Title

THE ECOLOGICAL WEALTH OF NATIONS

Earths biocapacity as a new framework for international cooperation
The Ecological Power of Nations 3
Contents
Foreword 1
Exploring a new perspective 2
Biocapacity and the sustainability challenge 3
Global ecological limits 4
Ecological Footprint and biocapacity of nations 6
Development that fits on one Earth 10
Human Development Index and Ecological
Footprint of countries, 2006 12
Biocapacity constraints and national well-being 16
A new map of the world 18
Investment risks and opportunities 20
Interpreting national Footprint
and biocapacity trends 22
Biocapacity & Ecological Footprint over time
World, Latin America, North America & Oceania 24
Africa 25
Asia 26
Europe 27
Data Tables:
Ecological Footprint and biocapacity
of nations, 2005 28
References and further reading 36
Global Footprint Network partner organizations 37
EDITORS Global Footprint Network, promotes a Photograph courtesy of NASA was taken by
Steven Goldfinger sustainable economy by advancing the an Expedition 7 crewmember onboard the
Pati Poblete International Space Station (ISS).
Ecological Footprint, a tool that makes
TEXT AND GRAPHICS sustainability measurable. Together with Photograph from Patricio Pillajo courtesy of
its partners, the network coordinates Fundacin Terra.
Susan Burns
William Coleman research, develops methodological
Cover photo: Canada. Quebec Province.
Brad Ewing standards and provides decision makers
Katsunori Iha
Charlevoix forest. Yann Arthus-Bertrand.
with robust resource accounts to help Page 2: Plantation. Juan Alfonso Pea;
Alessandro Galli Carrots. Juan Alfonso Pea; Tomatoes.
the human economy operate within the
Steven Goldfinger Juan Alfonso Pea; Corn. Juan Alfonso
David Moore Earths ecological limits. Pea; Herbs. Juan Alfonso Pea; Water.
Juan Alfonso Pea Patricio Pillajo. Page 5: Anvil clouds over
Pati Poblete the Pacific Ocean, NASA Human Spaceflight
Anders Reed Collection, ISS007-E-10807, 21 July, 2003.
Meredith Stechbart Page 11: Ivory Coast. Crowd at Abengourou.
Mathis Wackernagel Yann Arthus-Bertrand. Page 14: Kenya.
Small African fields. Yann Arthus-Bertrand.
NATIONAL FOOTPRINT Page 22: Ecuador. Sierra region. Fields near
ACCOUNTS Quito. Yann Arthus-Bertrand. Page 23: Mali.
Market gardening near Tombouctou. Yann
William Coleman
Arthus-Bertrand.
Brad Ewing
Alessandro Galli
Published in April 2010 by Global
David Moore
Footprint Network, Oakland, California,
Anna Oursler
United States of America. 2010 Global
Anders Reed
Footprint Network. All rights reserved.
Meredith Stechbart
Any reproduction in full or in part of this This report was made possible through
Mathis Wackernagel
Robert Williams
publication must mention the title and the generous support of the Flora Family
credit the aforementioned publisher as the Foundation; Foundation for Global
copyright owner. Community; Mental Insight Foundation;
GRAPHIC DESIGN
Info Grafik Inc. Skoll Foundation; TAUPO Fund; Luc
This report is a revision of an earlier edition Hoffmann; Andr and Rosalie Hoffmann;
Daniela Arias that was written and produced by Juan
Catherine Oeri; Lutz Peters; Daniela
Juan Alfonso Pea Alfonso Pea, and published in August
Schlettwein-Gsell; Peter Seidel; Terry and
2009.
PRINTER Mary Vogt; Marie-Christine Wackernagel
Hunza Graphics Burckhardt; and Oliver and Bea
Oakland, California, Wackernagel.
Photographs
United States of America.
Photographs courtesy of Yann Arthus-
We would also like to acknowledge Global
Footprint Networks partner organizations
Bertrand from the book Earth from Above:
365 Days published by Harry N. Abrams, and the Global Footprint Network National
Inc., 2001 Harry N. Abrams, Inc. See www. Accounts Committee for their guidance,
yannarthusbertrand.org and www.goodplanet. contributions and commitment to robust
org. National Footprint Accounts.
Foreword
When I was born in 1962 most of the
worlds countries were using resources
and emitting carbon dioxide at a rate
that their own ecosystems could keep
up with. Today, less than 20 percent of
the worlds population lives in countries
where this is still the case.
How do we know this? By using
Ecological Footprint accounting, a
method for calculating societys use of
natures assets. Based on data from
the United Nations, as well as in-country
statistical sources, it compares humanitys
Ecological Footprint (the demand our
consumption places on the biosphere)
with biocapacity (the biospheres ability
to meet this demand), providing a kind
of bank statement for the planet. The
results for 2006, which are presented in
this report: Our Footprint now overshoots
the Earths biocapacity by more than 40
percent. In other words, the planets living
systems need to grow for about a year
and five months to meet the demands we
are placing on them in a single year.
Overshoot is possible only for a limited
time. Similar to the financial world, we
can temporarily eat into our ecological
savings by drawing down our resource
stocks; or we can take out a loan to
be repaid at a future date, putting
more carbon into the air than nature
can currently absorb. But for how long
can we do this, and at what cost in the
interim? Based on current United Nations
agencies projections of moderate
population growth, a slight decline in
world hunger, partial decarbonization of
global energy systems, and a continued
increase in agricultural productivity, by
the late 2030s humanity will need the
equivalent of two Earths to keep up with
our demands.
With demand so far out of synch with
supply, and ecological debt accumulating
from decades of ecological overspending,
it is unrealistic to assume we can even
reach this level of consumption. There just
are not that many fisheries to overfish,
forests to deforest, or atmospheres to
fill up with CO2 before climate change
wreaks havoc with food and water
supplies.
We have a choice: Maintaining the right
to develop a key motivation behind
this publication, and more broadly, the
activities of Global Footprint Network
means moving away from our current
course, one which all too often seems to
be more about maintaining the right to
collapse. We must work with natures
budget, not against it, if we are to secure
human well-being for both current and
future generations.
To succeed, and to make this success
last, we need to alter the path we are
on today. I am an unwavering optimist
and am convinced we can. Consider
this: If the current trends in biocapacity
and Footprint represented financial
trajectories, every planner, economist
or minister would recognize the urgency Mathis Wackernagel, Ph.D.
of changing course, and develop an President, Global Footprint Network
aggressive agenda for rectifying the
situation. Nothing less is required with
our current ecological trajectory. After
all, more money can be printed, but
natures assets cannot.
The Ecological Wealth of Nations 1
Exploring a new perspective
This report documents the demand that humanity is put-
ting on the Earths ecological assets, and the capacity of
ecosystems to keep up with this demand, both globally
and by individual nation. The analysis is primarily based on
statistical information that countries report to the United
Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UN FAO), the
UN Development Program (UNDP) and other international
organizations
The purpose of this publication is to provide data rather
than policy recommendations, and to open a creative
debate over the implications of living in a resource-
constrained world. Statistics show that humanity is using
resources and turning them into wastes faster than the
Earths living systems can absorb these wastes or turn
them back into resources. This information is intended to
raise awareness and catalyze a discussion of the various
risks and opportunities for individual countries created by
this imbalance, exploring questions such as:
What does this global ecological overshoot mean to those
countries that use less biological capacity than they have
available?
2 The Ecological Wealth of Nations
Conversely, what does it mean for those who are run-
ning an ecological deficit?
What are the political, economic, social and strategic
implications of eight countries controlling more than half
the planets biological capacity?
How can nations work together to best manage ecologi-
cal assets so that they are not depleted or degraded,
but rather, can continue to meet human demands while
maintaining a healthy biodiversity?
The data presented in this publication are intended to
enhance understanding of the extent, use and distribution
of ecological assets, and their relationship to human well-
being. It provides an objective and measurable starting
point for politicians, decision-makers, opinion leaders and
citizens to address the sustainability challenge how to
live well, while living within the means of the planet. This
challenge is perhaps the key issue of the 21st century,
and how it is resolved will likely determine the fate of
humanity and the rest of the Earths species.
Global Footprint Network invites all countries and orga-
nizations to participate in this debate, and to explore the
implications of the Ecological Footprint and biocapacity
data for national development, valuation of ecological
services, and international agreements, such as those
designed to protect biodiversity. In addition, these data
provide an important perspective for shaping and evaluat-
ing post-Copenhagen initiatives related to the emission
and capture of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil
fuels, deforestation and other sources.
In a world that is confronting simultaneous limits on food,
water, soil, energy, climate and biodiversity, this perspec-
tive brings current ecological realities into sharper focus.
In particular, it can help gauge whether proposed solu-
tions will result in an absolute reduction in humanitys
ecological overshoot, or will just transfer pressure from
one stressed ecosystem to another.
Biocapacity and the sustainability challenge
Increasing economic globalization and
a rapidly growing world population are
pushing resource consumption and fossil
fuel emissions to unprecedented levels.
The ecosystems that provide society
with these resources and absorb its
carbon emissions can no longer keep up.
Just as we are moving toward a single
global economy, scientists are coming
to see the planet as a single, integrated,
self-regulating organism. Thus, it is not
surprising that as we surpass ecological
limits, multiple consequences such as
climate change, ocean acidification
and biodiversity loss are emerging
simultaneously. Solving this problem
means addressing not just carbon or any
other single limit in isolation. Instead,
a more holistic approach is required to
ensure that pressure is not just being
shifted from one part of the biosphere to
another.
The Ecological Footprint, a resource
accounting tool, takes such a holistic
approach by tracking flows of resources
and carbon emissions through production,
consumption and trade to show where
ecological assets are available and
where they are being used. Such a tool
is vital in addressing the dangers of our
ongoing ecological challenge. We have
been running annual ecological deficits
for at least a quarter of a century, and
as this debt grows, the ecosystems
that support our health and our
economies are in increasing danger of
deterioration or collapse. We cannot
continue to ignore the importance
of our ecological assets, and the
fact that they are impacted by both
poverty and affluence. Now, more
than ever, it is essential to recognize
that humanitys health and well-being
depend on the health and well-being
of the Earths ecosystems.
Countries that import food, fiber and timber
resources or products that incorporate
them are meeting their consumption
demands by using ecological assets from
outside their own borders, and are at risk
if demand outpaces supply, or if resource
shortages develop in the exporting country.
Countries exporting these resources are
using their ecological assets to generate
revenue flows, in addition to meeting their
own needs, and thus are at economic risk
if domestic demand for these resources
grows, or if resource productivity, and thus
export income, declines. In addition, many
countries generate more carbon emissions
than their own ecosystems can sequester;
if the world decides that countries will have
to pay for these excess emissions, this may
entail significant new costs.
Tracking resource and emissions flows is a
key step in addressing pressure on these
overburdened ecosystems. Reducing this
pressure is not just altruistic. While doing
so will benefit all of humanity and many
other species, it is also in the self-interest
of nations to know how much natural
capital they have and how much they are
using. Understanding whose ecological
assets they are dependent on and who
is dependent on theirs will help nations
identify both risks and opportunities,
Image The Ministry for the Environment, New Zeland
and will help ensure that
investments they make
in development today will
continue to pay dividends tomorrow.
The Ecological Footprint helps clarify
these risks and opportunities, laying the
foundation for ecologically-sound decision-
making and a new global collaboration, one
based on the sharing of ecological assets,
without their depletion or degradation.
Throughout this publication, you will
see demonstrated the growing need for
nations to recognize the value of their own
ecological assets, as well as the need to
find a way for humanity to live well, within
the means of our planet. You will also learn
more about the Ecological Footprint, and
what it tells us about the current ecological
balances of both individual countries and
the world as a whole.
The Ecological Wealth of Nations 3
Global Ecological Limits
12
Figure 1: Human Demand on the Biosphere, 1961-2006 The Ecological Footprint measures the
1.5 area of biologically productive land and
Biocapacity
water required to provide the resources
used and absorb the carbon dioxide
Footprint
waste generated by human activity, under
1 Earth
current technology. Accounting for a
countrys consumption Footprint starts
with all goods and services produced
in that country, then adds imports and
0.5
subtracts exports.
Ecological Footprint Biocapacity is the area of productive land
Biocapacity
and water available to produce resources
0.0
1960 1975 1990 2005
or absorb carbon dioxide waste, given
current management practices. Both the
Ecological Footprint and biocapacity are
measured in standard units called global
Human Demand hectares (gha). One gha represents a
In 1961 we used a little hectare of forest, cropland, grazing land
or fishing grounds with world average
more than half of the Earths productivity.
biocapacity; in 2006 we used While economies, populations and
to keep up with our consumption. Stay-
ing on this course would quickly diminish
our room to maneuver, and the well-being
of many of the planets residents would
be increasingly at risk.
In 2006, by September 11, humanity had
used all the combined resource produc-
tion and carbon sequestration capacity
that the planets ecosystems had avail-
able for that entire year. Since the mid-
1980s, when global ecological overshoot
first became a consistent reality, we
have been drawing down the biospheres
principal rather than living off its annual
interest. To support our consumption, we
have been liquidating resource stocks
and allowing carbon dioxide to accumu-
late in the atmosphere.
Ecological overshoot is possible only for
a limited time before ecosystems begin
to degrade and possibly collapse. This

44% more than was available.
resource demands grow, the size of the
planet remains the same. In 2006, hu-
manitys Footprint exceeded global bio-
capacity by 44 percent (Figure 1). Moder-
ate United Nations projections suggest
demand will grow significantly faster than
biocapacity, and that by the late 2030s,
the capacity of two Earths will be needed
can already be seen in water shortages,
desertification, erosion, reduced cropland
productivity, overgrazing, deforestation,
rapid extinction of species, collapse of
fisheries and global climate change. New
consequences of overshoot are regularly
being discovered, and others may only
become apparent long into the future.

4 The Ecological Wealth of Nations

The biosphere is made up of complex, interactive systems that If these changes exceed certain thresholds conditions could de- Photo of anvil clouds over the Pacific Ocean. NASA, 21 July, 2003
are often unpredictable. Air, water, land, and life -- including hu- part from those that were present during the course of human
man life -- combine forces to create a constantly changing world. evolution, making the planet a less hospitable place to us to live.

The Ecological Wealth of Nations 5

 Global hectares (millions) Global hectares (millions)

0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0
3000
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000

6
United States
UnitedStates United States
UnitedStates
China
China China
China
Russian Federation
Russia India
India
Canada
Canada Russian Federation
Russia
India
India Japan
Japan
Argentina
Argentina United
United Kingdom
Kingdom
Bolivia
Bolivia Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico Germany
Germany

The Ecological Wealth of Nations

Colombia
Colombia Italy
Italy
France
France France
France
Congo,
Congo, Democratic DRC
Republic of Spain
Spain
Germany
Germany Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria Turkey
Turkey
Peru
Peru Canada
Canada
Turkey
Turkey Iran, Islamic Republic Iranof
Sudan
Sudan Korea,
Korea, South
Republic of
Ukraine
Ukraine Poland
Poland
United
United Kingdom
Kingdom South Africa
SouthAfrica
South Africa
SouthAfrica Ukraine
Ukraine

Figure 3. Total Biocapacity, by country, 2006

Japan
Japan Pakistan
Pakistan
Myanmar
Myanmar Argentina
Argentina
Figure 2. Total Ecological Footprint, by country, 2006

Venezuela, BolivarianVenezuela
Republic of Thailand
Thailand
Poland
Poland Egypt
Egypt
Iran, Islamic RepublicIranof Viet Nam
VietNam
Finland
Finland Colombia
Colombia
Ecological Footprint and biocapacity of nations

Thailand
Thailand Saudi Arabia
SaudiArabia
Chile
Chile Sudan
Sudan
Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan Netherlands
Netherlands
Paraguay
Paraguay Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan
Italy
Italy Greece
Greece
Madagascar
Madagascar Algeria
Algeria
Pakistan
Pakistan Venezuela, BolivarianVenezuela
Republic of
Spain
Spain Belgium
Belgium
Angola
Angola Romania
Romania
New Zealand
NewZealand CzechCzech Republic
Republic
Romania
Romania Chile
Chile
Congo
Congo Peru
Peru
Viet Nam
VietNam Myanmar
Myanmar
Cameroon
Cameroon Uzbekistan
Uzbekistan
Central African
Central African Republic
Rep. Portugal
Portugal
Chad
Chad Congo,
Congo, Democratic DRC
Republic of
Tanzania
Tanzania, United Republic of United
United Arab
Arab Emirates
Emirates
Zambia
Zambia Switzerland
Switzerland
Belarus
Belarus Morocco
Morocco
Saudi Arabia
SaudiArabia Belarus
Belarus
Cte d'Ivoire
Cted'Ivoire Austria
Austria
Ecuador
Ecuador Tanzania
Tanzania, United Republic of
Mali
Mali Denmark
Denmark
Norway
Norway Iraq
Iraq
Denmark
Denmark Ghana
Ghana
Morocco
Morocco Israel
Israel
Algeria
Algeria Ireland
Ireland
Guinea
Guinea Korea,
Korea, Democratic People's North
Republic of
CzechCzech Republic
Republic Hungary
Hungary
Niger
Niger New Zealand
NewZealand
Hungary
Hungary Syrian Arab Republic
Syria
Ghana
Ghana Finland
Finland
Austria
Austria Slovakia
Slovakia
Uzbekistan
Uzbekistan Cuba
Cuba
Egypt
Egypt Ecuador
Ecuador
PapuaPapuaNewNewGuinea
Guinea Bulgaria
Bulgaria
Bulgaria
Bulgaria Niger
Niger
Burkina
BurkinaFaso
Faso Bolivia
Bolivia
Cropland
Cropland

Mauritania Madagascar
Fishing G

Mauritania Madagascar
Grazing L
Grazing L

Fishing Gr
Carbon Fo

Forest Lan
Built-up La
Forest Lan
Built-up La
 Ghana
Ghana Finland
Finland
Austria
Austria Slovakia
Slovakia
Uzbekistan
Uzbekistan Cuba
Cuba
Egypt
Egypt Ecuador
Ecuador
PapuaPapuaNewNewGuinea
Guinea Bulgaria
Bulgaria
Bulgaria
Bulgaria Niger
Niger
Burkina
BurkinaFasoFaso Bolivia
Bolivia

Cropland
Cropland
Mauritania
Mauritania Madagascar
Madagascar

Forest Land
Forest Land
Nicaragua
Nicaragua Guatemala
Guatemala

Built-up Land

Grazing Land
Built-up Land

Grazing Land

Fishing Ground
Fishing Ground
Ireland
Ireland Mali
Mali

Carbon Footprint
Namibia
Namibia Kuwait
Kuwait
Netherlands
Netherlands Yemen
Yemen
Syria
Syrian Arab Republic Paraguay
Paraguay
Turkmenistan
Turkmenistan Cameroon
Cameroon
Latvia
Latvia Singapore
Singapore
Senegal
Senegal Norway
Norway
Greece
Greece Burkina
BurkinaFaso
Faso
Yemen
Yemen Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan
Slovakia
Slovakia Tunisia
Tunisia
Korea,
Korea, South
Republic of Libya
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
Guatemala
Guatemala Turkmenistan
Turkmenistan
Honduras
Honduras Chad
Chad
Somalia
Somalia SriSriLanka
Lanka
Cambodia
Cambodia Cte
Cted'Ivoire
d'Ivoire
Korea,
Korea, Democratic People's North
Republic of Angola
Angola
Portugal
Portugal Honduras
Honduras
Lithuania
Lithuania Croatia
Croatia
Cuba
Cuba Senegal
Senegal
Estonia
Estonia Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe
Tunisia
Tunisia Zambia
Zambia
Belgium
Belgium Guinea
Guinea
Panama
Panama Bosnia\Herzegovina
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe Dominican
Dominican Rep.
Republic
Switzerland
Switzerland Somalia
Somalia
Libya
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Cambodia
Cambodia
Liberia
Liberia Nicaragua
Nicaragua
Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan Costa
CostaRica
Rica
Croatia
Croatia Jordan
Jordan
Eritrea
Eritrea Lithuania
Lithuania
Laos
Lao People's Democratic Republic Papua New
Papua NewGuinea
Guinea
1 Earth
1.5

0.0
0.5

Costa
CostaRicaRica Panama
Panama
1960

Kyrgyzstan
Kyrgyzstan Latvia
Latvia
Botswana
Botswana Mauritania
Mauritania
Iraq
Iraq Oman
Oman
1965

SriSriLanka
Lanka Benin
Benin
Benin
Benin Lebanon
Lebanon
Bosnia\Herzegovina
Bosnia and Herzegovina Estonia
Estonia
Global biocapacity

1970

Oman
Oman Albania
Albania
United Arab
United Emirates
Arab Emirates Slovenia
Slovenia
Sierra
SierraLeone
Leone Botswana
1975

Botswana
Guinea-Bissau
Guinea-Bissau Kyrgyzstan
Kyrgyzstan
Dominican
Dominican Rep.
Republic Moldova
Moldova
1980

Slovenia
Slovenia Namibia
Namibia
Moldova
Moldova Central African
Central African Rep.
Republic
Tajikistan
Tajikistan Laos
Lao People's Democratic Republic
1985

Albania
Albania Tajikistan
Tajikistan
Haiti
Haiti Armenia
Armenia
Israel
Israel Haiti
Haiti
1990

Armenia
Armenia Sierra
SierraLeone
Leone
Figure x. Humanitys Ecological Footprint, by component, 1961-2006

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

Gambia
Gambia Eritrea
Eritrea
1995

Solomon
SolomonIslands
Islands Congo
Congo
Lebanon
Lebanon Fiji
Fiji
The Ecological Wealth of Nations

Jordan
Jordan Gambia
Gambia
2000

Kuwait
Kuwait Guinea-Bissau
Guinea-Bissau
7
data point doesnt show up on the graph, white boxes were placed to cover them up.

Djibouti
Djibouti Solomon
SolomonIslands
Islands
Singapore
Singapore Djibouti
Djibouti
2005

Note: in order to get x-axis starting at 1960, a data point of zero was included. So that this
Fishing

Carbon
Built-up

Croplan
Grazing
Forest L
 Global hectares (per capita) Global hectares (per capita)

8
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0
2
4
6
8
10

Bolivia United
United ArabArab Emirates
Emirates
Canada United States
United of America
States
Congo Ireland
Ireland
Finland Kuwait
Kuwait
New Zealand NewNew Zealand
Zealand
Paraguay Denmark
Denmark
Estonia Estonia
Estonia

The Ecological Wealth of Nations

Namibia UnitedUnited Kingdom
Kingdom
Central African Rep. Canada
Canada
Latvia Greece
Greece
Argentina Belgium
Belgium
Russia Spain
Spain
Mauritania Switzerland
Switzerland
Norway Finland
Finland
Denmark Israel
Israel
United States CzechCzech Republic
Republic
Kazakhstan Slovakia
Slovakia
Botswana Italy
Italy
Ireland Austria
Austria
Chile Netherlands
Netherlands
Figure 6. Per Capita Biocapacity, by country, 2006

Peru France
France
Colombia Latvia
Latvia
Papua New Guinea Singapore
Singapore
Figure 5. Per Capita Ecological Footprint, by country, 2006

Lithuania Russian Federation

Russia
Panama Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan
Turkmenistan Portugal
Portugal
Belarus Belarus
Belarus
Chad Norway
Norway
Angola Japan
Japan
Guinea-Bissau Germany
Germany
Nicaragua Poland
Poland
Solomon Islands Slovenia
Slovenia
Madagascar Botswana
Botswana
Austria Turkmenistan
Turkmenistan
Guinea Korea,
Korea, South
Republic of
Zambia Fiji
Fiji
France Oman
Oman
Sudan Saudi Arabia
SaudiArabia
Slovakia Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bosnia\Herzegovina
Congo, DRC Paraguay
Paraguay
Bulgaria Croatia
Croatia
Venezuela Lithuania
Lithuania
Czech Republic Bulgaria
Bulgaria
Liberia Mexico
Mexico
Hungary Hungary
Hungary
Mali Panama
Panama
Oman Libya
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
Fiji Mauritania
Mauritania
Slovenia Chile
Chile
Ecuador Argentina
Argentina
Romania Namibia
Namibia
Ukraine Turkey
Turkey
Cameroon South
SouthAfrica
Africa
Honduras Costa
CostaRicaRica
Niger Romania
Romania
Germany Ukraine
Ukraine
Poland Iran, Islamic Republic Iranof
Costa Rica Albania
Albania
Croatia Bolivia
Bolivia
Eritrea Venezuela, BolivarianVenezuela
Republic of
South Africa Cuba
Cuba
Mexico Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan
Bosnia\Herzegovina Nicaragua
Nicaragua
Forest

Forest
Cropla
Grazin

Cropla
Grazin
Fishing

Fishing
Carbon
Built-up

Built-up
 Germany Ukraine
Poland Iran, Islamic Republic Iran
of
Costa Rica Albania
Albania
Croatia Bolivia
Bolivia
Eritrea Venezuela, BolivarianVenezuela
Republic of
South Africa Cuba
Cuba
Mexico Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan
Bosnia\Herzegovina Nicaragua
Nicaragua
Cropland

Cropland
Cte d'Ivoire Honduras
Honduras
Forest Land

Forest Land
Somalia Sudan
Sudan
Built-up Land

Built-up Land
Grazing Land

Grazing Land
Fishing Ground

Fishing Ground
United Kingdom Lebanon
Lebanon
Carbon Footprint

Libya Jordan
Jordan
Myanmar Algeria
Algeria
Kyrgyzstan Ecuador
Ecuador
Turkey Tunisia
Tunisia
Laos Colombia
Colombia
Senegal Mali
Mali
United Arab Emirates China
China
Greece Peru
Peru
Burkina Faso Chad
Chad
Spain Moldova
Moldova
Saudi Arabia Uzbekistan
Uzbekistan
Switzerland Solomon
SolomonIslands
Islands
Gambia Thailand
Thailand
Portugal Guatemala
Guatemala
Tunisia PapuaPapuaNewNewGuinea
Guinea
Moldova Niger
Niger
Ghana Armenia
Armenia
Belgium Syria
Syrian Arab Republic
Guatemala Nigeria
Nigeria
Cuba Ghana
Ghana
Thailand Somalia
Somalia
Netherlands Guinea
Guinea
Italy Central African
Central African Rep.
Republic
Albania Korea,
Korea, Democratic People's North
Republic of
Sierra Leone Egypt
Egypt
Iran Burkina
BurkinaFasoFaso
Azerbaijan Dominican Rep.
Dominican Republic
Cambodia Morocco
Morocco
Uzbekistan Iraq
Iraq
Morocco Kyrgyzstan
Kyrgyzstan
Nigeria Senegal
Senegal
Syria Madagascar
Madagascar
Tanzania Zambia
Zambia
China Liberia
Liberia
Djibouti Cameroon
Cameroon
Algeria Gambia
Gambia
Benin Laos
Lao People's Democratic Republic
Zimbabwe Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe
Armenia Tanzania, United Tanzania
Republic of
Yemen Viet
VietNamNam
Japan Benin
Benin
Dominican Rep. Guinea-Bissau
Guinea-Bissau
Korea,North Yemen
Yemen
Viet Nam Myanmar
Myanmar
Kuwait Congo
Congo
Tajikistan Cte
Cted'Ivoire
d'Ivoire
Pakistan Angola
Angola
Lebanon SriSriLanka
Lanka
India Djibouti
Djibouti
Sri Lanka Cambodia
Cambodia
Israel Tajikistan
Tajikistan
Egypt India
India
The Ecological Wealth of Nations

Korea, South Eritrea

Eritrea
Jordan Sierra
SierraLeone
Leone
9

Iraq Pakistan
Pakistan
Haiti Congo,
Congo, Democratic RepublicDRC of
Global biocapacity: 1.8 global hectares per capita, with no allocation to support biodiversity

Singapore Haiti
Haiti
Development that fits on one Earth

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

the planet, and not degrading ecological assets to the detriment of
future generations. This is the challenge of sustainable development.
Can living well be measured? The United Nations Hu- capita biocapacity available on the planet 1.8 global
man Development Index (HDI) measures life expectancy, hectares, as of 2006. This figure assumes that humans
education and literacy, and the ability to purchase needed will use all of the Earths biocapacity. However, if we want
goods and services. On a scale of 0.0 to 1.0, the UN de- to ensure the stability of the worlds ecosystems and
fines a score of 0.8 as the threshold that indicates a high the many services they provide humanity, a significant
level of development. percentage of this ecological budget must be allocated
to support biodiversity. Thus in reality the area available
But development can only be sustained if it is done within to support each individual on the planet is less than 1.8
the Earths ecological limits. This means that the average global hectares.
persons Ecological Footprint must not exceed the per

Ivory Coast. Crowd at Abengourou. Yann Arthus-Bertrand

10 The Ecological Wealth of Nations

Title

The Ecological Wealth of Nations 11

Human Development Index and Ecological Footprint of countries, 2006
As populations expand, the total demand for ecological
resources typically increases, while the biocapacity available
to support each individuals consumption shrinks.
World population is rising at 1.3 percent a year. At
this rate, population doubles approximately every
50 years. This lowers the per capita Footprint
threshold for sustainable development, making it
more difficult to attain.
Economic growth often comes in the form of
increased per capita consumption of goods and
services. When this is not offset by increased
material and energy efficiency in the production
of these goods and services, this means a larger
per capita Footprint. While some countries may
need to increase consumption just to meet basic
needs, on a global scale an increase in the average
Footprint makes sustainable development that
much more elusive.
Taken together, the HDI and Footprint thresholds
define minimum criteria that must be met if a
12 The Ecological Wealth of Nations
globally sustainable society is to be achieved.
On average, countries would enjoy a high level of
development, with an HDI score above 0.8, and
have an average Ecological Footprint less than the
biocapacity available per person on the planet,
1.8 global hectares as of 2006. Note that in 1961
it would have been easier to meet the Footprint
threshold; with considerably fewer people on the
planet sharing the Earths bounty, the biocapacity
available per person then was about double what it
was 45 years later.
Figure 7 shows where countries stood relative to
these two criteria in 2006. Countries meeting both
criteria would be located in the blue quadrant. In
spite of international recognition almost 20 years
earlier of the need for sustainable development, no
single country was found there, nor on average was
the world as a whole.
Figure 7. Human Development Index and Ecological Footprint, 2006
1212

UNDP threshold for high human development

Human Development Index data from UNDP, Human Development Report, 2009

1010

Ecological Footprint (global hectares per capita)

Ecological Footprint (global hectares per capita)
88

6
6

World average biocapacity per capita in 1961 4

4
African countries

Asian countries
World average biocapacity per capita in 2006
European countries
2
2
Latin American and
Caribbean countries High human development
within the Earths limits
North American countries

Oceanian countries
0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

United
United Nations
Nations HumanHuman Development
Development Index Index

The Ecological Wealth of Nations 13

Figure 7. Human Development Index and Ecological Footprint, 2006

Title

14 The Ecological Wealth of Nations

 Were going to have to think of ourselves as a subsystem,
part of the natural world and that we depend upon it in two ways:
well have to take from the natural world resources
at a rate at which the natural world can regenerate and well have to throw back the wastes
from using those natural resources at a rate the natural world can assimilate.
Herman Daly

Kenya. Small African fields. Yann Arthus-Bertrand

The Ecological Wealth of Nations 15

 Figure x. Net biocapacity, by country, 2006
Biocapacity constraints and national well-being
400

Figure 8. Net Biocapacity, by country, 2006

Biocapacity larger than Ecological Footprint

Turkmenistan
Burkina Faso
200 Biocapacity larger than Ecological Footprint

Kazakhstan

Costa Rica
Zimbabwe
Honduras
Ecological Footprint larger than biocapacity

Tajikistan

Tanzania
Slovenia
Moldova

Armenia

Bulgaria
Djibouti

Albania
Oman
Benin
Ecological Footprint larger than biocapacity

Haiti
Fiji
0
Canada
Russia
Argentina
Bolivia
Congo, DRC
Colombia
Peru
Congo
Paraguay
Angola
Finland
Madagascar
Central African Rep.
Myanmar
Sudan
Zambia
New Zealand
Cameroon
Chad
Chile
Guinea
Papua New Guinea
Namibia
Mauritania
Norway
Venezuela
Mali
Latvia
Nicaragua
Ecuador
Liberia
Eritrea
Guinea-Bissau
Estonia
Niger
Laos
Senegal
Sierra Leone
Kyrgyzstan
Lithuania
Panama
Botswana
Solomon Islands
Cambodia
Somalia
Gambia
-200
Global hectares (millions)

-400
In an ever more globalized world, countries meet the
demand for the resources they consume by using
both their own biocapacity, and the biocapacity
-600 of other countries. With continuing growth in
world population and, in many places, per capita
consumption, competition for resources is rapidly
increasing. As prices rise and shortages develop,
-800 countries may find it difficult to maintain their
economies and the well-being of their residents
-- and to achieve sought-after development goals
-1,000 or even to sustain existing successes. Wealthier
countries will likely be buffered from the impacts of
these resource shortages longer than countries with
less purchasing power.
-1,200
These shortages have already started to become
apparent. In December 2007, the UN Food and
Agriculture Organization began warning about
absolute rather than distributional global food
shortages (Rosenthal, 2007). One response has been
an international biocapacity grab, with countries
buying up the rights to food production that is,
buying cropland biocapacity in other countries in
order to ensure a continuing adequate supply of
food.
Saudi Arabia, for example, has contracted for
the use of large areas of land in Ethiopia, while
South Korean companies have tried, thus far
unsuccessfully, to obtain growing rights to half of the
arable land in Madagascar (Rice, 2009).
In addition to these attempts to purchase
biocapacity, a recent report by the UN Environmental
Programme suggests that military conflicts over
control of increasingly scarce natural resources will
expand over the coming decades (UNEP, 2009).
Countries also make demands on biocapacity
external to their own borders through the
emissions of carbon dioxide that come from
burning fossil fuels, deforestation, and industrial
processes such as cement manufacturing. These
emissions quickly disperse throughout the global
atmosphere. Biocapacity somewhere on the planet
is needed to sequester them if their accumulation
in the atmosphere is to be avoided. With climate
agreements, there soon may be significant costs
imposed for emitting carbon dioxide, as well as
significant economic benefits for those countries
that have more sequestration capacity than they
are using.

-1,400
United Arab Emirates
Bosnia\Herzegovina

Dominican Rep.

United Kingdom
Czech Republic

United States
Korea, South
Korea, North

Saudi Arabia
South Africa

Netherlands
Switzerland
Uzbekistan
Costa Rica

Guatemala

Azerbaijan
Zimbabwe

Singapore
Sri Lanka

Germany
Viet Nam
Denmark
Tanzania

Romania
Lebanon
Slovenia

Morocco

Thailand

Pakistan
Hungary

Slovakia
Armenia

Portugal
Bulgaria

Belgium
Ukraine
Belarus
Albania

Greece
Croatia

Tunisia

Nigeria

Mexico
Austria

Algeria

Poland

France
Yemen

Jordan

Ireland

Turkey
Ghana

Kuwait
Oman

Japan

China
Egypt

Spain
Israel
Libya

Cuba
Syria

India
Italy
Iraq

Iran
The demands on biocapacity from carbon emissions
are not independent of the demands on biocapacity
for resources; thus, it is necessary to consider these
demands together. For example, current methods of
food production heavily depend on the use of fossil
fuels to create fertilizer and to power mechanized
agriculture. If fossil fuel use is phased-out, demand
for sequestration capacity will be reduced, but if
yields then decline, more cropland may be required
to meet world food demands. If biofuels are used
to substitute for some fossil fuel use, the additional
area required to grow biomass for fuel production
may mean more total cropland will be required if
food production is not to be displaced. Where will
this new cropland come from? If by conversion of
forest to cropland, the resultant deforestation is likely
to increase carbon emissions in the short term, while
reducing sequestration capacity in the long term.
Whether used for the production of resources or for
carbon sequestration, each country and the world as
a whole has limited biocapacity, and must therefore
decide how much is to be budgeted for resource
production and how much for carbon sequestration.
Aggregating the Footprints of resource use and CO2
emissions and comparing the total with available
biocapacity can help reveal whether proposed
strategies for addressing resource shortages and
climate change are reducing national, as well as
global overshoot, or are simply shifting demand from
one type of ecosystem to another.

The Ecological Wealth of Nations 17

A new map of the world
The world will
no longer be divided
by the ideologies
of left and right,
but by those who
accept ecological limits and
those who dont.
Wolfgang Sachs, Wuppertal Institute
18 The Ecological Wealth of Nations
How much is a country relying on domestic, versus
foreign, biocapacity to satisfy its own consumption
demands? How much of its biocapacity is being used to
bolster its economy through exports? If the Footprint of
a countrys production does not exceed its own bioca-
pacity, can this remaining biocapacity be managed for
sequestration of carbon emissions and thereby earn
carbon credits? Knowing the answers to such questions
can help a country better manage its economic and
social well-being.
Many countries rely, in net terms, on the biocapacity of
other nations to meet domestic demands for goods and
services. For example: Japan imports Ecuadorian wood
to make paper; Europe imports meat fed on Brazilian
soy; the United States imports Peruvian cotton; and
China obtains lumber from Tanzania.
Because disruptions of this supply chain can negatively
impact their economies and their quality of life, countries
that are importing renewable resources are dependent
on how well both their own ecological assets and those
of their trading partners are being managed. Know-
ing where this biocapacity is located, and the stability
of these assets in the face of political, economic and
climatic challenges, can help a country manage its
imports and select its trading partners to reduce the
risks that come from exposure to trade in an increasingly
resource-constrained world.
Map 1 in Figure 9 compares each countrys total con-
sumption Footprint with the biocapacity available within
its own borders. In 1961, most of the worlds population
was living in countries that, in net terms, could provide
the food, fiber and timber they were consuming and
absorb their carbon emissions. By 2006 the situation
had radically changed, with less than 20 percent of the
worlds population living in countries that can keep up
with their own demands.
Reintegrating human society into the larger ecological
community will take a new social and economic archi-
tecture, one more aligned with the Earths physiology.
The old geopolitical paradigm will need to give way to
a new biopolitical one, and with this shift will come a
transition from competition to collaboration, a richness
of new possibilities, and creative new solutions for living
well without transgressing the Earths ecological limits.
Figure 9. Footprint of Consumption
Compared to Biocapacity, 1961 and 2006

Footprint more than 150% larger than biocapacity

Footprint 100-150% larger than biocapacity
Footprint 50-100% larger than biocapacity
Footprint 0-50% larger than biocapacity
Biocapacity 0-50% larger than Footprint 1961
Biocapacity 50-100% larger than Footprint
Biocapacity 100-150% larger than Footprint
Biocapacity more than 150% larger than Footprint
Insufficient data

2006 The Ecological Wealth of Nations 19

Investment risks and opportunities

Achieving a sustainable society means, 2.5

Figure 10. Lifespans of People, Assets and Infrastructure

Car
at a minimum, getting out and staying out 9 yrs*

Nuclear power station

of ecological overshoot. Doing so 2 Earths US/europe avg 40 years Long term waste

Highway
will require both demand-side and supply- climate change, ecosystem degradation, and 20-50 years

side management of the resources society possible permanent losses of productivity.

uses and the wastes it generates. On the
demand side, three factors determine the
size of a countrys, or the worlds, Ecological
Footprint: population (the number of people
consuming); per capita consumption (the
amount of goods and services each person
uses); and resource and waste intensity
(the efficiency with which these goods and
services are produced). On the supply side,
the amount of biocapacity available to meet
this demand is a function of how much
productive area is available, and how much
it yields.
Remaining on our current path is not a viable
option ecological limits have already been
transgressed, wastes are accumulating in
the atmosphere and the oceans, ecosystems
that we depend on are in decline all over the
planet. In a world of overshoot, business-
as-usual means exasperating an already
growing ecological debt. This risks further
1.5 Bridge
30-75 years
The good news is that change is possible,
Coal power station
and that those who provide the strategies, 30-75 years
technologies, products and services that 1 Earth
support the transition to sustainability will be Human
National avgs 32-82 years
at a distinct advantage. Countries that find
ways to create the greatest improvements Commercial building design
0.5 50-100 years
in the well-being of their people on the
smallest Footprints, while maintaining or Housing, railway and dam
50-100 years
even expanding their biocapacity, will be *US Avg
more resilient in the face of growing resource 0.0
constraints and rising costs for carbon 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
emissions, and will be able to maintain their
development gains. New technologies that Business As Usual
allow leapfrogging over formerly resource-
intensive phases of development that are
no longer necessary can help make this
possible. Businesses that are early adopters
in providing technological and other
solutions will gain market advantage and
remain relevant and competitive in a rapidly
changing world.

20 The Ecological Wealth of Nations

Infrastructure, because of its long life, will play an
especially important role in determining whether the
sustainability challenge will be successfully met.
The energy, transportation, housing and
manufacturing systems we build today will be
with us long into the future (Figure 8). If we invest
in systems that can operate on a small Footprint,
that do not have negative impacts on biocapacity,
and that are flexible and resilient in face of
changing resource constraints, they will provide
lasting benefits. If, on the other hand, we design
infrastructure that is dependent on a high level of
resource throughput, or that damages or depletes
the ecological services that make its operation
possible, any benefits gained will be at best short-
lived. Similarly, the way we manage agricultural,
water and forestry systems will determine whether
they will be able to provide an ongoing stream of
renewable resources and carbon sequestration
services.
With more than half the worlds population already
living in cities, and that percentage expected to
grow, urban infrastructure and the supply chains
that support it are especially critical. Cities provide
unique opportunities for achieving efficiency gains
in housing and mobility systems while improving
quality of life. Utilities providing energy, water and
waste management services can be integrated to
generate Footprint reductions that in less densely
populated areas might be more difficult to attain.
In addition to physical infrastructure, improvement
in intellectual infrastructure, particularly in
education and health care, will play an essential
role. Education helps shape values, provides a
framework for understanding sustainability, and
builds the skills to develop solutions and new ideas.
In countries with rapidly expanding populations,
education, especially of women, along with
improved health care and access to family planning
options, can help mitigate the contribution of
population growth to local and global overshoot.
The Ecological Wealth of Nations 21
Interpreting national Footprint and biocapacity trends
From 1961 to 2006, biocapacity per
capita in most countries declined, often
precipitously. This was not typically due
to a loss of ecological productivity on
the contrary, agricultural yields increased
significantly over that period. The domi-
nant driver was population growth: more
people sharing available ecological assets.
A country whose biocapacity exceeds the
Ecological Footprint of its consumption
has more room to maneuver. Its
ecosystems can, in net terms, provide the
food, fiber and timber demanded by its
residents, and absorb the emissions from
the energy used to fuel their consumption.
This net biocapacity surplus can be used
12
10
Ecological Footprint
9 Biocapacity
8 consumption
Global hectares per person
to produce goods for export, absorb carry risks: Overharvested ecosystems Footprint trends clearly show that
carbon dioxide from other countries, or be may lose productivity and collapse, and its net biocapacity surplus is rapidly
set aside to protect biodiversity. All these trade partners can decrease quantities disappearing, and it may soon run an
options can generate financial benefits. and increase prices of their exports. ecological deficit. This poses a risk not
In addition, as fossil fuels become Carbon emissions may cost more if revealed when looking at carbon in
increasingly expensive or unavailable, carbon taxes or cap-and-trade schemes isolation. Unless Cameroon can afford to
countries with a net biocapacity surplus are instituted, or as prices for fossil fuels import resources, it may soon find it more
have more options for producing energy increase. difficult to meet its consumption demands.
from biomass.
Carbon accounting alone is not sufficient National Ecological Footprint and
Countries with ecological deficits with to address risks to economic and social biocapacity trends reveal potential
consumption Footprints exceeding their well-being and to identify opportunities tradeoffs and conflicts among different
own biocapacities overharvest their in a resource-constrained world. For types of resource use energy
own ecosystems, rely on imports to meet instance, Cameroons carbon Footprint versus food, for example as well as
part of their consumption demands, and/ was negligible in 1961, and in 2006 was overarching risks to future well-being. The
or use the global commons as a sink for still only 8 percent of its total Footprint. following pages show these trends for
their carbon emissions. All these strategies However, biocapacity and Ecological selected countries.
Ecuador Figure 9: Ecuadors Footprint and biocapacity, per
person,EF21961-2006. In 1961, Ecuadors biocapacity
was more than four times its Footprint, meaning the
BC1 demand of Ecuadors residents could be

met, in net terms, using less than one-quarter the capacity

7
of its EF1
own ecosystems. But by 2006, the countrys
6 Footprint was almost as large as its biocapacity. Of all the
5 South American countries, Ecuador is closest to running
an ecological deficit. As its per capita consumption has
4
remained fairly constant over these decades, the rapid
3 reduction of Ecuadors net ecological surplus is largely
2 due to a decline in per capita biocapacity, mostly driven
by the countrys population growth. In December 2009
1
Ecuador launched a Presidential Mandate with a goal
0 of no ecological deficit by 2013. Ecuador. Sierra region.
1960 1975 1990 2005 Fields near Quito Yann Arthus-Bertrand.

22 The Ecological Wealth of Nations

 12
Japan Figure 10: Japans Footprint and biocapacity, per
10 person, 1961-2006. While Japans Footprint in 1961
Ecological Footprint BC2
9 Biocapacity was about twice its biocapacity, Japans Footprint in
2006 was seven times its own biocapacity. In 1961,
8 EF2
Global hectares per person

Japan had the seventh highest Footprint to biocapac-

7 ity ratio of any country, and in 2006 it ranked fifth. Its
BC1
6 ecological deficit is not just a reflection of carbon emis-
5 sions to the global atmosphere. Even without the car-
EF1
bon component, Japans Footprint is more than twice
4
its biocapacity. Running an ecological deficit is possible
3 for Japan because of its purchasing power, which is far
2 greater than world average. But this deficit also indi-
cates a potential risk for the Japanese economy as the
1
world enters ever further into a resource constrained
0 future. Japan. Rice field near Oukura.
1960 1975 1990 2005

12
Mali Figure 11: Malis Footprint and biocapacity, per per-
10 son, 1961-2006. Malis per capita Footprint has declined
slightlyBC2
Ecological Footprint
9 Biocapacity
over the past 45 years. About half of its Footprint
has been demand on grazing land, while the carbon com-
ponentEF2
8
Global hectares per person

grew from essentially zero to about six percent of

7 Malis overall Footprint. With climate change, Malis next
decades BC1may be more strongly influenced by the impact
6
of climate on its biocapacity than by the size of its carbon
5 EF1 Malis per capita biocapacity, about 6 global
Footprint.
4 hectares in 1961, shrank by about two-thirds to 2.3 global
3 hectares in 2006, While still 30 percent higher than world
2
average, Malis per capita biocapacity has declined more
rapidly than the worlds. This is due to two factors: more
1 rapid population growth than world average, and slower
0 increase in agricultural productivity than world average.
1960 1975 1990 2005 Still Mali is among the few nations where biocapacity
exceeds consumption demands. Market gardening near
Tombouctou. Yann Arthus-Bertrand.

Gap in line indicates interpolation due to data anomaly.

The Ecological Wealth of Nations 23

 World, Latin America, North America, and Oceania Ecological Footprint and Biocapacity, per capita,1961-2006
World
5 World
World Argentina Bolivia Colombia
15 60 10
5
BC1
BC1
BC2
50
EF2
BC2

EF2
BC2

EF2
10 40
BC1 BC1 BC1

30
EF1 5
EF1 EF1

4
4
5
EF1
EF1
20
10
0 0 0
1960 1975 1990 2005 1960 1975 1990 2005 1960 1975 1990 2005

12
Costa Rica Cuba Dominican Republic
Global hectares per person

3 5 5 5
BC2
3 BC2 BC2
4 4
EF2 4
EF2 EF2

3 3
BC1 BC1
3 BC1

EF1 EF1 EF1

2 2 2
1 1 1
2
2 0 0 0
1960 1975 1990 2005 1960 1975 1990 2005 1960 1975 1990 2005

12
Ecuador Guatemala Haiti
10 5 5
1 EF2 BC2 BC2
1 4
BC1 4
EF2 EF2

EF1
3 3
BC1 BC1

5 EF1 EF1
Ecological Footprint 2 2
Biocapacity
1 1
0
0 0 0 0
1960 1975 1990 2005 1960 1975 1990 2005 1960 1975 1990 2005 1960 1975 1990 2005
1960 1975 1990 2005
Honduras Nicaragua Panama Paraguay United States New Zealand
10 15
BC2
15
BC2
50
BC2
10
BC2
25
BC1 BC2

EF2 EF2 40
EF2 EF2 20
EF1 EF2
10
BC1 10
BC1 BC1 BC1
30 BC1
15
5 EF1 EF1 EF1 5
EF1 EF1
20 10
5 5
10 5
0 0 0 0 0 0
1960 1975 1990 2005 1960 1975 1990 2005 1960 1975 1990 2005 1960 1975 1990 2005 1960 1975 1990 2005 1960 1975 1990 2005

24 The Ecological Wealth of Nations

 12 12 12
Angola Benin Botswana
15 5
BC2
15
BC2 BC2

4
EF2 EF2 EF2

10 10 BC1
3
BC1 BC1

EF1 EF1 EF1

2
5 5
Africa Ecological Footprint and Biocapacity, per capita,1961-2006 1
0 0 0
1960 1975 1990 2005 1960 1975 1990 2005 1960 1975 1990 2005
12 12 12 12 12 12
Burkina Faso Cameroon Central African Rep. Chad Congo Congo DRC
5 10
BC2
25
BC2
15
BC2
50
BC2
15
BC2 BC2

4 EF2 20
EF2 EF2 40
EF2 EF2 EF2

BC1 10
BC1 10
BC1 BC1
3 BC1
15 30
BC1

5
EF1 EF1 EF1 EF1 EF1 EF1
2 10 20
5 5
1 5 10

0 0 0 0 0 0
1960 1975 1990 2005 1960 1975 1990 2005 1960 1975 1990 2005 1960 1975 1990 2005 1960 1975 1990 2005 1960 1975 1990 2005

12 12 12 12 12 12
Cte d'Ivoire Eritrea Gambia Guinea Guinea-Bissau Liberia
10 5
BC2
5
BC2
10
BC2
10
BC2
10
BC2 BC2

4
EF2 4
EF2 EF2 EF2 EF2 EF2

BC1 BC1 BC1 BC1

3 3
BC1 BC1

5 EF1 EF1 5
EF1 5
EF1 5
EF1 EF1
2 2
1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0
1960 1975 1990 2005 1960 1975 1990 2005 1960 1975 1990 2005 1960 1975 1990 2005 1960 1975 1990 2005 1960 1975 1990 2005

12 12 12 12 12 12
Madagascar Mali Mauritania Niger Senegal Sierra Leone
10 10
BC2
20
BC2
10
BC2
10
BC2
5
BC2 BC2

EF2 EF2 EF2 4

EF2
15
EF2 EF2

BC1 BC1 BC1 BC1

BC1
3 BC1

5 5
EF1 10
EF1 5
EF1 5
EF1 EF1 EF1
2
5
1
0 0 0 0 0 0
1960 1975 1990 2005 1960 1975 1990 2005 1960 1975 1990 2005 1960 1975 1990 2005 1960 1975 1990 2005 1960 1975 1990 2005

12 12 12 12 12 12
Global hectares per person

Somalia South Africa Sudan Tanzania Zambia Zimbabwe

5 5
BC2
10
BC2
5
BC2
10
BC2
5
BC2 BC2

4 4
EF2 EF2 4
EF2 EF2 4
EF2 EF2

BC1 BC1
3 3
BC1 BC1
3 BC1
3 BC1

EF1 5
EF1 EF1 5
EF1 EF1 EF1
2 2 2 2
1 1 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0
1960 1975 1990 2005 1960 1975 1990 2005 1960 1975 1990 2005 1960 1975 1990 2005 1960 1975 1990 2005 1960 1975 1990 2005
Countries not shown to same vertical scale. Gap in line indicates interpolation due to data anomaly. The Ecological Wealth of Nations 25
Ecological Footprint
Biocapacity
 21.5 16 57.50 2.67 1.21 0.84 0.09 0.33 0.05 0.14 46
143.2 - 635.97 4.44 2.23 1.51 0.05 0.43 0.15 0.06 -
Change
Change in
5.4 - 26.64 4.94 3.48 0.59 Ecological 0.06 0.59 0.07 0.15 - in
Changein
Change in National
National Grazing
Per capita
Per capita
Fishing Ecological Footprint
Footprint Components
Components per
percapita
capita
2.0 -
Population,Forest 7.78Grazing
Ecological 3.89
Fishing
Ecological 2.07 0.79 0.06 0.78 0.10 0.09 -
Footprint,
Yield 1 Population Population,
Cropland
Cropland Ecological
Forest Land Ecological
Grounds Footprint,
Yield 1
Country/Region 43.9 43
1961-2006 247.01
Footprint Land Grounds
5.63
Footprint Carbon3.25
Footprint 1.16
Cropland 0.17land
Grazing land 0.46land Fishing
Forest land 0.53
Fishing grounds 0.05land
Built-up 120
1961-2006
Country/Region Population 1961-2006 Footprint Footprint Carbon Footprint Cropland Grazing Forest grounds Built-up land 1961-2006
[millions]
7.5
[millions] [percent]
37
[percent] [million
41.67
[million gha] [gha
gha] [gha perper
5.59capita] [gha per
capita] [gha 3.98 capita] [gha per capita] [gha per
0.72capita] [gha per
per capita] [gha per capita] [gha per
0.20capita] [gha0.43 capita] [gha per
0.14
per capita] [gha per capita]
capita] [gha per
percapita]
[gha 0.11capita] [percent]
90
[percent]
46.6 - 124.20 2.67 1.45 0.87 0.01 0.17 0.11 0.07 -
WorldAverage
World Average 6,592.9
60.7 114
15 17,090.66
1.0 371.65 1.0 1.0 2.59 1.0
6.12
2.59 1.0 1.37
1.37 0.57
0.93
0.57 0.22
0.22
0.20 0.28
0.58
0.28 0.10
0.23
0.10 0.06
0.18
0.06 13
13
59
World 6,592.9 1.0 114
1.0
17,090.66
1.0 4.00

Latin America 942.5

564.7
942.5 225
150
225 1,338.22
1,375.32
1,338.22 1.42
2.44
1.42 0.35
0.35
0.60 0.48
0.58
0.48 0.20
0.20
0.71 0.29
0.36
0.29 0.04
0.11
0.04 0.05
0.08
0.05 -61
-61
-6

33.4
39.1 203
87
203 63.90
117.49 1.92
3.00
1.92 0.81
0.81
0.71 0.76
0.43
0.76 0.14
0.14
1.36 0.13
0.20
0.13 0.03
0.20
0.03 0.04
0.09
0.04 92
92
-20
Argentina 33.4 63.90
16.6
9.4 224
173
224 15.66
22.50 0.95
2.41
0.95 0.14
0.14
0.47 0.34
0.47
0.34 0.19
0.19
1.22 0.13
0.16
0.13 0.09
0.01
0.09 0.04
0.07
0.04 -26
-26
-20
Bolivia 16.6 15.66
8.8 272
110 8.85 1.01
3.10 0.10
0.10 0.50
0.67
0.50 0.05
0.05 0.30
0.95 0.03
0.55
0.03 0.03
0.12
0.03 -22
-22-
Chile 16.5
8.8 272 50.99
8.85 1.01 0.49 0.32 0.30
1.9 242
163 7.20 3.88
1.87 1.60
1.60 0.23
0.31
0.23 1.78
1.78 0.19
0.13 0.01
0.04
0.01 0.06
0.08
0.06 -21--
Colombia 45.6
1.9 242 85.12
7.20 3.88 0.52 0.78 0.19
14.4 210 19.55 1.36 0.02
0.02 0.67
0.44 0.22
0.22 0.37 0.01
0.05 0.08
0.09
0.08 -18
-18
-1
Costa Rica 4.4
14.4 219
210 11.87
19.55 2.70
1.36 1.13 0.67 0.26 0.73
0.37 0.01
18.2 229 20.10 1.11 0.09
0.09 0.54
0.96 0.13
0.13 0.24 0.04
0.04 0.05
0.05 -53
-53
Cuba 11.3
18.2 55
229 26.22
20.10 2.33
1.11 1.05 0.54 0.11 0.12
0.24 108
4.3 174 6.13 1.44 0.02 0.68 0.38 0.29 0.00 0.07
0.04 -26
Dominican Republic 9.6
4.3 178
174 13.08
6.13 1.36
1.44 0.02
0.54 0.46
0.68 0.38
0.13 0.12
0.29 0.07
0.00 0.07 -26
15
10.5 245 18.38 1.76 0.01 0.61 0.77 0.29 0.00 0.07 -51
Ecuador 13.2
10.5 189
245 25.19
18.38 1.91
1.76 0.01
0.74 0.36
0.61 0.77
0.40 0.25
0.29 0.11
0.00 0.06
0.07 -51
-4
3.7 259 3.55 0.96 0.09 0.30 0.03 0.41 0.08 0.05 -33
Guatemala 13.0
3.7 206
259 22.32
3.55 1.71
0.96 0.09
0.51 0.36
0.30 0.22
0.03 0.55
0.41 0.03
0.08 0.05 -33
18
60.6 282 44.67 0.74 0.01 0.16 0.01 0.49 0.01 0.05 -
Haiti 9.4
60.6 139
282 4.53
44.67 0.48
0.74 0.01
0.05 0.25
0.16 0.04
0.01 0.10
0.49 0.02
0.01 0.02
0.05 -48-
18.9 518 17.89 0.95 0.13 0.36 0.05 0.21 0.13 0.06 -42
Honduras 7.0
18.9 237
518 15.55
17.89 2.23
0.95 0.13
0.73 0.46
0.36 0.34
0.05 0.59
0.21 0.03
0.13 0.07
0.06 -42
-41
0.8 810 0.76 0.93 0.17 0.37 0.28 0.05 0.04 0.03 -56
Mexico 105.3
0.8 169
810 342.23
0.76 3.25
0.93 0.17
1.58 1.00
0.37 0.18
0.28 0.32
0.05 0.10
0.04 0.07
0.03 -56-
74.2 160 103.82 1.40 0.69 0.41 0.02 0.13 0.06 0.08 77
Nicaragua 5.5
74.2 204
160 12.52
103.82 2.26
1.40 0.69
0.43 0.61
0.41 0.62
0.02 0.42
0.13 0.12
0.06 0.06
0.08 77
-25
4.7 - 3.61 0.77 0.03 0.19 0.27 0.20 0.04 0.04 -
Panama 3.3
4.7 184- 10.55
3.61 3.21
0.77 0.03
1.22 0.47
0.19 0.55
0.27 0.23
0.20 0.68
0.04 0.05
0.04 16-
1.7 348 1.80 1.08 0.12 0.50 0.14 0.19 0.08 0.04 -15
Paraguay 6.0
1.7 207
348 20.17
1.80 3.35
1.08 0.12
0.41 0.32
0.50 1.68
0.14 0.87
0.19 0.01
0.08 0.07
0.04 -15
-32
23.0 213 36.87 1.60 0.35 0.42 0.05 0.57 0.16 0.05 -
Peru 27.6
23.0 170
213 49.59
36.87 1.80
1.60 0.35
0.30 0.53
0.42 0.24
0.05 0.18
0.57 0.45
0.16 0.10
0.05 -
9.2 189 13.46 1.47 0.04 0.46 0.35 0.52 0.03 0.06 -33
Venezuela 27.2
9.2 245
189 63.39
13.46 2.33
1.47 0.04
1.07 0.51
0.46 0.36
0.35 0.13
0.52 0.19
0.03 0.07
0.06 -33-
1.6 196 1.64 1.00 0.05 0.39 0.34 0.16 0.00 0.06 -19
1.6 196 1.64 1.00 0.05 0.39 0.34 0.16 0.00 0.06 -19
3.6 231 4.12 1.15 0.06 0.30 0.02 0.70 0.03 0.04 -26
North America 335.5 3.6 62
231 2,918.16
4.12 8.70
1.15 6.13
0.06 1.07
0.30 0.08
0.02 1.16
0.70 0.17
0.03 0.09
0.04 -26
61
6.0 331 19.21 3.18 1.95 0.81 0.18 0.10 0.10 0.04 -
6.0 331 19.21 3.18 1.95 0.81 0.18 0.10 0.10 0.04 -
19.2 248 22.43 1.17 0.08 0.30 0.43 0.26 0.04 0.06 -51
Canada 32.6
19.2 78
248 187.61
22.43 5.76
1.17 3.60
0.08 0.54
0.30 0.26
0.43 1.05
0.26 0.23
0.04 0.08
0.06 -51-
12.0 193 22.17 1.85 0.12 0.62 0.83 0.18 0.01 0.08 -22
United States 302.8
12.0 60
193 2,730.32
22.17 9.02
1.85 6.41
0.12 1.12
0.62 0.06
0.83 1.17
0.18 0.16
0.01 0.09
0.08 -22
64
3.0 233 9.43 3.10 0.44 0.38 2.02 0.21 0.00 0.05 -39
3.0 233 9.43 3.10 0.44 0.38 2.02 0.21 0.00 0.05 -39
30.9 158 41.26 1.34 0.32 0.70 0.15 0.06 0.06 0.05 -11
Oceania 33.8
30.9 108
158 196.43
41.26 5.80
1.34 1.75
0.32 0.26
0.70 2.33
0.15 0.88
0.06 0.52
0.06 0.06
0.05 -11
-35
2.0 233 6.14 3.00 0.80 0.71 1.39 0.00 0.04 0.05 -
2.0 233 6.14 3.00 0.80 0.71 1.39 0.00 0.04 0.05 -
13.7 336 23.13 1.68 0.05 1.13 0.19 0.27 0.00 0.04 -77
Fiji 0.8
13.7 104
336 3.06
23.13 3.68
1.68 1.99
0.05 0.55
1.13 0.18
0.19 0.48
0.27 0.41
0.00 0.07
0.04 -77-
144.7 234 232.59 1.61 0.61 0.63 0.06 0.21 0.04 0.05 -
New Zealand 4.1
144.7 71
234 31.36
232.59 7.58
1.61 2.21
0.61 0.44
0.63 2.45
0.06 1.12
0.21 1.21
0.04 0.14
0.05 -45-
12.1 258 15.07 1.25 0.18 0.47 0.24 0.22 0.09 0.04 -46
Papua New Guinea 12.1 6.2 193
258 10.59
15.07 1.71
1.25 0.21
0.18 0.21
0.47 0.02
0.24 0.30
0.22 0.87
0.09 0.11
0.04 -46-
5.7 150 4.41 0.77 0.05 0.20 0.04 0.37 0.08 0.03 -42
Solomon Islands 0.5
5.7 297
150 0.84
4.41 1.73
0.77 0.10
0.05 0.42
0.20 0.01
0.04 0.25
0.37 0.75
0.08 0.20
0.03 -42-
8.4 193 12.82 1.52 0.01 0.20 0.76 0.49 0.00 0.05 -49
8.4 193 12.82 1.52 0.01 0.20 0.76 0.49 0.00 0.05 -49
48.3 171 132.17 2.74 1.29 0.78 0.21 0.30 0.10 0.06 -8
48.3 171 132.17 2.74 1.29 0.78 0.21 0.30 0.10 0.06
0.05 -8
37.7 222 84.11 2.23 0.27 0.70 0.99 0.22 0.00 -35
37.7 222 84.11 2.23 0.27 0.70
0.31 0.99 0.22 0.00
0.00
0.05
0.05 -35
39.5 281 40.46 1.03 0.11 0.31 0.25 -
0.31 0.00 0.05
39.5
10.2 281
138 40.46
19.23
1.03
1.88 0.11
0.58 0.82 0.31
0.10
0.25
0.21 0.12 0.04 26 -
10.2 138 19.23 1.88
1.17 0.58 0.82
0.44 0.10 0.21 0.12
0.01 0.04
0.05 26-
11.7 262 13.69 0.16 0.15 0.36
11.7
28 The Ecological Wealth of Nations 262
241 13.69 1.17
1.04 0.16 0.44
0.25 0.15 0.36
0.28 0.01
0.00 0.05
0.03 -51 -
13.2 13.69 0.12 0.36
13.2 241 13.69 1.04 0.12 0.25 0.36 0.28 0.00 0.03 -51
3,983.9 129 6,031.71 1.51 0.80 0.38 0.06 0.14 0.08 0.06 46
3,983.9 129 6,031.71 1.51 0.80 0.38 0.06 0.14 0.08 0.06 46
 48.9 2.3 0.84 0.18 1.00 0.10 -6 332 9,348 - 0.83
906.2 6.3 1.55 0.33 4.18 0.21 - - 13,073 - -
14.4 2.7 0.83 0.09 1.60 22 0.00 Change
Change - inin - 16,214 - -
Biocapacity
Biocapacity Components
Components per
percapita
capita Gross
Gross Gross
Gross Human
Human Human
Human
0.22 Grazing
0.25 Fishing
Fishing 1.80 0.00 25,020 -
4.7
National
National Per2.4
Per Capita
Capita Forest
Grazing -
Biocapacity,
Biocapacity, Domestic-
Domestic Domestic
Domestic Development
-
Development Development
Development
Yield
Yield Forest Land
Land Grounds
Grounds 1
58.0
Biocapacity
Biocapacity 1.3
Biocapacity
Biocapacity 0.84
Cropland
Cropland 0.13
Grazing
Grazing land
land 0.24
Forest
Forest land
land Fishing 0.06
Fishing grounds -27
grounds 1961-2006
1961-2006 1,269
Product,
Product,1961 31,338
1961 Product,
Product,2006 0.86
2006 Index,
Index,1980 0.95
1980 Index,
Index,2006 Country/Region1
2006 Country/Region
[millions9.5
gha] [gha per
per capita] [gha 0.26
per capita]
capita] [gha per capita] [gha per capita] [gha per
0.01capita] [percent] [$ per capita]33 [$ per capita]33
[millions gha] [gha 1.3capita] [gha per [gha 0.17 0.73
per capita] [gha per capita] [gha per capita] -28
[percent] per capita] [$37,483
[$ 3,574 per capita] 0.90 0.96
103.5 2.2 1.47 0.14 0.40 0.15 - - 9,676 - -
11,901.5
95.7
11,901.5 1.81
1.6
1.81 0.56
0.62
0.56 0.26
0.11
0.26 0.74
0.11
0.74 0.18
0.56
0.18 -511
-51 2,192-- 32,103 -- --
0.86 --
0.95 World

1,418.8
3,065.2
1,418.8 1.51
5.4
1.51 0.42
0.72
0.42 0.45
0.90
0.45 0.46
3.40
0.46 0.12
0.33
0.12 -68
-60
-68 --- --- --- - -- Latin America

27.2
276.0
27.2 0.82
7.1
0.82 0.37
0.37
2.32 0.35
1.94
0.35 0.04
0.78
0.04 0.01
1.91
0.01 -59
-41
-59 475
1,894
475 6,912
15,119
6,912 0.79-- 0.75
0.86
0.75 Argentina
55.6
180.9
55.6 3.36
19.3
3.36 0.22
0.22
0.67 2.01
2.75
2.01 0.78
15.77
0.78 0.31
0.07
0.31 -70
-66
-70 -
515 - 4,446
3,946
4,446 -
0.56- 0.55
0.73
0.55 Bolivia
6.9
67.4
6.9 0.78
4.1
0.78 0.48
0.48
0.45 0.05
0.53
0.05 0.19
2.16
0.19 0.03
0.83
0.03 -68
-68- 172
1,132
172 1,417
19,838
1,417 0.35
0.35- 0.49
0.49- Chile
7.9
175.8
7.9 4.27
3.9
4.27 0.15
0.15
0.22 3.02
1.32
3.02 0.70
2.19
0.70 0.33
0.04
0.33 -63-- 153
613
153 8,918
7,745
8,918 0.69-- 0.80-- Colombia
19.2
8.0
19.2 1.34
1.8
1.34 0.69
0.69
0.35 0.22
0.65
0.22 0.34
0.60
0.34 0.00
0.11
0.00 -47
-72
-47 153
969
153 1,366
11,605
1,366 0.25
0.76
0.25 0.38
0.85
0.38 Costa Rica
37.2
12.1
37.2 2.05
1.1
2.05 0.59
0.59
0.59 0.13
0.09
0.13 1.14
0.20
1.14 0.13
0.14
0.13 -723
-72 353-
353 2,776
10,658
2,776 0.46
0.46- 0.52
0.86
0.52 Cuba
35.9
5.4 8.41
0.6
8.41 0.65
0.65 0.38
0.13 7.31
0.12
7.31 0.00
0.02
0.00 -64
-64 297
451 871
9,192
871 0.34
0.64
0.34 0.37
0.77
35.9 0.25 0.38 -64 297 0.37 Dominican Republic
35.3
30.5 3.38
2.3
3.38 0.60
0.60 1.54
0.40 1.07
1.33
1.07 0.10
0.20
0.10 -71
-73 275
577 2,766
6,198
2,766 0.71- - 0.39
0.81
35.3 0.33 1.54 -71 275 0.39 Ecuador
48.7 13.20
1.1 0.23
0.23 4.05 8.35
0.41 0.51
0.05
0.51 -73 220 5,202
6,051 0.53-- 0.60
14.1
48.7 13.20 0.35 0.22
4.05 8.35 -62
-73 664
220 5,202 0.70
0.60 Guatemala
161.5 2.66 0.14 0.13 2.29 0.05 245 390 --
2.2
161.5 0.2
2.66 0.14
0.15 0.04
0.13 0.01
2.29 0.05
0.02 -69-- 316
245 1,556
390 0.43 0.53-- Haiti
31.3 1.65 0.74 0.36 0.48 0.01 -72 316 2,295 -
0.57- 0.48
13.8
31.3 2.0
1.65 0.74
0.43 0.33
0.36 0.88
0.48 0.01
0.26 -76
-72 445
316 3,564
2,295 0.73
0.48 Honduras
0.7 0.84 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.54 4,599 --
178.7
0.7 1.7
0.84 0.00
0.65 0.31
0.28 0.50
0.00 0.54
0.17
-88-
-88 859-- 11,370
4,599 - 0.52 -
0.52 Mexico
23.8 0.32 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.02 -41 304 5,587 0.50 0.70
18.2
23.8 3.3
0.32 0.21
0.74 0.66
0.00 1.25
0.00 0.02
0.57 -78
-41 579
304 2,194
5,587 0.57
0.50 0.70
0.70 Nicaragua
8.1 1.74 0.13 0.27 0.11 1.18 - - 615 - -
11.3
8.1 3.4
1.74 0.13
0.33 0.56
0.27 1.79
0.11 1.18
0.70 -71 - 469 - 8,721
615 0.76 - 0.83 - Panama
2.0 1.19 0.38 0.14 0.21 0.42 -73 222 1,415 - 0.45
64.9
2.0 10.8
1.19 0.38
1.30 2.68
0.14 6.67
0.21 0.42
0.06 -76
-73 469
222 4,652
1,415 0.68- 0.76
0.45 Paraguay
25.8 1.12 0.51 0.32 0.18 0.06 - 413 1,656 - -
112.5
25.8 4.1
1.12 0.51
0.41 0.57
0.32 2.73
0.18 0.06
0.27 -- 716
413 6,625
1,656 -- -- Peru
27.0 2.94 0.42 1.06 0.80 0.60 -64 666 3,722 - 0.43
72.1
27.0 2.7
2.94 0.42
0.29 0.34
1.06 1.91
0.80 0.60
0.05 -64- 1,473
666 12,594
3,722 -- 0.43- Venezuela
5.5 3.35 0.49 0.41 0.34 2.05 -64 125 641 0.26 0.39
5.5 3.35 0.49 0.41 0.34 2.05 -64 125 641 0.26 0.39
9.3 2.59 0.19 0.81 1.19 0.37 -74 - 381 0.37 0.43
1,897.39.3 5.7
2.59 0.19
2.17 0.29
0.81 2.22
1.19 0.37
0.89 -41
-74 -- -
381 0.37- 0.43- North America
9.5 1.57 0.37 1.14 0.02 0.00 - - 21,907 - -
9.5 1.57 0.37 1.14 0.02 0.00 - - 21,907 - -
60.8 3.17 0.28 1.70 0.92 0.21 -69 251 880 - 0.54
556.4
60.8 17.1
3.17 0.28
4.30 0.26
1.70 8.39
0.92 0.21
4.05 -69- 2,287
251 36,584
880 -- 0.54 - Canada
30.3 2.53 0.64 0.98 0.76 0.07 -59 141 1,383 0.25 0.37
1,340.9
30.3 4.4
2.53 0.64
1.94 0.29
0.98 1.55
0.76 0.07
0.56 -43
-59 2,934
141 44,005
1,383 0.25
0.89 0.96
0.37 United States
19.1 6.29 0.16 4.09 0.06 1.93 -69 150 2,374 - 0.52
19.1 6.29 0.16 4.09 0.06 1.93 -69 150 2,374 - 0.52
27.7 0.90 0.46 0.20 0.08 0.11 -37 421 5,594 0.47 0.65
434.0
27.7 12.8
0.90 0.46
1.90 4.95
0.20 2.82
0.08 0.11
3.09 -56
-37 -
421 -
5,594 0.47- 0.65- Oceania
17.8 8.71 0.40 1.99 0.41 5.87 - 805 6,642 - -
17.8 8.71 0.40 1.99 0.41 5.87 -- 805 6,642 - -
26.4 1.92 1.09 0.72 0.07 0.00 -78 257 881 - 0.34
2.1
26.4 2.5
1.92 1.09
0.48 0.11
0.72 1.32
0.07 0.00
0.50 -78- 496
257 6,326
881 -- 0.34- Fiji
129.9 0.90 0.60 0.20 0.02 0.02 - 293 2,205 - -
49.9
129.9 12.0
0.90 0.60
1.04 3.47
0.20 5.03
0.02 0.02
2.36 -52- 2,441
293 25,484
2,205 0.86- 0.95- New Zealand
16.5 1.37 0.37 0.22 0.52 0.21 -76 530 1,942 - 0.46
23.2
16.5 3.7
1.37 0.37
0.30 0.05
0.22 2.59
0.52 0.21
0.70 -76- 177
530 2,336
1,942 -- 0.46- Papua New Guinea
5.7 0.99 0.15 0.41 0.18 0.21 -59 389 1,817 - 0.36
1.6
5.7 3.2
0.99 0.15
0.50 0.01
0.41 2.42
0.18 0.21
0.08 -59- -
389 1,318
1,817 -- 0.36- Solomon Islands
13.5 1.60 0.11 0.77 0.28 0.39 -66 - 478 - -
13.5 1.60 0.11 0.77 0.28 0.39 -66 - 478 - -
1 82.9 1.72 0.68 0.70 0.02 0.25 -58 1,047 10,375 0.66 0.68
Regional
82.9 averages 1.72are calculated 0.68using values
0.63
0.70from all countries
0.02 within each 0.25United Nations
0.17 -58 region; only selected
1,047 countries
10,375 are shown
0.66
-
here. 0.68
106.3 2.82 0.99 0.97 -71 - 2,152 0.53
Dashes
106.3 indicate2.82 missing or insufficient
0.63
0.31
data. 0.99 0.97 0.17
0.06 -71 - 2,152
-
- 0.53
34.4 0.87 0.31 0.15 - 88 886 -
2 34.4 0.87 0.31 0.31 0.15 0.06 - 88 886 - -
Also11.7includes Built-up
1.15 land biocapacity
0.67 equal 0.10
to the Built-up 0.06land Footprint, shown on previous
0.28 -37 page. 618 9,937 - 0.76
11.7 1.15 0.67 0.10 0.06 0.28 -37 618 9,937 - 0.76
3 33.5 2.86 0.51 1.29 0.99 0.03 - 537 2,111 - -
In 1constant
33.5 20052.86US $ 0.51 1.29 0.99 0.03 - 2,111
537 here. Dashes - -
Regional
9.8 averages 0.74 0.18values from all0.37
are calculated using countries within each 0.01
0.14United Nations region; only selected
-72 countries are480
shown - or insufficient data.
2,281indicate missing - 29
2 9.8
Also 0.74 land biocapacity
includes Built-up 0.18equal to the Built-up 0.14
0.37 land Footprint, 0.01page.
shown on previous -72 480 2,281 - -
3
In constant 2005 US $.
2,867.1 0.7 0.33 0.08 0.15 0.10 -44 - - - -
2,867.1 0.7 0.33 0.08 0.15 0.10 -44 - - - -
 Change in
Change in National Per capita Ecological Footprint Components per capita
Grazing Fishing
Population,
Cropland Ecological
Forest Ecological Footprint,
Change in
Yield Land Grounds
Country/Region1 Population 1961-2006
Change in Footprint
National Footprint
Per capita Carbon Footprint CroplandEcological
GrazingFootprint
land Components
Forest land Fishing grounds Built-up land 1961-2006
per capita
[millions] [percent] [million Grazing
gha] [gha perFishing
capita] [gha per capita] [gha per capita] [gha per capita] [gha per capita] [gha per capita] [gha per capita] [percent]
Population,
Cropland Ecological
Forest Ecological Footprint,
Yield Land Grounds
Country/Region1 Population 1961-2006 Footprint Footprint Carbon Footprint Cropland Grazing land Forest land Fishing grounds Built-up land 1961-2006
World Average [millions] [percent]
114 [million gha] [gha per capita]
2.59 1.0 [gha per
1.37capita] [gha per
0.57capita] [gha per
0.22capita] [gha per capita] [gha per
0.28 0.10capita] [gha per
0.06capita] [percent]
13
6,592.9 17,090.66 1.0
1.0
1.0
World Average
Africa 6,592.9 114 17,090.66
1,338.22 1.0
1.0 2.59 1.0
1.42 1.37
0.35 0.57
0.48 0.22
0.20 0.28
0.29 0.10
0.04 0.06
0.05 13
-61
942.5 1.0 225

Algeria 942.5
33.4 225
203 1,338.22
63.90 1.42
1.92 0.35
0.81 0.48
0.76 0.20
0.14 0.29
0.13 0.04
0.03 0.05
0.04 -61
92
Angola 16.6 224 15.66 0.95 0.14 0.34 0.19 0.13 0.09 0.04 -26
Benin 33.4
8.8 203
272 63.90
8.85 1.92
1.01 0.81
0.10 0.76
0.50 0.14
0.05 0.13
0.30 0.03
0.03 0.04
0.03 92
-22
Botswana 16.6
1.9 224
242 15.66
7.20 0.95
3.88 0.14
1.60 0.34
0.23 0.19
1.78 0.13
0.19 0.09
0.01 0.04
0.06 -26 -
8.8 272
210 8.85 1.01
1.36 0.10
0.02 0.50
0.67 0.05
0.22 0.30
0.37 0.03
0.01 0.03
0.08 -22
-18
Burkina Faso 14.4 19.55
1.9 242
229 7.20 3.88
1.11 1.60
0.09 0.23
0.54 1.78
0.13 0.19
0.24 0.01
0.04 0.06
0.05 -53-
Cameroon 18.2 20.10
14.4 210 19.55 1.36 0.02
0.02 0.67
0.68 0.22
0.38 0.37 0.01
0.00 0.08
0.07 -18
-26
Central African Rep. 4.3 174 6.13 1.44 0.29
18.2 229 20.10 1.11 0.09
0.01 0.54
0.61 0.13
0.77 0.24 0.04
0.00 0.05
0.07 -53
-51
Chad 10.5 245 18.38 1.76 0.29
4.3 174 6.13 1.44 0.02
0.09 0.68 0.38 0.29 0.00 0.07
0.05 -26
-33
Congo 3.7 259 3.55 0.96 0.30 0.03 0.41 0.08
10.5 245 18.38 1.76 0.01
0.01 0.61 0.77 0.29 0.00 0.07 -51 -
Congo, DRC 60.6 282 44.67 0.74 0.16 0.01 0.49 0.01 0.05
3.7 259 3.55 0.96 0.09 0.30 0.03 0.41 0.08 0.05 -33
Cte d'Ivoire 18.9 518 17.89 0.95 0.13 0.36 0.05 0.21 0.13 0.06 -42
60.6 282 44.67 0.74 0.01 0.16 0.01 0.49 0.01 0.05 -
Djibouti 0.8 810 0.76 0.93 0.17 0.37 0.28 0.05 0.04 0.03 -56
18.9 518 17.89 0.95 0.13 0.36 0.05 0.21 0.13 0.06 -42
Egypt 74.2 160 103.82 1.40 0.69 0.41 0.02 0.13 0.06 0.08 77
0.8 810 0.76 0.93 0.17 0.37 0.28 0.05 0.04 0.03 -56
Eritrea 4.7 - 3.61 0.77 0.03 0.19 0.27 0.20 0.04 0.04 -
74.2 160 103.82 1.40 0.69 0.41 0.02 0.13 0.06 0.08 77
Gambia 1.7 348 1.80 1.08 0.12 0.50 0.14 0.19 0.08 0.04 -15
4.7 - 3.61 0.77 0.03 0.19 0.27 0.20 0.04 0.04 -
Ghana 23.0 213 36.87 1.60 0.35 0.42 0.05 0.57 0.16 0.05 -
1.7 348 1.80 1.08 0.12 0.50 0.14 0.19 0.08 0.04 -15
Guinea 9.2 189 13.46 1.47 0.04 0.46 0.35 0.52 0.03 0.06 -33
23.0 213 36.87 1.60 0.35 0.42 0.05 0.57 0.16 0.05 -
Guinea-Bissau 1.6 196 1.64 1.00 0.05 0.39 0.34 0.16 0.00 0.06 -19
9.2 189 13.46 1.47 0.04 0.46 0.35 0.52 0.03 0.06 -33
Liberia 3.6 231 4.12 1.15 0.06 0.30 0.02 0.70 0.03 0.04 -26
1.6 196 1.64 1.00 0.05 0.39 0.34 0.16 0.00 0.06 -19
Libya 6.0 331 19.21 3.18 1.95 0.81 0.18 0.10 0.10 0.04 -
3.6 231 4.12 1.15 0.06 0.30 0.02 0.70 0.03 0.04 -26
Madagascar 19.2 248 22.43 1.17 0.08 0.30 0.43 0.26 0.04 0.06 -51
6.0 331 19.21 3.18 1.95 0.81 0.18 0.10 0.10 0.04 -
Mali 12.0 193 22.17 1.85 0.12 0.62 0.83 0.18 0.01 0.08 -22
19.2 248 22.43 1.17 0.08 0.30 0.43 0.26 0.04 0.06 -51
Mauritania 3.0 233 9.43 3.10 0.44 0.38 2.02 0.21 0.00 0.05 -39
12.0 193 22.17 1.85 0.12 0.62 0.83 0.18 0.01 0.08 -22
Morocco 30.9 158 41.26 1.34 0.32 0.70 0.15 0.06 0.06 0.05 -11
3.0 233 9.43 3.10 0.44 0.38 2.02 0.21 0.00 0.05 -39
Namibia 2.0 233 6.14 3.00 0.80 0.71 1.39 0.00 0.04 0.05 -
30.9 158 41.26 1.34 0.32 0.70 0.15 0.06 0.06 0.05 -11
Niger 13.7 336 23.13 1.68 0.05 1.13 0.19 0.27 0.00 0.04 -77
2.0 233 6.14 3.00 0.80 0.71 1.39 0.00 0.04 0.05 -
Nigeria 144.7 234 232.59 1.61 0.61 0.63 0.06 0.21 0.04 0.05 -
13.7 336 23.13 1.68 0.05 1.13 0.19 0.27 0.00 0.04 -77
Senegal 12.1 258 15.07 1.25 0.18 0.47 0.24 0.22 0.09 0.04 -46
144.7 234 232.59 1.61 0.61 0.63 0.06 0.21 0.04 0.05 -
Sierra Leone 5.7 150 4.41 0.77 0.05 0.20 0.04 0.37 0.08 0.03 -42
12.1 258 15.07 1.25 0.18 0.47 0.24 0.22 0.09 0.04 -46
Somalia 8.4 193 12.82 1.52 0.01 0.20 0.76 0.49 0.00 0.05 -49
5.7 150 4.41 0.77 0.05 0.20 0.04 0.37 0.08 0.03 -42
South Africa 48.3 171 132.17 2.74 1.29 0.78 0.21 0.30 0.10 0.06 -8
8.4 193 12.82 1.52 0.01 0.20 0.76 0.49 0.00 0.05 -49
Sudan 37.7 222 84.11 2.23 0.27 0.70 0.99 0.22 0.00 0.05 -35
48.3 171 132.17 2.74 1.29 0.78 0.21 0.30 0.10 0.06 -8
Tanzania 39.5 281 40.46 1.03 0.11 0.31 0.31 0.25 0.00 0.05 -
37.7 222 84.11 2.23 0.27 0.70 0.99 0.22 0.00 0.05 -35
Tunisia 10.2 138 19.23 1.88 0.58 0.82 0.10 0.21 0.12 0.04 26
39.5 281 40.46 1.03 0.11 0.31 0.31 0.25 0.00 0.05 -
0.44 0.01 0.05
Zambia 11.7
10.2
262
138 13.69
19.23
1.17
1.88 0.16
0.58 0.82 0.15
0.10
0.36
0.21 0.12 0.04 26 -
Zimbabwe 13.2 241 13.69 1.04 0.12 0.25
0.44 0.36 0.28 0.00
0.01
0.03
0.05 -51
11.7 262 13.69 1.17 0.16 0.15 0.36 -
30 The Ecological Wealth of Nations
13.2 241 13.69 1.04 0.12 0.25 0.36 0.28 0.00 0.03 -51
3,983.9 129 6,031.71 1.51 0.80 0.38 0.06 0.14 0.08 0.06 46
3,983.9 129 6,031.71 1.51 0.80 0.38 0.06 0.14 0.08 0.06 46
3.0 - 4.94 1.64 0.72 0.58 0.22 0.06 0.00 0.06 -
 2 Change in
Biocapacity Components per capita Gross Gross Human Human
Grazing Fishing
National Per Capita Forest Biocapacity,
Change in Domestic Domestic Development Development
Yield Land Grounds
Biocapacity Biocapacity Cropland Biocapacity Forest land 2Fishing grounds per
Grazing land Components 1961-2006
capita Product,
Gross1961 Product,
Gross 2006 Index,
Human 1980 Index,
Human 2006 Country/Region1
[millions gha] [gha per capita] Grazing
[gha per capita] [gha Fishing
per capita] [gha per capita] [gha per capita] Biocapacity,
[percent] [$ per capita]3 [$ per capita]3
National Per Capita Forest Domestic Domestic Development Development
Yield Land Grounds
Biocapacity Biocapacity Cropland Grazing land Forest land Fishing grounds 1961-2006 Product, 1961 Product, 2006 Index, 1980 Index, 2006 Country/Region1
[millions gha] [gha 1.81
per capita] [gha 0.56
per capita] [gha per 3 [$ per capita]3
11,901.5 0.26capita] [gha per
0.74capita] [gha per
0.18capita] [percent]
-51 [$ per capita]
- - - -

11,901.5
1,418.8 1.81
1.51 0.56
0.42 0.26
0.45 0.74
0.46 0.18
0.12 -51
-68 -- -- -- -- Africa

1,418.8
27.2 1.51
0.82 0.42
0.37 0.45
0.35 0.46
0.04 0.12
0.01 -68
-59 -
475 -
6,912 -- -
0.75 Algeria
55.6 3.36 0.22 2.01 0.78 0.31 -70 - 4,446 - 0.55 Angola
27.2
6.9 0.82
0.78 0.37
0.48 0.35
0.05 0.04
0.19 0.01
0.03 -59
-68 475
172 6,912
1,417 0.35- 0.75
0.49 Benin
55.6
7.9 3.36
4.27 0.22
0.15 2.01
3.02 0.78
0.70 0.31
0.33 -70 - -
153 4,446
8,918 - - 0.55 - Botswana
6.9
19.2 0.78
1.34 0.48
0.69 0.05
0.22 0.19
0.34 0.03
0.00 -68
-47 172
153 1,417
1,366 0.35
0.25 0.49
0.38 Burkina Faso
7.9
37.2 4.27
2.05 0.15
0.59 3.02
0.13 0.70
1.14 0.33
0.13 -
-72 153
353 8,918
2,776 0.46- -
0.52 Cameroon
19.2
35.9 1.34
8.41 0.69
0.65 0.22
0.38 0.34
7.31 0.00
0.00 -47
-64 153
297 1,366
871 0.25
0.34 0.38
0.37 Central African Rep.
37.2
35.3 2.05
3.38 0.59
0.60 0.13
1.54 1.14
1.07 0.13
0.10 -72
-71 353
275 2,776
2,766 0.46 - 0.52
0.39 Chad
35.9
48.7 8.41
13.20 0.65
0.23 0.38
4.05 7.31
8.35 0.00
0.51 -64
-73 297
220 871
5,202 0.34 - 0.37
0.60 Congo
35.3 3.38
2.66 0.60
0.14 1.54
0.13 1.07
2.29 0.10
0.05 -71 275
245 2,766
390 - - 0.39
161.5 - - Congo, DRC
48.7 13.20
1.65 0.23
0.74 4.05 8.35
0.48 0.51
0.01 -73 220 5,202
2,295 -- 0.60
31.3 0.36 -72 316 0.48 Cte d'Ivoire
161.5 2.66
0.84 0.14
0.00 0.13 2.29
0.00 0.05
0.54 - 245- 390
4,599 -- -
0.7 0.28 -88 0.52 Djibouti
31.3 1.65 0.74
0.21 0.36 0.48 0.01
0.02 -72 316 2,295 0.50- 0.48
23.8 0.32 0.00 0.00 -41 304 5,587 0.70 Egypt
0.7 0.84 0.00
0.13 0.28 0.00 0.54
1.18 -88- -- 4,599 -- 0.52 -
8.1 1.74 0.27 0.11 615 Eritrea
23.8 0.32 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.02 -41 304 5,587 0.50 0.70
2.0 1.19 0.38 0.14 0.21 0.42 -73 222 1,415 - 0.45 Gambia
8.1 1.74 0.13 0.27 0.11 1.18 - - 615 - -
25.8 1.12 0.51 0.32 0.18 0.06 - 413 1,656 - - Ghana
2.0 1.19 0.38 0.14 0.21 0.42 -73 222 1,415 - 0.45
27.0 2.94 0.42 1.06 0.80 0.60 -64 666 3,722 - 0.43 Guinea
25.8 1.12 0.51 0.32 0.18 0.06 - 413 1,656 - -
5.5 3.35 0.49 0.41 0.34 2.05 -64 125 641 0.26 0.39 Guinea-Bissau
27.0 2.94 0.42 1.06 0.80 0.60 -64 666 3,722 - 0.43
9.3 2.59 0.19 0.81 1.19 0.37 -74 - 381 0.37 0.43 Liberia
5.5 3.35 0.49 0.41 0.34 2.05 -64 125 641 0.26 0.39
9.5 1.57 0.37 1.14 0.02 0.00 - - 21,907 - - Libya
9.3 2.59 0.19 0.81 1.19 0.37 -74 - 381 0.37 0.43
60.8 3.17 0.28 1.70 0.92 0.21 -69 251 880 - 0.54 Madagascar
9.5 1.57 0.37 1.14 0.02 0.00 - - 21,907 - -
30.3 2.53 0.64 0.98 0.76 0.07 -59 141 1,383 0.25 0.37 Mali
60.8 3.17 0.28 1.70 0.92 0.21 -69 251 880 - 0.54
19.1 6.29 0.16 4.09 0.06 1.93 -69 150 2,374 - 0.52 Mauritania
30.3 2.53 0.64 0.98 0.76 0.07 -59 141 1,383 0.25 0.37
27.7 0.90 0.46 0.20 0.08 0.11 -37 421 5,594 0.47 0.65 Morocco
19.1 6.29 0.16 4.09 0.06 1.93 -69 150 2,374 - 0.52
17.8 8.71 0.40 1.99 0.41 5.87 - 805 6,642 - - Namibia
27.7 0.90 0.46 0.20 0.08 0.11 -37 421 5,594 0.47 0.65
26.4 1.92 1.09 0.72 0.07 0.00 -78 257 881 - 0.34 Niger
17.8 8.71 0.40 1.99 0.41 5.87 - 805 6,642 - -
129.9 0.90 0.60 0.20 0.02 0.02 - 293 2,205 - - Nigeria
26.4 1.92 1.09 0.72 0.07 0.00 -78 257 881 - 0.34
16.5 1.37 0.37 0.22 0.52 0.21 -76 530 1,942 - 0.46 Senegal
129.9 0.90 0.60 0.20 0.02 0.02 - 293 2,205 - -
5.7 0.99 0.15 0.41 0.18 0.21 -59 389 1,817 - 0.36 Sierra Leone
16.5 1.37 0.37 0.22 0.52 0.21 -76 530 1,942 - 0.46
13.5 1.60 0.11 0.77 0.28 0.39 -66 - 478 - - Somalia
5.7 0.99 0.15 0.41 0.18 0.21 -59 389 1,817 - 0.36
82.9 1.72 0.68 0.70 0.02 0.25 -58 1,047 10,375 0.66 0.68 South Africa
13.5 1.60 0.11 0.77 0.28 0.39 -66 - 478 - -
106.3 2.82 0.63 0.99 0.97 0.17 -71 - 2,152 - 0.53 Sudan
82.9 1.72 0.68 0.70 0.02 0.25 -58 1,047 10,375 0.66 0.68
34.4 0.87 0.31 0.31 0.15 0.06 - 88 886 - - Tanzania
106.3 2.82 0.63 0.99 0.97 0.17 -71 - 2,152 - 0.53
11.7 1.15 0.67 0.10 0.06 0.28 -37 618 9,937 - 0.76 Tunisia
34.4 0.87 0.31 0.31 0.15 0.06 - 88 886 - -
33.5 2.86 0.51 1.29 0.99 0.03 - 537 2,111 - - Zambia
11.7 1.15 0.67 0.10 0.06 0.28 -37 618 9,937 - 0.76
9.8 0.74 0.18 0.37 0.14 0.01 -72 480 2,281 - - Zimbabwe
33.5 2.86 0.51 1.29 0.99 0.03 - 537 2,111 - -
1
Regional
9.8 averages 0.74 0.18values from all0.37
are calculated using countries within each 0.01
0.14United Nations region; only selected
-72 countries are480
shown here. Dashes - or insufficient data.
2,281indicate missing - 31
2,867.1
2
Also includes Built-up 0.33
0.7 land biocapacity equal to the Built-up 0.15
0.08 land Footprint, 0.10page.
shown on previous -44 - - - -
3
In constant 2005 US $.
2,867.1 0.7 0.33 0.08 0.15 0.10 -44 - - - -
2.2 0.7 0.30 0.29 0.07 0.02 - - 8,944 - -
 48.3 171 132.17 2.74 1.29 0.78 0.21 0.30 0.10 0.06 -8
37.7 222 84.11 2.23 0.27 0.70 0.99 0.22 0.00 0.05 -35
Change in
39.5 281 40.46 1.03 0.11 0.31 Ecological 0.31 0.25
Footprint Components 0.00 0.05 -
Change in National Per capita per capita
10.2 138 19.23 Grazing Fishing
1.88 0.58 0.82 0.10 0.21 0.12 0.04 26
Population,
Cropland Ecological
Forest Ecological Footprint,
Yield Land Grounds
Country/Region1 Population
11.7 262
1961-2006 Footprint
13.69 1.17
Footprint Carbon Footprint
0.16 0.44
Cropland Grazing
0.15 land 0.36
Forest land 0.01
Fishing grounds 0.05land
Built-up -
1961-2006
[millions] [percent] [million gha] [gha per capita]
1.04 [gha per capita] [gha per
0.25capita] [gha per capita] [gha per
0.28capita] [gha per
0.00capita] [gha per capita]
0.03 [percent]
-51
13.2 241 13.69 0.12 0.36

World Average
Asia 6,592.9 114 17,090.66
6,031.71 1.0
1.0 2.59 1.0
1.51 1.37 0.57
0.38 0.22 0.28
0.14 0.10
0.08 0.06
0.06 13
46
3,983.9 1.0 129 0.80 0.06

Armenia 942.5
3.0 225
- 1,338.22
4.94 1.42
1.64 0.35
0.72 0.48
0.58 0.20
0.22 0.29
0.06 0.04
0.00 0.05
0.06 -61 -
Azerbaijan 8.4 - 19.25 2.29 1.26 0.62 0.26 0.07 0.01 0.07 -
33.4 203
155 63.90 1.92
0.90 0.81 0.76
0.46 0.14 0.13
0.25 0.03
0.00 0.04
0.04 92
-54
Cambodia 14.2 12.74 0.08 0.07
16.6 224
98 15.66 0.95
1.85 0.14 0.34
0.36 0.19 0.13
0.15 0.09
0.06 0.04
0.07 -26
165
China 1328.5 2,456.18 1.08 0.13
8.8 272 8.85 1.01 0.10 0.50
0.28 0.05 0.30 0.03
0.01 0.03
0.04 -22
-12
India 1151.8 153 886.01 0.77 0.31 0.01 0.12
1.9 242 7.20 3.88 1.60 0.23
0.66 1.78 0.19 0.01
0.13 0.06
0.09 -
Iran 70.3 215 186.60 2.66 1.57 0.17 0.05 21
14.4 210 19.55 1.36 0.02 0.67 0.22 0.37 0.01 0.08
0.02 -18
Iraq 28.5 277 37.96 1.33 0.84 0.42 0.03 0.01 0.01 -21
18.2 229 20.10 1.11 0.09 0.54 0.13 0.24 0.04 0.05 -53
Israel 6.8 210 36.63 5.38 3.69 1.03 0.09 0.36 0.15 0.07 53
4.3 174 6.13 1.44 0.02 0.68 0.38 0.29 0.00 0.07 -26
Japan 128.0 35 526.13 4.11 2.68 0.58 0.03 0.28 0.47 0.07 90
10.5 245 18.38 1.76 0.01 0.61 0.77 0.29 0.00 0.07 -51
Jordan 5.7 515 11.66 2.04 0.94 0.69 0.08 0.17 0.07 0.08 -
3.7 259 3.55 0.96 0.09 0.30 0.03 0.41 0.08 0.05 -33
Kazakhstan 15.3 - 67.63 4.42 2.91 1.18 0.15 0.13 0.01 0.06 -
60.6 282 44.67 0.74 0.01 0.16 0.01 0.49 0.01 0.05 -
Korea, North 23.7 111 33.23 1.40 0.88 0.31 0.00 0.14 0.01 0.05 25
18.9 518 17.89 0.95 0.13 0.36 0.05 0.21 0.13 0.06 -42
Korea, South 48.0 87 179.46 3.73 2.09 0.69 0.04 0.24 0.61 0.06 267
0.8 810 0.76 0.93 0.17 0.37 0.28 0.05 0.04 0.03 -56
Kuwait 2.8 805 21.96 7.90 6.65 0.71 0.10 0.19 0.12 0.14 -
74.2 160 103.82 1.40 0.69 0.41 0.02 0.13 0.06 0.08 77
Kyrgyzstan 5.3 - 6.72 1.28 0.50 0.55 0.11 0.03 0.00 0.09 -
4.7 - 3.61 0.77 0.03 0.19 0.27 0.20 0.04 0.04 -
Laos 5.8 183 6.01 1.04 0.07 0.41 0.08 0.39 0.01 0.10 -42
1.7 348 1.80 1.08 0.12 0.50 0.14 0.19 0.08 0.04 -15
Lebanon 4.1 108 8.64 2.13 0.91 0.66 0.15 0.27 0.09 0.05 -
23.0 213 36.87 1.60 0.35 0.42 0.05 0.57 0.16 0.05 -
Myanmar 48.4 125 46.79 0.97 0.06 0.50 0.01 0.33 0.00 0.07 13
9.2 189 13.46 1.47 0.04 0.46 0.35 0.52 0.03 0.06 -33
Oman 2.5 340 9.02 3.54 2.09 0.59 0.18 0.15 0.40 0.12 -
1.6 196 1.64 1.00 0.05 0.39 0.34 0.16 0.00 0.06 -19
Pakistan 160.9 240 120.12 0.75 0.30 0.29 0.01 0.08 0.01 0.04 -16
3.6 231 4.12 1.15 0.06 0.30 0.02 0.70 0.03 0.04 -26
Saudi Arabia 24.2 476 84.14 3.48 1.62 1.29 0.11 0.14 0.14 0.18 -
6.0 331 19.21 3.18 1.95 0.81 0.18 0.10 0.10 0.04 -
Singapore 4.4 159 19.75 4.51 3.14 0.66 0.06 0.30 0.32 0.02 -
19.2 248 22.43 1.17 0.08 0.30 0.43 0.26 0.04 0.06 -51
Sri Lanka 19.2 93 17.90 0.93 0.16 0.30 0.01 0.15 0.26 0.04 -10
12.0 193 22.17 1.85 0.12 0.62 0.83 0.18 0.01 0.08 -22
Syria 19.4 307 31.33 1.61 0.76 0.54 0.16 0.08 0.03 0.06 -
3.0 233 9.43 3.10 0.44 0.38 2.02 0.21 0.00 0.05 -39
Tajikistan 6.6 - 5.75 0.87 0.26 0.39 0.15 0.02 0.00 0.06 -
30.9 158 41.26 1.34 0.32 0.70 0.15 0.06 0.06 0.05 -11
Thailand 63.4 122 109.27 1.72 0.73 0.54 0.01 0.17 0.21 0.06 -
2.0 233 6.14 3.00 0.80 0.71 1.39 0.00 0.04 0.05 -
Turkey 73.9 155 209.60 2.84 1.37 1.01 0.08 0.26 0.04 0.08 19
13.7 336 23.13 1.68 0.05 1.13 0.19 0.27 0.00 0.04 -77
Turkmenistan 4.9 - 18.75 3.83 2.46 0.74 0.49 0.00 0.01 0.12 -
144.7 234 232.59 1.61 0.61 0.63 0.06 0.21 0.04 0.05 -
UAE 4.2 4,235 43.72 10.29 7.19 1.98 0.19 0.49 0.38 0.06 -
12.1 258 15.07 1.25 0.18 0.47 0.24 0.22 0.09 0.04 -46
Uzbekistan 27.0 - 46.70 1.73 1.16 0.39 0.08 0.03 0.00 0.07 -
5.7 150 4.41 0.77 0.05 0.20 0.04 0.37 0.08 0.03 -42
Viet Nam 86.2 150 87.49 1.01 0.44 0.32 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.06 38
8.4 193 12.82 1.52 0.01 0.20 0.76 0.49 0.00 0.05 -49
Yemen 21.7 308 21.32 0.98 0.40 0.32 0.16 0.03 0.02 0.05 -
48.3 171 132.17 2.74 1.29 0.78 0.21 0.30 0.10 0.06 -8
37.7 222 84.11 2.23 0.27 0.70 0.99 0.22 0.00 0.05 -35
731.3 22 3,297.47 4.51 2.49 1.06
0.31 0.12 0.50 0.22
0.00
0.12
0.05 33
39.5 281 40.46 1.03 0.11 0.31 0.25 -
10.2 138 19.23 1.88 0.58 0.82 0.10 0.21 0.12 0.04 26
3.2 91 8.15 2.57
1.17 1.18 0.96
0.44 0.25 0.08
0.36 0.02
0.01 0.08
0.05 43
-
11.7 262 13.69 0.16 0.15
8.3
32 The Ecological Wealth of Nations 18
241 40.72 4.89
1.04 2.98 0.72
0.25 0.16 0.73
0.28 0.11
0.00 0.19
0.03 96
-51
13.2 13.69 0.12 0.36
9.7 - 41.05 4.21 1.93 1.43 0.23 0.41 0.12 0.08 -
10.4
3,983.9 14
129 59.42
6,031.71 5.70
1.51 2.44
0.80 1.84
0.38 0.38
0.06 0.56
0.14 0.17
0.08 0.31
0.06 32
46
3.9 - 13.32 3.39 1.54 1.07 0.18 0.47 0.06 0.08 -
 82.9 1.72 0.68 0.70 0.02 0.25 -58 1,047 10,375 0.66 0.68
106.3 2.82 0.63 0.99 0.97 0.17 -71 - 2,152 - 0.53
0.87 0.31 0.31 0.15 2 0.06 Change in 886 -
34.4 Biocapacity Components - 88 -
per capita Gross Gross Human Human
11.7 1.15 0.67 Grazing
0.10 Fishing 0.06 0.28 -37 618 9,937 - 0.76
National Per Capita Forest Biocapacity, Domestic Domestic Development Development
Yield Land Grounds
33.5
Biocapacity 2.86
Biocapacity 0.51
Cropland 1.29 land
Grazing 0.99
Forest land Fishing 0.03
grounds -
1961-2006 Product,537
1961 Product,2,111 -
2006 Index, 1980 -
Index, 2006 Country/Region1
[millions9.8
gha] [gha0.74
per capita] [gha 0.18
per capita] [gha 0.37
per capita] [gha per
0.14capita] [gha per
0.01capita] [percent]
-72 capita]3 [$ per
[$ per480 capita]
2,281
3
- -

11,901.5
2,867.1 1.81
0.7 0.56
0.33 0.26
0.08 0.74
0.15 0.18
0.10 -51
-44 -- -- -- -- Asia

1,418.82.2 1.51
0.7 0.42
0.30 0.45
0.29 0.46
0.07 0.12
0.02 -68- -- 8,944- -- -- Armenia
8.3 1.0 0.54 0.26 0.11 0.02 - - 8,446 - - Azerbaijan
27.2
13.4 0.82
0.9 0.37
0.45 0.35
0.12 0.04
0.20 0.01
0.14 -59
-54 475- 6,912
2,765 -
- 0.75
0.58 Cambodia
55.6
1,131.3 3.36
0.9 0.22
0.35 2.01
0.12 0.78
0.22 0.31
0.08 -70
-17 117- 4,446
7,303 0.53- 0.55
0.76 China
428.8 6.9 0.78
0.4 0.48
0.27 0.05
0.00 0.19
0.02 0.03
0.04 -68
-54 172
195 1,417
3,712 0.35
0.43 0.49
0.60 India
7.9
69.3 4.27
1.0 0.15
0.55 3.02
0.21 0.70
0.07 0.33
0.07 -65- 153
429 8,918
9,739 0.56- 0.78- Iran
19.2
7.0 1.34
0.2 0.69
0.14 0.22
0.02 0.34
0.05 0.00
0.01 -47
-85 153- 1,366
5,032 0.25 - 0.38 - Iraq
37.2
2.2 2.05
0.3 0.59
0.20 0.13
0.01 1.14
0.03 0.13
0.02 -72
-55 353
1,613 2,776
23,753 0.46
0.83 0.52
0.93 Israel
35.9 8.41
0.6 0.65
0.13 0.38 7.31
0.33 0.00
0.08 -64 297 871
31,236 0.34
0.89 0.37
78.8 0.00 -41 1,203 0.96 Japan
35.3 3.38
0.3 0.60
0.12 1.54 1.07
0.03 0.10
0.00 -71 275 2,766
5,292 - - 0.39
1.5 0.02 - 865 - Jordan
48.7 13.20 0.23
1.62 4.05 8.35 0.51
0.07 -73- 220- 5,202 -- 0.60 -
65.4 4.3 2.28 0.25 15,346 Kazakhstan
161.5 2.66 0.14 0.13 2.29 0.05 245- 390- --
13.2 0.6 0.27 0.00 0.24 0.00 -61- --
Korea, North
31.3 1.65 0.74 0.36 0.48 0.01 -72 316 2,295 - 0.48
14.2 0.3 0.14 0.00 0.09 0.00 -49 325 23,324 0.72 0.93 Korea, South
0.7 0.84 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.54 -88 - 4,599 - 0.52
1.4 0.5 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.33 - - 48,854 - - Kuwait
23.8 0.32 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.02 -41 304 5,587 0.50 0.70
7.9 1.5 0.53 0.75 0.08 0.06 - - 3,738 - - Kyrgyzstan
8.1 1.74 0.13 0.27 0.11 1.18 - - 615 - -
8.0 1.4 0.41 0.08 0.77 0.04 -63 - 2,230 - 0.61 Laos
2.0 1.19 0.38 0.14 0.21 0.42 -73 222 1,415 - 0.45
1.5 0.4 0.20 0.06 0.06 0.01 - - 8,175 - - Lebanon
25.8 1.12 0.51 0.32 0.18 0.06 - 413 1,656 - -
75.2 1.6 0.52 0.01 0.61 0.35 -55 - - - 0.58 Myanmar
27.0 2.94 0.42 1.06 0.80 0.60 -64 666 3,722 - 0.43
6.5 2.5 0.11 0.08 0.00 2.22 - - 25,507 - - Oman
5.5 3.35 0.49 0.41 0.34 2.05 -64 125 641 0.26 0.39
60.2 0.4 0.27 0.00 0.01 0.04 -56 203 3,473 0.40 0.57 Pakistan
9.3 2.59 0.19 0.81 1.19 0.37 -74 - 381 0.37 0.43
31.4 1.3 0.50 0.16 0.21 0.25 - - 22,220 - - Saudi Arabia
9.5 1.57 0.37 1.14 0.02 0.00 - - 21,907 - -
0.2 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 -59 795 43,167 0.79 0.94 Singapore
60.8 3.17 0.28 1.70 0.92 0.21 -69 251 880 - 0.54
6.9 0.4 0.20 0.02 0.04 0.05 -43 369 5,877 0.65 0.76 Sri Lanka
30.3 2.53 0.64 0.98 0.76 0.07 -59 141 1,383 0.25 0.37
17.0 0.9 0.55 0.22 0.04 0.00 - 152 2,637 - - Syria
19.1 6.29 0.16 4.09 0.06 1.93 -69 150 2,374 - 0.52
3.3 0.5 0.23 0.18 0.01 0.02 - - 2,771 - - Tajikistan
27.7 0.90 0.46 0.20 0.08 0.11 -37 421 5,594 0.47 0.65
67.4 1.1 0.64 0.01 0.18 0.17 - 263 9,424 - - Thailand
17.8 8.71 0.40 1.99 0.41 5.87 - 805 6,642 - -
108.4 1.5 0.90 0.13 0.31 0.05 -52 497 7,578 0.63 0.80 Turkey
26.4 1.92 1.09 0.72 0.07 0.00 -78 257 881 - 0.34
16.6 3.4 0.86 2.25 0.02 0.15 - - 10,951 - - Turkmenistan
129.9 0.90 0.60 0.20 0.02 0.02 - 293 2,205 - -
5.8 1.4 0.14 0.00 0.13 1.03 - - 53,496 - - UAE
16.5 1.37 0.37 0.22 0.52 0.21 -76 530 1,942 - 0.46
24.8 0.9 0.52 0.23 0.06 0.03 - - 2,002 - - Uzbekistan
5.7 0.99 0.15 0.41 0.18 0.21 -59 389 1,817 - 0.36
47.4 0.6 0.32 0.00 0.16 0.01 -40 - 3,572 - 0.72 Viet Nam
13.5 1.60 0.11 0.77 0.28 0.39 -66 - 478 - -
14.6 0.7 0.14 0.15 0.05 0.28 - - 1,309 - - Yemen
82.9 1.72 0.68 0.70 0.02 0.25 -58 1,047 10,375 0.66 0.68
106.3 2.82 0.63 0.99 0.97 0.17 -71 - 2,152 - 0.53
2,212.6 3.0 1.01 0.19 1.43 0.28 -21 - - - -
34.4 0.87 0.31 0.31 0.15 0.06 - 88 886 - -
11.7 1.15 0.67 0.10 0.06 0.28 -37 618 9,937 - 0.76
3.2 1.0 0.53 0.12 0.20 0.09 -34 - 4,607 - 0.81
33.5 2.86 0.51 1.29 0.99 0.03 - 537 2,111 - -
3.0 0.60 2.02 0.00 35,659 0.87
1 24.9
Regional
9.8 averages 0.74 0.18values from all0.17
are calculated using countries within each
0.37 0.01
0.14United Nations -15
region; only selected 2,030
-72 countries are480
shown here. Dashes
2,281indicate missing 0.95
- or insufficient data.
- 33
2 33.0
Also includes Built-up 1.36equal to the Built-up
3.4 land biocapacity 1.58
0.34 land Footprint, 0.02page.
shown on previous - - 21,277 - -
3
In11.3 1.1
constant 2005 US $. 0.32
0.33 0.12 0.28 0.05
0.10 -25 1,968 33,784 0.87- 0.95
2,867.1 0.7 0.08 0.15 -44 - - -
6.5 1.7 0.58 0.13 0.86 0.00 - - - - -
 73.9 155 209.60 2.84 1.37 1.01 0.08 0.26 0.04 0.08 19
4.9 - 18.75 3.83 2.46 0.74 0.49 0.00 0.01 0.12 -
Change in
4.2 4,235 43.72 10.29 7.19 1.98 Ecological 0.19 0.49
Footprint Components 0.38 0.06 -
Change in National Per capita per capita
27.0 - 46.70 Grazing Fishing
1.73 1.16 0.39 0.08 0.03 0.00 0.07 -
Population,
Cropland Ecological
Forest Ecological Footprint,
Yield Land Grounds
Country/Region1 Population
86.2 150
1961-2006 Footprint
87.49 1.01
Footprint Carbon Footprint
0.44 0.32
Cropland Grazing
0.00 land 0.19
Forest land 0.00
Fishing grounds 0.06land
Built-up 38
1961-2006
[millions] [percent]
308 [million gha] [gha per
0.98capita] [gha per capita] [gha per
0.32capita] [gha per capita] [gha per
0.03capita] [gha per
0.02capita] [gha per capita]
0.05 [percent]
-
21.7 21.32 0.40 0.16

World Average
Europe 6,592.9 114 17,090.66
3,297.47 1.0
1.0 2.59 1.0
4.51 1.37 0.57
1.06 0.22 0.28
0.50 0.10
0.22 0.06
0.12 13
33
731.3 1.0 22 2.49 0.12

Albania 942.5
3.2 225
91 1,338.22
8.15 1.42
2.57 0.35
1.18 0.48
0.96 0.20
0.25 0.29
0.08 0.04
0.02 0.05
0.08 -61
43
Austria 8.3 18 40.72 4.89 2.98 0.72 0.16 0.73 0.11 0.19 96
33.4
9.7 203
- 63.90
41.05 1.92
4.21 0.81 0.76
1.43 0.14 0.13
0.41 0.03
0.12 0.04
0.08 92 -
Belarus 1.93 0.23
16.6 224
14 15.66 0.95
5.70 0.14 0.34
1.84 0.19 0.13
0.56 0.09
0.17 0.04
0.31 -26
32
Belgium 10.4 59.42 2.44 0.38
8.8 272 8.85 1.01
3.39 0.10 0.50
1.07 0.05 0.30
0.47 0.03
0.06 0.03
0.08 -22 -
Bosnia/Herzegovina 3.9 - 13.32 1.54 0.18
1.9 242 7.20 3.88 1.60 0.23
0.77 1.78 0.19 0.01
0.04 0.06
0.17 -
Bulgaria 7.7 -3 25.02 3.25 1.69 0.22 0.36 35
14.4 210 19.55 1.36 0.02 0.67
0.49 0.22 0.37 0.01
0.06 0.08
0.11 -18
Croatia 4.6 - 15.20 3.34 2.03 0.09 0.56 -
18.2 229 20.10 1.11 0.09 0.54 0.13 0.24 0.04 0.05
0.16 -53
Czech Republic 10.2 - 54.23 5.32 2.95 1.03 0.12 0.99 0.07 -
4.3 174 6.13 1.44 0.02 0.68 0.38 0.29 0.00 0.07 -26
Denmark 5.4 18 39.07 7.19 3.77 1.10 0.21 1.24 0.60 0.28 12
10.5 245 18.38 1.76 0.01 0.61 0.77 0.29 0.00 0.07 -51
Estonia 1.3 - 8.60 6.42 3.15 0.44 0.15 2.40 0.14 0.13 -
3.7 259 3.55 0.96 0.09 0.30 0.03 0.41 0.08 0.05 -33
Finland 5.3 18 29.00 5.51 2.67 1.27 0.03 1.02 0.38 0.14 -
60.6 282 44.67 0.74 0.01 0.16 0.01 0.49 0.01 0.05 -
France 61.3 33 282.28 4.60 2.49 0.81 0.16 0.63 0.30 0.21 38
18.9 518 17.89 0.95 0.13 0.36 0.05 0.21 0.13 0.06 -42
Germany 82.6 13 333.40 4.03 2.21 0.93 0.07 0.51 0.14 0.18 37
0.8 810 0.76 0.93 0.17 0.37 0.28 0.05 0.04 0.03 -56
Greece 11.1 33 64.02 5.76 3.94 0.93 0.25 0.43 0.12 0.08 284
74.2 160 103.82 1.40 0.69 0.41 0.02 0.13 0.06 0.08 77
Hungary 10.1 0 32.45 3.23 1.39 1.16 0.06 0.41 0.03 0.17 10
4.7 - 3.61 0.77 0.03 0.19 0.27 0.20 0.04 0.04 -
Ireland 4.2 49 34.57 8.19 5.19 1.06 0.72 0.64 0.33 0.25 126
1.7 348 1.80 1.08 0.12 0.50 0.14 0.19 0.08 0.04 -15
Italy 58.8 16 290.10 4.94 2.88 1.02 0.20 0.50 0.24 0.08 116
23.0 213 36.87 1.60 0.35 0.42 0.05 0.57 0.16 0.05 -
Latvia 2.3 - 10.53 4.60 0.86 0.97 0.15 2.39 0.16 0.07 -
9.2 189 13.46 1.47 0.04 0.46 0.35 0.52 0.03 0.06 -33
Lithuania 3.4 - 11.32 3.32 1.54 0.35 0.09 0.93 0.33 0.10 -
1.6 196 1.64 1.00 0.05 0.39 0.34 0.16 0.00 0.06 -19
Moldova 3.8 - 6.70 1.75 0.84 0.72 0.06 0.07 0.00 0.05 -
3.6 231 4.12 1.15 0.06 0.30 0.02 0.70 0.03 0.04 -26
Netherlands 16.4 41 75.41 4.60 2.44 1.22 0.21 0.41 0.18 0.14 40
6.0 331 19.21 3.18 1.95 0.81 0.18 0.10 0.10 0.04 -
Norway 4.7 29 19.63 4.20 2.05 1.19 0.04 0.59 0.18 0.15 -
19.2 248 22.43 1.17 0.08 0.30 0.43 0.26 0.04 0.06 -51
Poland 38.1 27 148.25 3.89 2.38 0.65 0.01 0.66 0.11 0.07 25
12.0 193 22.17 1.85 0.12 0.62 0.83 0.18 0.01 0.08 -22
Portugal 10.6 19 46.23 4.37 2.41 0.85 0.19 0.14 0.74 0.04 74
3.0 233 9.43 3.10 0.44 0.38 2.02 0.21 0.00 0.05 -39
Romania 21.5 16 57.50 2.67 1.21 0.84 0.09 0.33 0.05 0.14 46
30.9 158 41.26 1.34 0.32 0.70 0.15 0.06 0.06 0.05 -11
Russia 143.2 - 635.97 4.44 2.23 1.51 0.05 0.43 0.15 0.06 -
2.0 233 6.14 3.00 0.80 0.71 1.39 0.00 0.04 0.05 -
Slovakia 5.4 - 26.64 4.94 3.48 0.59 0.06 0.59 0.07 0.15 -
13.7 336 23.13 1.68 0.05 1.13 0.19 0.27 0.00 0.04 -77
Slovenia 2.0 - 7.78 3.89 2.07 0.79 0.06 0.78 0.10 0.09 -
144.7 234 232.59 1.61 0.61 0.63 0.06 0.21 0.04 0.05 -
Spain 43.9 43 247.01 5.63 3.25 1.16 0.17 0.46 0.53 0.05 120
12.1 258 15.07 1.25 0.18 0.47 0.24 0.22 0.09 0.04 -46
Switzerland 7.5 37 41.67 5.59 3.98 0.72 0.20 0.43 0.14 0.11 90
5.7 150 4.41 0.77 0.05 0.20 0.04 0.37 0.08 0.03 -42
Ukraine 46.6 - 124.20 2.67 1.45 0.87 0.01 0.17 0.11 0.07 -
8.4 193 12.82 1.52 0.01 0.20 0.76 0.49 0.00 0.05 -49
United Kingdom 60.7 15 371.65 6.12 4.00 0.93 0.20 0.58 0.23 0.18 59
48.3 171 132.17 2.74 1.29 0.78 0.21 0.30 0.10 0.06 -8
37.7 222 84.11 2.23 0.27 0.70 0.99 0.22 0.00 0.05 -35
564.7 150 1,375.32 2.44 0.60 0.58 0.71 0.36 0.11 0.08
0.05 -6
39.5 281 40.46 1.03 0.11 0.31 0.31 0.25 0.00 -
10.2 138 19.23 1.88 0.58 0.82 0.10 0.21 0.12 0.04 26
39.1 87 117.49 3.00 0.71 0.43
0.44 1.36 0.20 0.20
0.01 0.09
0.05 -20-
11.7 262 13.69 1.17 0.16 0.15 0.36
9.4
34 The Ecological Wealth of Nations 173
241 22.50 2.41
1.04 0.47 0.47
0.25 1.22 0.16
0.28 0.01
0.00 0.07
0.03 -20
-51
13.2 13.69 0.12 0.36
16.5 110 50.99 3.10 0.49 0.67 0.32 0.95 0.55 0.12 -
45.6
3,983.9 163
129 85.12
6,031.71 1.87
1.51 0.52
0.80 0.31
0.38 0.78
0.06 0.13
0.14 0.04
0.08 0.08
0.06 -21
46
4.4 219 11.87 2.70 1.13 0.44 0.26 0.73 0.05 0.09 -1
 108.4 1.5 0.90 0.13 0.31 0.05 -52 497 7,578 0.63 0.80
16.6 3.4 0.86 2.25 0.02 0.15 - - 10,951 - -
5.8 1.4 0.14 0.00 0.13 2 1.03 Change- in - 53,496 - -
Biocapacity Components per capita Gross Gross Human Human
0.52 Grazing
0.23 Fishing 0.06 0.03 2,002 -
24.8
National Per0.9
Capita Forest
-
Biocapacity, -
Domestic Domestic -
Development Development
Yield Land Grounds
47.4
Biocapacity 0.6
Biocapacity 0.32
Cropland 0.00 land
Grazing 0.16
Forest land Fishing 0.01
grounds -40
1961-2006 3,572
Product, -1961 Product, 2006 Index, 1980- 2006 Country/Region1
0.72
Index,
[millions gha] [gha per [gha 0.14 3 [$ per capita]3
14.6 0.7capita] per capita] [gha 0.15
per capita] [gha per
0.05capita] [gha per
0.28capita] [percent]
- [$ per capita]
- 1,309 - -

11,901.5
2,212.6 1.81
3.0 0.56
1.01 0.26
0.19 0.74
1.43 0.18
0.28 -51
-21 -- -- -- -- Europe

1,418.83.2 1.51
1.0 0.42
0.53 0.45
0.12 0.46
0.20 0.12
0.09 -68
-34 -- 4,607- -- 0.81- Albania
24.9 3.0 0.60 0.17 2.02 0.00 -15 2,030 35,659 0.87 0.95 Austria
27.2
33.0 0.82
3.4 0.37
1.36 0.35
0.34 0.04
1.58 0.01
0.02 -59- 475- 6,912
21,277 -- 0.75 - Belarus
55.6
11.3 3.36
1.1 0.22
0.32 2.01
0.12 0.78
0.28 0.31
0.05 -70
-25 1,968 - 4,446
33,784 0.87- 0.55
0.95 Belgium
6.9
6.5 0.78
1.7 0.48
0.58 0.05
0.13 0.19
0.86 0.03
0.00 -68 - 172- 1,417- 0.35 - 0.49 - Bosnia/Herzegovina
7.9
20.4 4.27
2.7 0.15
1.20 3.02
0.19 0.70
0.99 0.33
0.10 -2- 153- 8,918
9,605 -- 0.84- Bulgaria
19.2
8.2 1.34
1.8 0.69
0.22 0.22
0.15 0.34
0.98 0.00
0.34 -47 - 153- 1,366
13,593 0.25 - 0.38 - Croatia
37.2
26.9 2.05
2.6 0.59
1.11 0.13
0.14 1.14
1.22 0.13
0.00 -72- 353- 2,776
21,184 0.46- 0.52 - Czech Republic
35.9 8.41
5.2 0.65
2.50 0.38 7.31
0.29 0.00
2.09 -64 297 871
34,633 0.34
0.88 0.37
28.2 0.04 -24 2,197 0.95 Denmark
35.3 3.38
9.0 0.60
0.67 1.54 1.07
3.21 0.10
4.59 -71 275 2,766
18,080 - - 0.39
12.0 0.39 - - - Estonia
48.7 13.20 0.23
1.38 4.05 8.35
8.66 0.51
2.81 -73- 220 5,202 -- 0.60 -
68.3 13.0 0.00 1,827 31,597 Finland
161.5 2.66 0.14 0.13 2.29 0.05 245 390 -
173.7 2.8 1.28 0.28 0.89 0.18 -9- 1,935 30,119 0.88 0.96-
France
31.3 1.65 0.74 0.36 0.48 0.01
0.08 -72 316 2,295 0.87- 0.48
154.1 1.9 0.87 0.10 0.64 0 - 31,291 0.95 Germany
0.7 0.84 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.54 -88 - 4,599 - 0.52
15.2 1.4 0.79 0.10 0.14 0.25 1 1,241 27,532 0.84 0.94 Greece
23.8 0.32 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.02 -41 304 5,587 0.50 0.70
25.9 2.6 1.72 0.11 0.57 0.01 8 - 17,212 0.80 0.88 Hungary
8.1 1.74 0.13 0.27 0.11 1.18 - - 615 - -
18.0 4.3 0.98 0.91 0.25 1.88 -22 1,373 41,085 0.84 0.96 Ireland
2.0 1.19 0.38 0.14 0.21 0.42 -73 222 1,415 - 0.45
60.8 1.0 0.53 0.08 0.27 0.07 -21 1,737 29,048 0.86 0.95 Italy
25.8 1.12 0.51 0.32 0.18 0.06 - 413 1,656 - -
16.6 7.2 1.03 0.72 3.34 2.08 - - 13,905 - - Latvia
27.0 2.94 0.42 1.06 0.80 0.60 -64 666 3,722 - 0.43
12.5 3.7 0.70 0.92 1.64 0.29 - - 13,625 - - Lithuania
5.5 3.35 0.49 0.41 0.34 2.05 -64 125 641 0.26 0.39
4.3 1.1 0.95 0.05 0.07 0.01 - - 3,588 - - Moldova
9.3 2.59 0.19 0.81 1.19 0.37 -74 - 381 0.37 0.43
17.2 1.0 0.27 0.06 0.08 0.50 -27 2,305 34,369 0.89 0.96 Netherlands
9.5 1.57 0.37 1.14 0.02 0.00 - - 21,907 - -
28.5 6.1 0.69 0.03 3.23 2.01 - 2,301 50,794 - - Norway
60.8 3.17 0.28 1.70 0.92 0.21 -69 251 880 - 0.54
70.1 1.8 0.82 0.13 0.71 0.12 -38 - 13,919 - 0.88 Poland
30.3 2.53 0.64 0.98 0.76 0.07 -59 141 1,383 0.25 0.37
12.5 1.2 0.24 0.26 0.57 0.08 6 822 20,273 0.77 0.91 Portugal
19.1 6.29 0.16 4.09 0.06 1.93 -69 150 2,374 - 0.52
48.9 2.3 0.84 0.18 1.00 0.10 -6 332 9,348 - 0.83 Romania
27.7 0.90 0.46 0.20 0.08 0.11 -37 421 5,594 0.47 0.65
906.2 6.3 1.55 0.33 4.18 0.21 - - 13,073 - - Russia
17.8 8.71 0.40 1.99 0.41 5.87 - 805 6,642 - -
14.4 2.7 0.83 0.09 1.60 0.00 - - 16,214 - - Slovakia
26.4 1.92 1.09 0.72 0.07 0.00 -78 257 881 - 0.34
4.7 2.4 0.22 0.25 1.80 0.00 - - 25,020 - - Slovenia
129.9 0.90 0.60 0.20 0.02 0.02 - 293 2,205 - -
58.0 1.3 0.84 0.13 0.24 0.06 -27 1,269 31,338 0.86 0.95 Spain
16.5 1.37 0.37 0.22 0.52 0.21 -76 530 1,942 - 0.46
9.5 1.3 0.26 0.17 0.73 0.01 -28 3,574 37,483 0.90 0.96 Switzerland
5.7 0.99 0.15 0.41 0.18 0.21 -59 389 1,817 - 0.36
103.5 2.2 1.47 0.14 0.40 0.15 - - 9,676 - - Ukraine
13.5 1.60 0.11 0.77 0.28 0.39 -66 - 478 - -
95.7 1.6 0.62 0.11 0.11 0.56 1 2,192 32,103 0.86 0.95 United Kingdom
82.9 1.72 0.68 0.70 0.02 0.25 -58 1,047 10,375 0.66 0.68
106.3 2.82 0.63 0.99 0.97 0.17 -71 - 2,152 - 0.53
3,065.2 5.4 0.72 0.90 3.40 0.33 -60 - - - -
34.4 0.87 0.31 0.31 0.15 0.06 - 88 886 - -
11.7 1.15 0.67 0.10 0.06 0.28 -37 618 9,937 - 0.76
276.0 7.1 2.32 1.94 0.78 1.91 -41 1,894 15,119 0.79 0.86
33.5 2.86 0.51 1.29 0.99 0.03 - 537 2,111 - -
19.3 0.07
15.77United Nations 3,946 0.56
1180.9
Regional
9.8 averages 0.74 0.18values from all2.75
0.67
are calculated using countries within each
0.37 0.14 0.01 -66
region; only selected 515
-72 countries are480
shown here. Dashes
2,281indicate missing 0.73
- or insufficient data.
- 35
2 67.4 4.1 land biocapacity
Also includes Built-up 0.45equal to the Built-up 2.16
0.53 land Footprint, 0.83page.
shown on previous - 1,132 19,838 - -
3
175.8 3.9
In constant 2005 US $. 0.22
0.33 1.32 2.19 0.04
0.10 -63 613 7,745 0.69- 0.80
2,867.1 0.7 0.08 0.15 -44 - - -
8.0 1.8 0.35 0.65 0.60 0.11 -72 969 11,605 0.76 0.85
References and Further Reading
Sources for the National Footprint Accounts
British Petroleum. 2007. Statistical Review of World
Energy. http://www.bp.com/productlanding.do?cat
egoryId=6929&contentId=7044622 (accessed July
2009).
Corine Land Cover 2000. European Topic Centre
on Land Use and Spatial Information, 2000.
Barcelona: EIONET. http://terrestrial.eionet.europa.
eu/CLC2000 (accessed July 2009).
Corine Land Cover 1990. European Topic Centre
on Land Use and Spatial Information, 1990.
Barcelona: EIONET. http://terrestrial.eionet.europa.
eu/CLC1990 (accessed July 2009).
Fishbase Database. Froese, R. and D. Pauly (Eds.)
2008. http://www.fishbase.org (accessed July
2009).
Food and Agricuture Organization of the United
Nations FAOSTAT Statistical Databases. http://
faostat.fao.org/site/291/default.aspx (accessed
July 2009).
FAO ForesSTAT Statistical Database. http://faostat.
fao.org/site/626/default.aspx (accessed July 2009).
FAO PopSTAT Statistical Database. http://faostat.
fao.org/site/452/default.aspx (accessed July
2009).
FAO ProdSTAT Statistical Database. http://faostat.
fao.org/site/526/default.aspx (accessed July 2009).
FAO ResourceSTAT Statistical Database. http://
faostat.fao.org/site/348/default.aspx (accessed
July 2009).
FAO TradeSTAT Statistical Databases. http://
faostat.fao.org/site/406/default.aspx (accessed
July 2009).
FAO FishSTAT Fisheries Statistical Database.
http://www.fao.org/fishery/figis (accessed July
2009).
36 The Ecological Wealth of Nations
FAO Supply Utilization Accounts Statistical
Database. 2003.http://faostat.fao.org/site/355/
default.aspx#ancor (Archived from prior FAOSTAT)
FAO. 1998. Global Fiber Supply Model. http://
ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/006/X0105E/X0105E.pdf
(accessed July 2009).
FAO. 2000. Technical Conversion Factors for
Agricultural Commodities. http://www.fao.org/es/
ess/tcf.asp. (accessed July 2009).
Global Agro-Ecological Zones. FAO and
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis
2000. http://www.fao.org/ag/agl/agll/gaez/index.
htm. (accessed July 2009).
Global Land Cover 2000. Institute for Environment
and Sustainability, Joint Research Center and
European Commission. Italy: IES. http://www-tem.
jrc.it/glc2000 (accessed July 2009).
Global Land Use Database. Center for Sustainability
and the Global Environment, University of Wisconsin-
Madison. 1992. http://www.sage.wisc.edu:16080/
iamdata (accessed July 2009).
Goodland, R. 1997. Environmental Sustainability
in the Hydro Industry. Large Dams: Learning from
the Past, Looking at the Future. Washington DC:
Workshop Proceedings, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland
and Cambridge, UK and the World Bank Group.
Gulland, J.A. 1971. The Fish Resources of the
Ocean. West Byfleet, Surrey, England: Fishing
News.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2006.
2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories Volume 4: Agriculture Forestry and
Other Land Use. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/
public/2006gl/vol4.html (accessed July 2009).
IPCC. 2001. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific
Basis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press, 2001.
International Energy Agency CO2 Emissions from
Fuel Combustion Database. 2007. http://wds.iea.
org/wds (accessed July 2009).
IEA. Hydropower FAQ. http://www.ieahydro.org/
faq.htm (accessed July 2009).
Marland, G., T.A. Boden, and R. J. Andres. 2007.
Global, Regional, and National Fossil Fuel CO2
Emissions. In Trends: A Compendium of Data on
Global Change. Oak Ridge, TN: Carbon Dioxide
Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory and U.S. Department of Energy.
Pauly D. and V. Christensen. 1995. Primary
production required to sustain global fisheries.
Nature. 374: 255-257.
Sea Around Us Project. Fisheries Centre, Pew
Charitable Trusts and the University of British
Columbia. 2008. http://www.seaaroundus.org/
project.htm (accessed July 2009).
United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics
Database. 2007. http://comtrade.un.org (accessed
July 2009).
UN Economic Commission for Europe and Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
2005. European Forest Sector Outlook Study.
http://www.unece.org/timber/docs/sp/sp-20.pdf
(accessed July 2009).
UNECE and FAO. 2000. Temperate and Boreal
Forest Resource Assessment. Geneva: UNECE,
FAO.
Vaclav Smil. 2000. Feeding the World: A Challenge
for the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge: MIT
Press.
World Resources Institute Global Land Cover
Classification Database. http://earthtrends.wri.org
(accessed July 2009).
Resources
Ewing B., S. Goldfinger, A. Oursler, A. Reed, D.
Moore, and M. Wackernagel. 2009. The Ecological
Footprint Atlas 2009. Oakland: Global Footprint
Network.
Ewing B., A. Reed, A. Galli, J. Kitzes, and M.
Wackernagel. 2009. Calculation Methodology for
the National Footprint Accounts, 2009 Edition.
Oakland: Global Footprint Network. http://www.
footprintnetwork.org/images/uploads/National_
Footprint_Accounts_Method_Paper_2009.pdf
Kitzes, J., A. Galli, A. Reed, B. Ewing, S. Rizk, D.
Moore, and M. Wackernagel. 2009. Guidebook
to the National Footprint Accounts, 2009 Edition.
Oakland: Global Footprint Network. http://www.
footprintnetwork.org/images/uploads/National_
Footprint_Accounts_Guidebook_2009.pdf
Rice, A. 2009. Is there such a thing as agro-
imperialism? New York Times Magazine, November
16. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/
magazine/22land-t.html?_r=1&hpw (accessed
February 2010).
Rosenthal, E. 2007. World food stocks dwindling
rapidly, UN warns. New York Times, December
17. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/17/world/
europe/17iht-food.html?emc=eta1 (accessed
February 2010).
United Nations Environmental Programme, 2009.
From Conflict to Peacebuilding: The Role of Natural
Resources and the Environment. Nairobi, Kenya:
UNEP.
UN Development Programme. 2009. Human
Development Report 2009 Overcoming barriers:
Human mobility and development. http://hdr.
undp.org/en/media/HDR_2009_EN_Complete.pdf
(accessed February 2010).
Global Footprint Network Partner Organizations
INTERNATIONAL Carbon Decisions NORTH AMERICA
Centre for Sustainable Tourism and Transportation
BioRegional Development Group CERAG AASHE (Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in
Earth Day Network CESTRAS (Centro de Estudos e Estratgias para a Higher Education)
ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability Sustentabilidade) British Columbia Institute of Technology
LEAD International Charles University Environment Center CASSE (Center for the Advancement of the Steady State
nrg4SD (Network of Regional Governments for Sustainable Conseil rgional Nord Pas de Calais Economy)
Development) DANDELION Environmental Consulting and Service Ltd. Childrens Environmental Literacy Foundation
The Natural Step International De Kleine Aarde (The Small Earth) Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center
WWF Ecole Nationale Suprieur des Mines de Saint-tienne EcoMark
Ecolife Global Green USA
AFRICA & MIDDLE EAST EcoRes Hawaii County Resource Center
Empreinte Ecologique SARL Info Grafik
AGEDI (Abu Dhabi Global Environmental Data Initiative) Finnish Ministry of the Environment Natural Logic, Inc.
Emirates Environmental Group Foundation for Global Sustainability One Earth Initiative
Emirates Wildlife Society-WWF IFF Social Ecology Paul Wermer Sustainability Consulting
North West University Center for Environmental Management IRES Piemonte Research Institute Planet2025 Network
KVET Association for Sustainable Economies Portfolio 21 Investments, Inc.
ASIA Nature Humaine Sustainable Earth Initiative
nef (new economics foundation) The City of Calgary
Agenda21 Action Council for Gyeonggi-do Novatlantis The Cloud Institute for Sustainability Education
CII (Confederation of Indian Industry) OeKU The Sustainable Scale Project
Ecological Footprint Japan Optimum Population Trust Together Campaign
GIDR (Gujarat Institute for Development Research) Pictet Asset Management SA Utah Population and Environment Coalition
WWF - Japan Plattform Footprint ZeroFootprint
PROECOENO
AUSTRALIA & OCEANIA Rete Lilliput
Skipso
Alberfield Pty Ltd St. Petersburg State University
Eco-Norfolk Foundation SERI (Sustainable Europe Research Institute)
EcoSTEPS Tartu University
EPA Queensland The Web of Hope
EPA Victoria University of Siena - Ecodynamics Group
New Zealand Centre for Ecological Economics Water Footprint Network
RMIT University Centre for Design Welsh Assembly Government
The GPT Group
Zero Waste SA CENTRAL & SOUTH AMERICA

EUROPE Acuerdo Ecuador

Ecossistemas Design Ecolgico
Agir21 Fan (Fundacin Amigos de la Naturaleza)
Agrocampus Ouest Instituto de Ecologa Poltica
Ambiente Italia Liblula Comunicacin
Bank Sarasin & Co. Ltd RECYCLA Chile
Best Foot Forward (PUCP) The Pontifical Catholic University of Peru
BRASS Centre Universidad de Colima
 We must learn to view the Earths resources not as our own infinite pantry,
but as a limited luxury that, if used responsibly,
everyone now and in the future can continue to benefit from.
This means using existing robust accounting tools to analyze
the current situation and to track humanitys path into the future.
Global Footprint Network has developed such a tool,
which measures not only how much biocapacity we have, and how much we use,
but also who is using what and where.
This data can serve not only as the starting point
for meaningful and impactful dialogue between nations,
but as a cornerstone for future policy decisions,
as the sustainable governance of natural resources is sorely needed around the globe.

Freddy Ehlers, Secretary-General, Comunidad Andina (Andean Community)

GLOBAL FOOTPRINT NETWORK

Global Footprint Network is an international science and policy institute working to advance
sustainability through use of the Ecological Footprint, a resource accounting tool that measures how
much nature we have, how much we use and who uses what. By making ecological limits central to
decision making, we are working to end overshoot and create a society where all people can live well,
within the means of our one planet. Global Footprint Net has offices in Oakland (California, USA),
Brussels (Belgium), Zurich (Switzerland) and Washington, DC (USA). www.footprintnetwork.org