. For example:

• Wales uses the ecological footprint as its main indicator of sustainability.

• Switzerland uses it in its sustainable develop- ment plan.

• Japan uses the ecological footprint as a meas- ure in its environmental plan.

• Ecological footprints have been calculated for a large number of countries.

• The UN publishes data deriving from ecologi- cal footprints.211, 212

reAp – A TOOL TO cALcuLATe ecOLOgIcAL fOOTprINTS

In June 2009 a three-year project called the One

Planet Economy Network: Europe was launched,

with the aim of developing a Resources and En- ergy Analysis Programme (REAP) for the whole of the EU. REAP is a software tool with two basic functions that can calculate footprints at the local, regional and national levels. One func- tion, REAP baseline, can be used to calculate the environmental pressures associated with a popu- lation’s consumption of goods and services, ex- pressed as a selection of consumption-based indi- cators, including carbon footprint and ecological footprint. REAP baseline uses the method of in- put–output analysis.213 _{The other function, REAP}

scenario manager, answers ‘What if...?’ questions. It is used to assess how different policy decisions and changes in consumer behaviour could affect the global environmental pressures from the population’s footprints. The project is being co- ordinated by WWF-UK and involves several European research institutes.214,215 _{As part of the}

REAP project, the Stockholm Environment Insti- tute (SEI) and WWF Sweden are calculating the ecological and carbon footprints of every local authority area in Sweden. This Swedish compo- nent is expected to be completed during 2010.216

eu ANd eeA reLATINg fOOTprINT TO SuSTAINAbILITy INdIcATOrS

On behalf of the European Commission, the European Environment Agency (EEA) is analysing the relationship between the ecological footprint and various sustainability indicators. A ‘road- map’ is to be developed as the basis for a basket of indicators. This is intended to provide a concise, indicator-based assessment that can serve to sup- port four processes, including the Commission’s work on a Resources Strategy and its efforts to develop an advanced indicator based on Euro- pean gross domestic product. The EEA also draws attention to the UN’s Human Development Index (HDI) and Human Well-being Index as important methods of measuring progress in human welfare, for example in terms of longevity and health.

211.Ewing et al. (2008). (Online.) 212. SOU 2009:83, Bilagedel.

213.C. Borgström-Hansson (email, 3 Nov. 2009). 214.C. Borgström-Hansson (email, 18 Dec. 2009). 215.Paul (2008). (Online.)

7.7 Fair shares in