This was: http://www.ecouncil.ac.cr/rio/focus/report/english/footprint/ranking.htm ,
but ecouncil.ac.cr is no longer on the web. However, an earlier version is on Dr.Charles J.Kibert's University of Florida site:
http://www.dcp.ufl.edu/ckibert/BCN6585/EcologicalFootprint/ranking.htm


Ranking the Ecological Impact of Nations Ecological Footprints of Nations
Index | Rio+5 | Home

Table 1 summarises the results of our calculations. The first two number columns show the countries’ 1997 population and their per capita ecological footprint. The footprint data of the 52 analysed nations indicate their respective ecological impact world-wide. A five hectare footprint would mean that five hectares of biologically productive space (with world average productivity) are in constant production to support the average individual of that country. Compared to the available 1.7 hectares per world citizen, this five hectare footprint occupies three times more ecological space. Countries with footprints lower than 1.7 hectares per person have a global impact that could be replicated by everybody without putting the planet’s ecological long-term capacity at risk.

However, some countries are particularly well endowed with ecological capacity. As a consequence, they may be able to sustain their citizens at a higher level of resource throughput. We measure the extent to which this is possible by comparing their ecological footprints (second number column of Table 1) with the biologically productive space available within each country, including the share of sea space (third number column of Table 1). For example, the Netherlands are listed with 2.8 hectares available capacity per capita, including sea space. As their local productivity is about four times larger than world average, these 2.8 hectares are more than the existing physical space within the country.

If the footprint exceeds the available biologically productive area of the country, it runs an ecological deficit (fourth column of Table 1). In this case, the country’s area alone cannot provide sufficient ecological services to satisfy its population’s current patterns of consumption.

Now let’s rank them! Figure 5 organises them according to their ecological footprint and Figure 6 with respect to their ecological deficit.

The ranking of ecological footprints points out which people are on the ecologically most sustainable trajectories and which ones exacerbate the current ecological squeeze. In fact, only in ten out of the 52 countries, the average citizen uses less than what is available on a per capita basis world-wide. In other words, if all people of the world adapted the lifestyle of the first 42 countries, there would simply not be enough ecological capacity to support them sustainably. We could say that the ecological footprint shows people’s contribution to global ecological decline.

FIGURE 4: Ecological deficits. The ecological footprint measures how much ecological capacity we occupy. Some countries claim more ecological capacity than there is within their boundaries. This means that they run an ecological deficit. Consequently, they need to import their missing ecological capacity -- or deplete their local natural capital stocks (above). Countries with footprints smaller than their capacity are living within their nation’s ecological means (below). Often, however, the remaining capacity is used for producing export goods rather than keeping it as a reserve.

TABLE 1: The ecological footprintsof nations (updated 12/97: For each country, this table lists its 1997 population, ecological footprint, available bio-capacity and national ecological deficit - the last three on a per capita basis. If you want to know a nation’s total ecological footprint, multiply the per capita data by the country’s population. The main improvements since the original version of March 97 are: the CO2 absorption and forest productivity estimates; the sea space allocation; and, the introduction of "equivalency factors" to add up the various ecological categories in a more meaningful way.

UPDATED RANKING LIST (1993 data)              
after introducing equivalency factors, new forest productivity and CO2 absorption (after IPCC data)              
November 20, 1997              
               
  population footprint available capacity ecol. deficit (if negative)   total fp total av.cap
  (in 1997) in [ha/cap] in [ha/cap] in [ha/cap]   [km2] [km2]
Argentina 35,405,000 3.9 4.6 0.7   1,380,795 1,628,630
Australia 18,550,000 9.0 14.0 5.0   1,669,500 2,597,000
Austria 8,053,000 4.1 3.1 -1.0   330,173 249,643
Bangladesh 125,898,000 0.5 0.3 -0.2   629,490 415,463
Belgium 10,174,000 5.0 1.3 -3.7   508,700 132,262
Brazil 167,046,000 3.1 6.7 3.6   5,178,426 11,192,082
Canada 30,101,000 7.7 9.6 1.9   2,317,777 2,889,696
Chile 14,691,000 2.5 3.2 0.7   367,275 470,112
China 1,247,315,000 1.2 0.8 -0.4   14,967,780 9,978,520
Colombia 36,200,000 2.0 4.1 2.1   724,000 1,484,200
Costa Rica 3,575,000 2.5 2.5 0.0   89,375 89,375
Czech Rep 10,311,000 4.5 4.0 -0.5   463,995 412,440
Denmark 5,194,000 5.9 5.2 -0.7   306,446 270,088
Egypt 65,445,000 1.2 0.2 -1.0   785,340 130,890
Ethiopia 58,414,000 0.8 0.5 -0.3   467,312 292,070
Finland 5,149,000 6.0 8.6 2.6   308,940 442,814
France 58,433,000 4.1 4.2 0.1   2,395,753 2,454,186
Germany 81,845,000 5.3 1.9 -3.4   4,337,785 1,555,055
Greece 10,512,000 4.1 1.5 -2.6   430,992 157,680
Hong Kong 5,913,000 6.1 0.0 -6.1   360,693 0
Hungary 10,037,000 3.1 2.1 -1.0   311,147 210,777
Iceland 274,000 7.4 21.7 14.3   20,276 59,458
India 970,230,000 0.8 0.5 -0.3   7,761,840 4,851,150
Indonesia 203,631,000 1.4 2.6 1.2   2,850,834 5,294,406
Ireland 3,577,000 5.9 6.5 0.6   211,043 232,505
Israel 5,854,000 3.4 0.3 -3.1   199,036 17,562
Italy 57,247,000 4.2 1.3 -2.9   2,404,374 744,211
Japan 125,672,000 4.3 0.9 -3.4   5,403,896 1,131,048
Jordan 5,849,000 1.9 0.1 -1.8   111,131 5,849
Korea, Rep 45,864,000 3.4 0.5 -2.9   1,559,376 229,320
Malaysia 21,018,000 3.3 3.7 0.4   693,594 777,666
Mexico 97,245,000 2.6 1.4 -1.2   2,528,370 1,361,430
Netherlands 15,697,000 5.3 1.7 -3.6   831,941 266,849
New Zealand 3,654,000 7.6 20.4 12.8   277,704 745,416
Nigeria 118,369,000 1.5 0.6 -0.9   1,775,535 710,214
Norway 4,375,000 6.2 6.3 0.1   271,250 275,625
Pakistan 148,686,000 0.8 0.5 -0.3   1,189,488 743,430
Peru 24,691,000 1.6 7.7 6.1   395,056 1,901,207
Philippines 70,375,000 1.5 0.9 -0.6   1,055,625 633,375
Poland, Rep 38,521,000 4.1 2.0 -2.1   1,579,361 770,420
Portugal 9,814,000 3.8 2.9 -0.9   372,932 284,606
Russian Federation 146,381,000 6.0 3.7 -2.3   8,782,860 5,416,097
Singapore 2,899,000 7.2 0.1 -7.1   208,728 2,899
South Africa 43,325,000 3.2 1.3 -1.9   1,386,400 563,225
Spain 39,729,000 3.8 2.2 -1.6   1,509,702 874,038
Sweden 8,862,000 5.9 7.0 1.1   522,858 620,340
Switzerland 7,332,000 5.0 1.8 -3.2   366,600 131,976
Thailand 60,046,000 2.8 1.2 -1.6   1,681,288 720,552
Turkey 64,293,000 2.1 1.3 -0.8   1,350,153 835,809
United Kingdom 58,587,000 5.2 1.7 -3.5   3,046,524 995,979
United States 268,189,000 10.3 6.7 -3.6   27,623,467 17,968,663
Venezuela 22,777,000 3.8 2.7 -1.1   865,526 614,979
WORLD 5,892,480,000 2.8 2.1 -0.7      
               
This study covers 4,701,324,000 people out of 5,892,480,000. This is 80%
 
These countries have a capacity of 86833287.4 [km2] but use 117168462.0 - - 35% overshoot!.

FIGURE 5: Ecological footprint ranking of nations. The ecological footprint shows the global impact of consumption by average citizens of those nations. The arrow points to 1.7 hectares per capita, the amount of biologically productive space available world-wide. Only people from nine countries use less.

FIGURE 6: Ecological deficit ranking of nations. The ecological deficit shows the ecological overshoot of each nation. It represents the amount a nation is consuming beyond its local ecological capacity to regenerate. Bars to the left show deficits, bars to the right indicate remaining ecological capacity.

The more locally oriented measure is the ecological deficit of each country. It indicates which country consumes beyond local ecological capacity. A positive number means that consumption exceeds local supply, while a negative number reveals that there is some remaining capacity. In many cases, this remaining capacity, however, is used for the production of export goods, rather than leaving it as a principle in reserve. The deficit represents a country’s ecological load compared to the resource capacity within its borders and the level of appropriation from other regions that is required to offset the deficit. The ecological deficit induced by local consumption above locally available ecological production represents the country’s overshoot and the beginning of self-destructive growth. Hence, it is an indicator of potential vulnerability.

The data reveals that humanity lives too heavily on the Earth. Humanity’s average ecological footprint measures 2.3 hectares of ecologically productive space. In contrast, as explained above, only 1.7 hectares are available. This means that the average footprint is more than 35 percent larger than the available space. This overshoot indicates that humanity’s consumption exceeds what nature can regenerate on a continuous basis. In 1992, this ecological deficit was still closer to 25 percent. The 10 percent growth since then demonstrates humanity’s fast expansion.

In fact, most countries analysed here occupy more ecological capacity than their country provides, adding thereby to the global ecological deficit. In fact, if the 12 percent of space put aside for preserving biodiversity should prove to be insufficient (as many conservation ecologists suggest), the ecological deficit would be even more dramatic. India, Pakistan and China are three notable exceptions. According to the calculations of this study, they are among the few countries that consume at a level which could be reproducible for everybody in the world without endangering the planet’s life-support capacity. Also each of them shows a small ecological remainders. However, for both Pakistan and India their land based footprint is larger than their terrestrial ecological capacity - the ecological remainder comes from their comparatively low use of sea space as their fish consumption is much below world average. China, in contrast, can even count on some remaining land based ecological capacity. China’s ecological remainders does not mean that the country is out of the danger zone. First, the ecological deficits calculated here may be an underestimate of the true deficits. Second, if their population and per capita consumption continue to grow, this possible remainder will soon be used up.


Index | Rio+5 | Home


This copy is at: http://members.tripod.com/~davd/Footprint-ranking.htm#top