Biodiversity, biocapacity and better choices

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Compared to 2010 there are:• 6 per cent more species and 13 per cent more populations inthe global LPI;• 7 per cent more terrestrial species and 19 per cent moreterrestrial populations;• 6 per cent more marine species and 18 per cent moremarine populations;• 3 per cent more freshwater species and 4 per cent morefreshwater populations.These changes have improved the spread of the data amongdifferent regions and different taxa also. There is a better balancebetween tropical and temperate species; for example, tropicalspecies now account for 47 per cent of the species in the indexcompared to 41 per cent in 2010. Each of the taxa is betterrepresented; for example, reptile species have increased by thegreatest proportion at 39 per cent. Increasing the dataset in thisway generally improves the robustness of the indices and usuallyproduces smoother trends.Methodology changesThe method used to calculate the LPI has remained unchangedsince 2008 (see Collen et al., 2009 for more details).Number of populations1000090008000700060005000400030002000Living PlanetReport 20061,313 SpeciesLiving PlanetReport 20081,686 SpeciesMar 06Jun 06Sep 06Dec 06Apr 07Jul 07Oct 07Jan 08May 08Aug 08Living PlanetReport 20102,544 SpeciesNov 08Mar 09Jun 09Sep 09Dec 09Apr 10Jul 10Oct 10Feb 11May 11Living PlanetReport 20122,688 SpeciesAug 11Nov 11Figure 59: Thecumulative number ofpopulation time seriesin the LPI databaseAnnex 2: EcologicalFootprint: Frequentlyasked questionsHow is the Ecological Footprint calculated?The Ecological Footprint measures the amount of biologicallyproductive land and water area required to produce the resources anindividual, population or activity consumes and to absorb the wasteit generates, given prevailing technology and resource management.This area is expressed in global hectares (hectares with worldaveragebiological productivity). Footprint calculations use yieldfactors to normalize countries’ biological productivity to worldaverages (e.g., comparing tonnes of wheat per UK hectare versus perworld average hectare) and equivalence factors to take into accountdifferences in world average productivity among land types (e.g.,world average forest versus world average cropland).Footprint and biocapacity results for countries are calculatedannually by the Global Footprint Network. Collaborations withnational governments are invited, and serve to improve the dataand methodology used for the National Footprint Accounts. To date,Switzerland has completed a review, and Belgium, Ecuador, Finland,Germany, Ireland, Japan and the UAE have partially reviewedor are reviewing their accounts. The continuing methodologicaldevelopment of the National Footprint Accounts is overseen by aformal review committee. A detailed methods paper and copies ofsample calculation sheets can be obtained fromwww.footprintnetwork.orgFootprint analyses can be conducted at any scale. Thereis growing recognition of the need to standardize sub-nationalFootprint applications in order to increase comparability acrossstudies and longitudinally. Methods and approaches for calculatingthe Footprint of municipalities, organizations and products arecurrently being aligned through a global Ecological Footprintstandards initiative. For more information on Ecological Footprintstandards see www.footprintstandards.orgWWF Living Planet Report 2012 page 134 Annex: Technical notes and data tables page 135
What is included in the Ecological Footprint?What is excluded?To avoid exaggerating human demand on nature, the EcologicalFootprint includes only those aspects of resource consumption andwaste production for which the Earth has regenerative capacity, andwhere data exists that allow this demand to be expressed in terms ofproductive area. For example, toxic releases are not accounted forin Ecological Footprint accounts. Nor are freshwater withdrawals,although the energy used to pump or treat water is included.Ecological Footprint accounts provide snapshots of pastresource demand and availability. They do not predict the future.Thus, while the Footprint does not estimate future losses causedby current degradation of ecosystems, if this degradation persistsit may be reflected in future accounts as a reduction in biocapacity.Footprint accounts also do not indicate the intensitywith which a biologically productive area is being used. Being abiophysical measure, it also does not evaluate the essential socialand economic dimensions of sustainability.How is international trade taken into account?The National Footprint Accounts calculate the Ecological Footprintassociated with each country’s total consumption by summingthe Footprint of its imports and its production, and subtractingthe Footprint of its exports. This means that the resource use andemissions associated with producing a car that is manufactured inJapan, but sold and used in India, will contribute to India’s ratherthan Japan’s consumption Footprint.National consumption Footprints can be distorted when theresources used and waste generated in making products for exportare not fully documented for every country. Inaccuracies in reportedtrade can significantly affect the Footprint estimates for countrieswhere trade flows are large relative to total consumption. However,this does not affect the total global Footprint.How does the Ecological Footprint account for theuse of fossil fuels?Fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas are extracted fromthe Earth’s crust and are not renewable in ecological time spans.When these fuels burn, carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted into theatmosphere. There are two ways in which this CO2 can be stored:human technological sequestration of these emissions, such asdeep-well injection, or natural sequestration. Natural sequestrationoccurs when ecosystems absorb CO2 and store it either in standingbiomass, such as trees, or in soil.The Carbon footprint is calculated by estimating how muchnatural sequestration would be necessary to maintain a constantconcentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. After subtracting theamount of CO2 absorbed by the oceans, Ecological Footprintaccounts calculate the area required to absorb and retain theremaining carbon based on the average sequestration rate of theworld’s forests. CO2 sequestered by artificial means would also besubtracted from the Ecological Footprint total, but at present thisquantity is negligible. In 2008, 1 global hectare could absorb theCO2 released by burning approximately 1,450 litres of gasoline.Expressing CO2 emissions in terms of an equivalentbioproductive area does not imply that carbon sequestrationin biomass is the key to resolving global climate change. On thecontrary, it shows that the biosphere has insufficient capacityto offset current rates of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Thecontribution of CO2 emissions to the total Ecological Footprintis based on an estimate of world average forest yields. Thissequestration capacity may change over time. As forests mature,their CO2 sequestration rates tend to decline. If these forests aredegraded or cleared, they may become net emitters of CO2.Carbon emissions from some sources other than fossil fuelcombustion are incorporated in the National Footprint Accountsat the global level. These include fugitive emissions from the flaringof gas in oil and natural gas production, carbon released by chemicalreactions in cement production and emissions from tropicalforest fires.How does the Ecological Footprint account forcarbon emissions absorbed by the oceans versusuptake by forests?The National Footprint Accounts calculate the Carbon Footprintby considering sequestration from the world’s oceans and forests.Annual ocean uptake values are taken from Khatiwala et al., 2009(ref: Khatiwala, S. et al., 2009. Reconstruction of the history ofanthropogenic CO2 concentrations in the ocean. Nature 462, 346-350) and used with the anthropogenic carbon emissions taken fromCDIAC (CDIAC, 2011). There is a relatively constant percentageuptake for oceans, varying between 28 per cent and 35 per cent overthe period 1961-2008. The remaining CO2 requires land basedsequestration. Due to the limited availability of large-scale datasets,the calculation currently assumes the world average sequestrationrate for uptake of carbon dioxide into forests. Therefore the CarbonFootprint is a measure of the area of world average forest land thatis necessary to sequester the carbon dioxide emissions that are notabsorbed into the world’s oceans.WWF Living Planet Report 2012 page 136 Annex: Technical notes and data tables page 137
Page 1:
Living Planet Report 2012BIOCAPACIT
Page 11 and 12:
the LIVING PLANET INDEXThe Living P
Page 13 and 14:
Exploring the Living Planet IndexTh
Page 15 and 16:
The Marine Living Planet IndexThe m
Page 17 and 18: Case study: River dolphinsExample p
Page 19 and 20: Biogeographic realmsBiodiversity tr
Page 21 and 22: the EcologicalFootprintThe Ecologic
Page 23 and 24: What does “ecological overshoot
Page 25 and 26: 2008Gha per capita< 11 - 22 - 33 -
Page 27 and 28: population,URBANIZATION andDEVELOPM
Page 29 and 30: People with different incomeshave d
Page 31 and 32: Ecological Footprint and sustainabl
Page 33 and 34: the Water FootprintThe average glob
Page 35 and 36: Chapter 2: Why weshould care~A sate
Page 37 and 38: Margaret’s storyFor many people l
Page 39 and 40: Overlaying carbon and biodiversityT
Page 41 and 42: Energy to BurnMargaret occupies an
Page 43 and 44: Oceans: SOURCE OF FOOD,ENERGY AND M
Page 45 and 46: Scramble for land:Competing claims
Page 47 and 48: The emerging impactsof rising green
Page 49 and 50: A matter of degrees: Future impacts
Page 51 and 52: Projecting the EcologicalFootprint
Page 53 and 54: Chapter 4:Better choicesfor a livin
Page 55 and 56: SHARE AND SHARE ALIKEA visitor to M
Page 57 and 58: Produce betterEfficient production
Page 59 and 60: ENOUGH FOR ALLNot much goes to wast
Page 61 and 62: Equitable resourcegovernanceEquitab
Page 63 and 64: Closing words:actions from inspirAT
Page 65 and 66: Annex 1:The Living Planet IndexWhat
Page 67: likely that climate change will be
Page 71 and 72: Table 2: Ecological Footprint data
Page 73 and 74: Annex 3: Glossary of terms andabbre
Page 75 and 76: NationalAccounts ReviewCommitteeNat
Page 77 and 78: Davidson, E.A., de Araujo, A.C., Ar
Page 79 and 80: Thurstan, R.H., Brockington, S. and
show all

Biodiversity, biocapacity and better choices

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?