Download analysis with the EF concept in interaction with other indicators

Quality of growth indicators based on Ecological Footprint concept
Tatiana V. Filatova
Institute of Natural Resources, Ecology and Cryology Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences,
Russia
There are several different approaches to measure whether human development is sustainable or not. This paper
introduces the application of the Ecological footprint concept in Chita region for such accounting task. It is important to
evaluate ecological sustainability of specific region in Russia because natural, economic and social conditions of
Russian regions differ from each other. The comparison of the dynamics of additional indicators with Ecological
Footprint, Gross Domestic Product and with some others indices is presented in this work. In that case Ecological
Footprint is considered a quality of growth indicator.
Ecological Footprint (EF) analysis measures the amount of the world’s biological productivity an individual uses in
a given year. EF represents the biologically productive area required to produce the food, goods and wood people
consume, to supply space for infrastructure and to absorb CO 2 emitted from the burning fossil fuel. This indicator
measures nature’s supply and compare it to the humanity’s demands placed on the nature. The result of such
comparison monitors whether people are living within their ecological means. The EF is expressed in “global hectares”
(gha). Each global hectare corresponds to one hectare of biologically productive space with the world average
productivity [1]-[2].
The results of EF accounts for Chita region based on the 1998, 1999, 2000 data are presented in the table 1.
Table 1: Chita region EF
The EF increased in 1999 but dropped down in
2000. During the analysis it was determined that such
dynamics happened due to an increase of the timber
2,50
2,78
2,71
export and to dynamics of the coal consumption in
0,00
0,00
0,00
Chita region not because of rational use of resources.
0,45
0,30
0,32
It was calculated [2], [3] that EF of an average
0,66
0,62
0,60
Russian
citizen is 4.5 gha (according to 1999 data). It
0,12
0,09
0,13
means
that
a citizen of Chita region uses fifth times
0,08
0,08
0,09
less resources than an average Russian man. Such
3,81
3,87
3,84
result is influenced by the fact that the people’s living
standards in Chita region are lower than in some other Russian regions.
Apart from EF biologically productive area per capita (with the regard to 12% for conservation of biodiversity) in
Chita region was calculated. It was 24.27 gha in 1998, 24.67 in 1999 and 24.70 in 2000. To compare: according to
«Living Planet Report 2002 » [3] biologically productive area per capita in Central and East Europe is 3,00 gha, in
Russia it is 4,84 gha (according to the 1999 data).
Table 2: Dynamics of some indicators in Chita region
Some additional indicators were
Indicator
1998
1999
2000
calculated: adjusted EF (AEF),
EF, gha
3,81
3,87
3,84
exported part of EF (EPEF), imported
AEF, gha
3,88
4,72
5,15
part of EF (IPEF) and trade part of EF
EPEF, gha
0,76
1,57
2,05
(TPEF). The traditional EF means how
IPEF, gha
0,69
0,72
0,74
much of the biologically productive
TPEF, gha
-0,10
-0,88
-1,34
area is being used by one person
GRP, mln. Russian rubles
13071,9 14352,95 14549,02
irrespective of the place where these
Reforestation, thousands ha
24,7
25,5
24,6
goods are being produced (within or
The amount of population with monetary
outside of country/region). Let us
income lower then living wage, in
72,5
86,3
78,0
consider how much biologically
percents from total population
productive area is being used to
produce all goods within the region. It is possible to call this indicator adjusted EF (AEF). Imported part of EF (IPEF) –
is the size of the area which is needed to produce goods imported from other countries and regions. Exported part of EF
(EPEF) – is the size of the area which is needed to produce goods exported to other countries and regions. Trade part of
EF (TPEF) – is the difference between IPEF and EPEF. To put a link between these indicators in mathematical terms
one may use these formulae: EF = AEF + TPEF
TPEF = IPEF – EPEF. Table 2 represents the results of
this calculation.
It is easy to notice that AEF in contradistinction to EF is rising, thus the pressure on the environment is rising as
well. In addition, table 2 presents the dynamic of Gross Regional Product (GRP) which is important since its increase
leads to a growth in use of the natural resources. AEF in Chita region is rising due to the increase of timber’s extraction
main part of which is exported as roundwood timber. At the same time the volume of reforestation doesn’t have the same
Ecological Footprint
component
CO2 absorption land
Built-up area
Arable land
Pasture
Forest
Sea
EF, total
1
gha – global hectare
1998,gha1
1999, gha
2000, gha
dynamics as AEF does. The square of reforestation in 2000 was the least during the period of 1998-2000, while the
amount of timber extraction was the largest.
There is a tendency that the countries with economies in a transition achieve their economic growth and, as a result,
improvement in welfare on the basis of the natural resources’ export. However, in Chita region, in spite of such rate of
growth of AEF (i.e. extraction of natural resources), the living standard doesn’t improve (as described in table 2) since
most of the population lives lower then the living wage.
The biologically productive space per capita in Chita region is more than 6 times bigger than the EF of an
average Chita region citizen. So, according to this indicator of sustainable development it is possible to say that the
population of Chita region is developing on a sustainable way. But if you compare EF of an average Chita region citizen
to the world average biologically productive area per person (1.9 gha per person in 1999) the situation will not be so
optimistic. If everyone on the planet consumes as much natural resources as an average Chita region citizen does, we
will need 2.04 planets like the Earth for our needs. In spite of such volume of the natural resources’ extraction the
people’s living standard doesn’t improve while the reforestation is not efficient (the square of reforestation is an
important indicator because timber forms the main part of the export from the region). Therefore, the results of the
analysis show that the economy of Chita region goes on an unsustainable way.
This study is elaborated within Dutch-Russian project “Quality of growth indicators for transition economy”.
Financial support from NWO (Netherlands) and RFBR (Russia) is gratefully acknowledged.
References
1. Mathis Wackernagel, Larry Onisto and others. National capital accounting with the ecological footprint
concept // Ecological economics № 29, p.375-389
2. Mathis Wackernagel, Chad Monfreda, Diana Deumling. Ecological footprint of nations November 2002
update. How much nature do they use? How much nature do they have?
3. Living Planet Report 2002, http://www.panda.org/livingplanet
Contact information:
Name: Tatiana V. Filatova
Organization: Institute of Natural Resources, Ecology and Cryology Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of
Sciences
Mailing address: Amyrskaya Street, building 68, Chita, 672002, Russia
Telephone: +7 (302-2) 35-91-90
Fax: +7 (302-2) 32-02-16
E-mail: [email protected]