E U R O P E 2 0 0 7Gross Domestic Product and Ecological Footprint

The European Union (EU) has demon -strated considerable dynamism over the

past 40 years. It has grown stronger polit -ically and economically and today, together,its 27 Member States make up the world’slargest economy. But this economic growthand the increased affluence of its citizenshave masked an increasing toll that Europeis taking on the planet’s well-being, despitemany successful environmental initiatives.The success of Europe’s project to lookbeyond economic factors to gauge progresstowards sustainable development is vital.Only then will the EU be able to maintain itscompet itiveness, but also the lifestyles of itscurrent and future citizens in the face ofenvironmental challenges – from the fertilityof its soils and seas to climate change.

The Ecological Footprint measures humanity’sdemand on the biosphere in terms of the areaof biologically productive land and searequired to provide the resources we use andto absorb our waste. The footprint of a countryor region includes all the cropland, grazingland, forest, and fishing grounds required to produce the food, fibre, and timber itconsumes and to absorb the wastes it emits. In 2003 the European Union’s EcologicalFootprint was 2.26 billion global hectares, 4.7global hectares per person – a global hectare(gha) is a hectare with world-average ability toproduce resources and absorb wastes. Incontrast, Europe’s total supply of productivearea, or biocapacity, in the same year was 1.06billion gha, or 2.2 gha per person. WhenEurope’s footprint was first measured, in the

1960s, it was approximately commen suratewith the available bio capacity. Since then ithas more than doubled – increasing by 16 percent in the last 10 years.

Europe maintains its ecological deficit –the difference between its footprint and itsbiocapacity – by importing goods and servicesfrom beyond its borders and exporting some of its wastes, including CO2. The Europeanfootprint is the sum of these areas, whereverthey may be. But the world is already runninga deficit – the average biocapacity availableper person is around 1.8 gha, while the averagefootprint is 2.2 gha. If all the world’s citizenslived as Euro peans, we would need more thantwo and a half planets to provide the necessaryresources, absorb our wastes, and leave somecapacity for wild species.

Figure 1: Ecological Footprint andbiocapacity, EU-27 countries, 1993-2003This includes all EU countries for whichcomplete data are available*.

Figure 2: EU total Ecological Footprint, GDP,and population growth, 1971-2003Indexed data showing Ecological Foot print,GDP, and population growth for the EU. Data isadded as new Member States join the Union,i.e. in 1971 the data is for the original EU-6,while in 2003, it is for the EU-15. The diagramimplies that some de coupling of GDP from thefootprint has taken place. Nonetheless thefootprint has more than doubled, and isgrowing faster than the population.

* Throughout, data is provided for all EU-27 MemberStates except Cyprus and Malta.

0

1

2

3

4

5

Fig 1: Ecological Footprint and biocapacity, EU-27 countries, 1993-2003 (global hectares per person)

EU footprint

EU biocapacity

World average biocapacity in 2003

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

gha

/per

son

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1971

Fig 2: EU’s total Ecological Footprint, GDP, and population growth, 1971-2003 (Index, 1971=100)

1973+ IRL,

DNK & GBR

1978 1981+ GRC

1983 1986+ ESP& PRT

1988 1990DEU

reunites

1993 1995+AUT,

FIN & SWE

1998 2003

Footprint GDP Population

Ind

ex

Europe’s Ecological Footprint

2

Sustainable development, according to IUCN–The World Conservation Union, is a com -mitment to “improving the quality of humanlife while living within the carrying capacity ofsupporting ecosystems”.

What does this mean for Europe? Is Swedenecologically sustainable when its averageresident’s footprint is nearly three times largerthan what is available per person world wide,yet is around two-thirds of Sweden’s bio -capacity? If, however, everyone in the worldled the same lifestyle as the average Swedishcitizen, it is unlikely that the Earth couldsustain life as we know it for long. Nor wouldhumanity be sustainable were all countries torun an eco logical deficit as do all but three ofthe EU’s Member States. The average footprintof Europe’s citizens is more than twice Earth’s

available biocapacity per person, and abouteight times that of such low-income countriesas Mozambique or Pakistan.

Progress towards sustainable developmentcan be assessed using the United NationsDevelopment Programme’s (UNDP) HumanDev elopment Index (HDI) as an indicator ofwell-being, and the Ecological Footprint as ameasure of demand on the biosphere. The HDIis a composite of life expectancy, literacy andeducation, and per capita GDP, with an HDIvalue of more than 0.8 considered “high humandevelopment”.

Meanwhile, a footprint lower than 1.8 ghaper person means that humanity as a wholewould be using less than Earth’s total – thoughsome biocapacity would still be needed forthose species with whom we share the planet.

Sustainable development requires that theworld, on average, meets at least these twocriteria, with countries moving into the greenquadrant shown in Figure 3.

The paradox is that as countries developaccording to accepted criteria, their foot printscontinue to grow even after they have achieved“high human development”. This implies aconflict between what is currently seen asdevelopment, and the internationally stated goalof sustainability.

A sustainable society, Meadows, Randersand Meadows suggest in Limits to Growth: The30-Year Update, is one that “has the time,resources and will to innovate, to preserve thefertility of its ecosystems and focuses onincreasing the quality of life rather than onmerely expanding consumption”.

Figure 3: Human development and theEcological FootprintThis traces the development towards sust ain -ability of EU Member States. It shows that as levels of development, as measured by the HDI, increase, so too do footprints. Forexample, in 1995 Slovenia was the onlyEuropean nation that met the two criteria of anHDI score of more than 0.8 and a footprintlower than the biocapacity available per personglobally. However, its footprint has now morethan doubled, while its HDI has risen by lessthan 5 per cent. (The table provides details ofthe years tracked.)

0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

0

2

4

6

8

Fig 3: Human development and the Ecological Footprint, earliest year and 2003

Exceeds biosphere’s averagecapacity per person,

high development

Meets minimum criteriafor sustainable development

Exceeds biosphere’s average capacityper person, low development

World average biocapacity available per person in 2003

Within biosphere’s average capacityper person, low development

Thre

shol

d fo

r hi

gh h

uman

de

velo

pmen

t

HDI

Fo

otp

rint (gha/p

erson)

Years Footprint HDI Footprint HDIAustria 75/03 3.37 0.85 4.94 0.92Belgium & Lux. 75/03 4.11 0.85 5.61 0.94Bulgaria 80/03 4.06 0.77 3.11 0.81Czech Rep. 95/03 4.36 0.85 4.91 0.87Denmark 75/03 4.95 0.87 5.75 0.94Estonia 90/03 4.42 0.79 6.47 0.85Finland 75/03 4.37 0.84 7.64 0.94France 75/03 3.68 0.85 5.63 0.94Germany 80/03 4.88 0.86 4.55 0.93Greece 75/03 2.20 0.84 5.00 0.91Hungary 75/03 3.29 0.71 3.50 0.86Ireland 75/03 3.50 0.86 4.95 0.96Italy 75/03 2.57 0.84 4.15 0.93Latvia 80/03 2.99 0.77 2.59 0.84Lithuania 90/03 3.25 0.79 4.44 0.85Netherlands 75/03 3.43 0.87 4.39 0.94Poland 90/03 3.83 0.81 3.29 0.86Portugal 75/03 2.57 0.79 4.19 0.90Romania 90/03 3.31 0.78 2.35 0.77Slovakia id /03 id id 3.23 0.86Slovenia 95/03 1.68 0.86 3.42 0.90Spain 75/03 2.47 0.84 5.36 0.93Sweden 75/03 4.72 0.87 6.07 0.96UK 75/03 4.32 0.85 5.59 0.94

Measuring sustainability

3

EU Member States have experienced rapid growth andpolitical transition over the past 20 years. Some, such asGermany, have begun decoupling economic growth fromresource use. Others, such as Greece and Spain, are stillexpanding in both economic and material terms. Anothergroup, including Hungary and Romania, have the op -portunity of “leap frogging” from outdated technologies tomodern, resource-efficient ones.

Yet the EU remains an overall ecological debtor. From alow of 2.4 gha per Romanian to a high of 7.6 gha perFinnish citizen, all but three of the EU Member States –Finland, Latvia, and Sweden – are ecological debtors, andall have Ecological Footprints above the world’s averagebiocapacity per person.

The upper graphs illustrate, for each year, a country’s total Ecological Footprint – the resources it used to meet thedemands of its population. The Ecological Footprint is theproduct of population multi plied by consumption per person,and reflects the effic iency with which resources are turnedinto products.

Biocapacity – resource supply – varies each yeardepending on ecosystem management, agricultural practicessuch as fertilizer use and irrigation, ecosystem degradation,and weather.

These figures show the ratio of a country’s demand to itsbiocapacity in each year, and how these have changed overtime. Comparing these with a country’s pop ulation growthhighlights the true development of con sumption over the past30 years.

The lower graphs track, in absolute terms, the averageEcological Footprint per person and biocapacity per personin each country over a 30-year period. As populations grow,so the biocapacity per person diminishes unless measuresare in force to decouple consumption from resource use.

GERMANYGermany, after a rise in its Ecological Footprint of around 65 per cent between 1961 and 1971, has managed, by reducingthe amount of coal it uses and becoming a world leader inrenewable energy development, to stabilize its footprint and toincrease its biocapacity, despite a 5 per cent increase inpopulation. In this, Germany is leading the EU in terms ofinnovation and the decoupling of resource use and production.Nonetheless, its footprint is two and a half times its biocapacityand remains more than double the world average per person.

FRANCEIn 1961, France was using, in net terms, slightly less than its fulldomestic biocapacity, but by 1971 it was already an ecologicaldebtor. The deficit has continued to grow, and by 2003 Franceused nearly twice its own biocapacity, although this, too, hasincreased slightly. France’s experience parallels a general EU-27trend: biocapacity is increasing with improved technology andmore intensive agriculture, but is outpaced by the growth ofconsumption, with the largest component being energy, whetherfor industrial and domestic use or transport.

050

100150200250300350400450

gha

(mill

ions

)

Biocapacity

Footprint(left-hand scale)

(left-hand scale)

0102030405060708090

Fig 4: Germany’s total Ecological Footprint, biocapacity, and population, 1971-2003

’73 ’83 ’93 ’03

Population(right-hand scale)

Po

pulatio

n (millio

ns)

0.0

1.5

3.0

4.5

6.0

7.5

Fig 5: Germany’s Ecological Footprint and biocapacity per person, 1971-2003

’73 ’83 ’93 ’03

gha

/per

son

Biocapacity

Footprint

050

100150200250300350400450

gha

(mill

ions

)

Biocapacity

Footprint(left-hand scale)

(left-hand scale)

0102030405060708090

Fig 6: France’s total Ecological Footprint, biocapacity, and population, 1971-2003

’73 ’83 ’93 ’03

Population(right-hand scale)

Po

pulatio

n (millio

ns)

0.0

1.5

3.0

4.5

6.0

7.5

Fig 7: France’s Ecological Footprint and biocapacity per person, 1971-2003

’73 ’83 ’93 ’03g

ha/p

erso

n

Biocapacity

Footprint

Case studies

4

SPAINSpain’s remarkable economic growth since 1961 has beenaccompanied by a significant rise in its footprint and, because ofits rising population, a diminution in the biocapacity available perperson. Since 1971, both absolute and per person EcologicalFootprints have grown by more than 160 per cent, althoughpopulation increased by just over 20 per cent. In 2003, itsbiocapacity available per person was just below the globalaverage, while its footprint was 15 per cent above the Europeanand almost 150 per cent higher than the global average, despiteSpain being a leader in renewable energy.

HUNGARYHungary’s footprint per person rose from 2.4 gha in 1961 to ahigh of 4.2 gha in 1991, but has since fallen back to 3.5 gha,while its population diminished slightly. Over the same period,the country’s biocapacity followed a similar pattern – rising from2.1 gha in 1961 to 2.8 gha in 1991, then moving to just above the global average at 2 gha in 2003. With these changes largelydue to economic shifts resulting from the close of the Soviet era,Hungary has the opportunity, strength ened by accession to theEuropean Union, of decoupling eco nomic growth from re sourceuse, leapfrogging the environment/development paradox.

ROMANIARomania has the lowest Ecological Footprint among the EU-27,at just 2.4 gha per person – marginally more than the globalaverage. Yet it remains an ecological debtor, with biocapacity of2.3 gha per person. Over the years, the discrepancy betweenfootprint and biocapacity has varied – until 1970 the countryenjoyed a biocapacity reserve, but then ran a deficit until 1994.In the years measured since then, all but two show a reserve ofbiocapacity over footprint. As these years also show rapidgrowth in GDP, it will be interesting to see whether these trendscontinue following accession to the European Union.

050

100150200250300350400450

gha

(mill

ions

)Biocapacity

Footprint(left-hand scale)

(left-hand scale)

0102030405060708090

Fig 10: Hungary’s total Ecological Footprint, biocapacity, and population, 1971-2003

’73 ’83 ’93 ’03

Population(right-hand scale) P

op

ulation (m

illions)

0.0

1.5

3.0

4.5

6.0

7.5

Fig 11: Hungary’s Ecological Footprint and biocapacity per person, 1971-2003

’73 ’83 ’93 ’03

gha

/per

son

Biocapacity

Footprint

050

100150200250300350400450

gha

(mill

ions

)

0102030405060708090

Fig 8: Spain’s total Ecological Footprint, biocapacity, and population, 1971-2003

’73 ’83 ’93 ’03

Po

pulatio

n (millio

ns)

Biocapacity

Footprint(left-hand scale)

(left-hand scale)

Population(right-hand scale)

0.0

1.5

3.0

4.5

6.0

7.5

Fig 9: Spain’s Ecological Footprint and biocapacity per person, 1971-2003

’73 ’83 ’93 ’03

gha

/per

son

Biocapacity

Footprint

050

100150200250300350400450

gha

(mill

ions

)

Biocapacity

Footprint(left-hand scale)

(left-hand scale)

0102030405060708090

Fig 12: Romania’s total Ecological Footprint, biocapacity, and population, 1971-2003

’73 ’83 ’93 ’03

Population(right-hand scale) P

op

ulation (m

illions)

0.0

1.5

3.0

4.5

6.0

7.5

Fig 13: Romania’s Ecological Footprint and biocapacity per person, 1971-2003

’73 ’83 ’93 ’03g

ha/p

erso

n

Biocapacity

Footprint

5

0 5 10 15 20 25

Ecological Footprint Biocapacity Population

Fig 15: EU’s share of the global total, 1971-2003

2003

1993

1983

1973

1971

Per cent

At a national level, all but three countries ofthe EU-27 currently run ecological deficitsand the com bined footprint of Member Statesis more than twice their biocapacity.

Nations and regions with ecological deficitscan maintain their resource consumption in twoways – and usually do so by combining both.They can use their own ecological assets fasterthan these are regenerated each year – forexample, depleting existing forest stocks ratherthan just harvesting the amount grown eachyear. Or they can import resources from

elsewhere and export the wastes they generate,including CO2.

Ecological creditors – just Finland, Latvia,and Sweden among the EU-27 – may beendowed with ecological reserves, but this does not necessarily mean that all their assetsare well managed and are not subject to over -harvesting or degradation. Things change – just40 years ago, much of Europe, too, was anecological creditor.

But with a continuing global deficit, debtorand creditor countries alike will come to

realize the significance of ecological assetsboth for economic competitiveness andnational security, and the economic value ofcurbing their footprints, thereby husbandingtheir biocapacity.

As national and regional ecological deficitscontinue to increase, the predominantgeopolitical line may shift away from thecurrent economic division between thedeveloped and developing, and fall betweenthose with ecological reserves and those with deficits.

Figure 14: Ecological debtor and creditorcountries, 2003

Figure 15: EU-27’s share, 1971-2003 The EU-27 is home to 7.7 per cent of the globalpopulation, and contains 9.5 per cent of theworld’s biocapacity. Yet, in 2003 the EuropeanUnion accounted for just over 16 per cent of theglobal Ecological Footprint. Although Europe’sshares have diminished since 1971, largely as a result of increases in global population, itremains ecologically dependent upon countrieswith ecological reserves. With the world alreadyin ecological deficit, this is unlikely to be sus -tainable in the long term, and highlights theurgency of decoupling attit udes, lifestyles, andproduction from current levels of resourceconsumption.

EcodebtFootprint more than 50% larger than biocapacityFootprint 0–50% larger than biocapacity

EcocreditBiocapacity 0–50% larger than footprintBiocapacity more than 50% larger than footprintInsufficient data (inset, not part of the EU)

Fig 14: Ecological debtor and creditorcountries, 2003National Ecological Footprint relative to

nationally available biocapacity.

Europe’s share

6

0

1

2

3

4

5

Fig 16: EU countries and world average Ecological Footprint, 1971-2003 (global hectares per person)

1971 1981 1991 2001 2003

World footprint

EU-27 footprint

World biocapacity

gha

/per

son

EU-27 biocapacity

2000 2050 2100 2150

Railway, home, dam 50-150 years

Car 10-20 years (EU average)

District heating systems 40 years (EU/US)

Highway 20-50 years

Bridge 30-75 years

Coal-powered power station 30-75 years

Human 70-82.5+ years (EU)

Commercial building design 50-100 years

Fig 17: Lifespans of people, assets and infrastructure

Ave

rag

e lif

esp

ans

Europe has been running an ecological deficitsince the 1960s, and its Ecological Footprint is rising faster than both its biocapacity perperson and the world average available perperson. Although biocapacity can increase, forexample as a result of increasing agriculturalefficiency, it is limited. Managing and dimin -ishing the footprint provide greater potential inthe search for sustainability. It is not a questionof whether Europe can afford to stem its foot -print’s rapid escalation – it cannot afford not to.

Human-made infrastructure can last formany decades. Figure 17 compares typicallifespans for some human and physical assets –together, Europeans born and the infrastructurebuilt today will shape resource consumption formuch of the rest of the 21st century. Transportand urban infrastructures – including energy

generation – become traps if they operate onlarge footprints. In contrast, future-friendlyinfrastructure – cities designed to be resourceefficient, with carbon-neutral buildings andpedestrian and public-transport orientedsystems – can support a high quality of lifewith a small footprint. The longer infrastructureis built to last, the more critical it is to ensurethat we are not creating a destructive legacythat will undermine future well-being. Cities,nations, and the EU itself, should consider howcompetitiveness will be impacted if economicactivity is hampered by infra structure that canonly operate with large resource demands.

And if, as is predicted, the global populationgrows to 9 billion, humanity will need to findways for the average person to live well on lessthan half the current global average footprint.

MEASURING FOR SUSTAINABILITYEconomic indicators are essential, butwithout resource accounting, ecologicaldeficits will go unnoticed and are likely topersist. By the time their effects becomeapparent, it may be too late to changecourse. The visible effects of climate changeprovide the greatest evidence of the need tochange thinking beyond individual econ -omic sectors, and embrace the concept thatin the long term healthy economies can onlythrive within healthy environments.

Resource accounting and reporting areessential to combating and mitigating theeffects of climate change, preserving fishstocks, and minimizing waste – all Europeanissues. They can establish baselines, settargets, protect ecological assets, monitor the

progress of sustain ability strategies, andhelp prevent or at least mitigate the effects ofenviron mental crises and their associatedsocio-economic consequences.

The managerial usefulness of indicatorsand accounting measures such as theEcological Footprint and WWF’s LivingPlanet Index, a measure of biodiversity, isattested to by their adoption as indicatorsfor the 2010 targets of the Convention onBiological Diversity. Together with otherindicators of the health of key aspects of thebiosphere and human well-being, they canhelp provide the full set of informationnecessary to keep Europe on target in itsquest for a sustainable future.

Moving into credit

7

© 1

986

Pan

da

sym

bol

WW

F-W

orld

Wid

e Fu

nd F

or N

atur

e ®

“W

WF”

and

“liv

ing

pla

net”

are

WW

F R

egis

tere

d T

rad

emar

ks 1

1.07

(1M

)

Cover image: QINETIQ LTD/Still Pictures

WWF’s mission is to stop the degradation of the planet’s natural environment and to build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature, by: - conserving the world’s biological diversity- ensuring that the use of renewable natural resources is sustainable- promoting the reduction of pollution and wasteful consumption.

WWF European Policy Office (EPO)36 Avenue de Tervurenlaan – B12 1040 Brussels, BelgiumTel: +32 2 743 88 00 Fax: +32 2 743 88 19www.panda.org/eu

© World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), 2007.

WWF, Global Footprint Network and the Zoological Society of Londontrack the state of the world’s biodiversity and humanity’s demands onthe natural world through the twin indicators of the Living Planet Index

and the Ecological Footprint. Together they show how humanity is now makingunprecedented demands on Earth in terms of the resources we use and thewastes we produce to support our lifestyles and the toll that these are taking onthe species that share our planet.

The challenge of reducing our footprint, highlighted in Europe 2007, Gross DomesticProduct and Ecological Footprint produced as a contribution to the “Beyond GDP”conference (European Parliament, November 2007), goes to the very heart of ourcurrent economic models. Comparing the Ecological Footprint with a recognizedmeasure of human development, the United Nations Human Development Index,this report clearly shows that what we currently accept as “high development’’ is along way away from the world’s stated aim of sustainable development. Ascountries improve the well-being of their people, they are bypassing the goal ofsustainability and becoming ecological debtors – using far more resources than theplanet can sustain. It is inevitable that this path will limit both the abilities of poorcountries to develop and of rich countries to maintain prosperity.

It is time to make some vital choices. Change that improves living standards whilereducing our impact on the natural world will not be easy. But we must recognizethat choices we make now will shape our opportunities far into the future. Thegood news is that it can be done. We already have technologies that can lightenour footprint, including many that can significantly reduce climate-threateningcarbon dioxide emissions. But we must all do more. The message of this report isthat we are living beyond our means, and that the choices each of us makes todaywill shape the possibilities for the generations that follow us.

James P. Leape Director General, WWF International

The footprint data contained in this report weregenerated by the Global Footprint Network’s NationalFootprint Accounts, 2006 Edition.

© Global Footprint Network, 2007 www.footprintnetwork.org