Turkey Ecological Footprint and biocapacity trends
27th March 2014|Ankara
Nicole Grunewald, Michel Gressot and Alessandro Galli
OBJECTIVES
Aims of this section are:
• Present Ecological Footprint and biocapacity results for Turkey
• Collect your feedbacks
• Discuss the potential usefulness of the Ecological Footprint for supporting and informing government activities and strategies in Turkey
Revised agenda
Start Time
Duration Activity
09:30 15 Recap from Day 1
09:45 30 Ecological Footprint of Turkey – Part 1
10:15 30 Q&A
10:45 15 Break
11:00 20 Ecological Footprint of Turkey – Part 2
11:20 30 Q&A
11:50 40 Wrap-up and Next Steps
CONTEXT: EXISTING STRATEGIES IN TURKEY
RATIONALE:
• Review of Ministerial Strategies and Plan
• Goals, Means and expected Outcome of each Strategy
• How is the Footprint data useful in those Strategies?
Ministerial Strategic Plans
• Ministry of Energy & Natural Resources
• Ministry of Food, Agriculture & Livestock
Overall Tenth Development Plan
• Socioeconomic Goals
• Industrial Development Goals
• Infrastructure Investments
Export Strategy 2023
• Competitiveness
REVIEW OUTCOMES
Strategies’ Key Common Objectives:
• Import energy dependence to be reduced • Increase volume of exports (e.g., energy gateway) • Jobs and know-how should be created • Increase value added, quality (and production efficiency) of local
products and product diversification • Urbanization through industrialization • Intensification of agricultural production & security of supply • Improve economic and social conditions for the poor
Production
Consumption
Imports
Net Trade
Exports
-
50,000,000
100,000,000
150,000,000
200,000,000
250,000,000
Glo
bal
He
ctar
es
Ecological Footprint Throughput
21%
TURKEY ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT VS. BIOCAPACITY: AN OVERVIEW
Biocapacity Debtors Biocapacity Creditors
150% 0-50%
100-150% 50-100%
50-100% 100%-150%
0-50% 150%
74% Other
7% Russia 8% USA
11% Germany
Total Biocapacity Exports 2010
-
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
47% Other
15% Ukraine
24% China
54% Russia
-
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Total Biocapacity Imports 2010
GH
A in
Mill
ion
s
Russia, China, and Ukraine Ukraine, USA and Russia Russia, Ukraine and China
Germany, USA and UK Germany, Russia and Italy Germany, Iran and USA
-
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006
gha
pe
r p
ers
on
EFConsPerCap EFProdPerCap BiocapPerCap
TURKEY ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT VS. BIOCAPACITY OVERV TIME
+71%
+36%
-43%
-
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006
gha
pe
r p
ers
on
EFConsPerCap BiocapPerCap
TURKEY ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT VS. BIOCAPACITY OVER TIME
-
20,0
40,0
60,0
80,0
100,0
120,0
140,0
160,0
180,0
200,0
EFProduction EFImport EFExport EFConsumption Biocapacity
GH
A M
illio
ns
Built-up Land
Forest Land
Fishing Grounds
Grazing Land
Cropland
Carbon
TURKEY ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT VS. BIOCAPACITY: AN OVERVIEW
2.02 gha per person
1.08 gha per person
0.54 gha per person
2.56 gha per person
1.54 gha per person
TURKEY ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT VS. BIOCAPACITY: AN OVERVIEW
- 10,0 20,0 30,0 40,0 50,0 60,0 70,0 80,0
EFImport
EFExport
GHA Millions
Footprint Trade Balance
Carbon
Cropland
Grazing Land
Fishing Grounds
Forest Land
Built-up Land
ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT BY HOUSEHOLD CONSUMPTIONS
-
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
0,9
1,0
gha
pe
r ca
pit
a Built-up Land
Forest Land
Fishing Grounds
Grazing Land
Cropland
Carbon
MOST ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT DEMANDING ECONOMIC SECTORS
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
GH
A in
Mill
ion
s
Carbon
Built-up Land
Fishing Grounds
Forest Land
Grazing Land
Cropland
BIOMASS-FOOTPRINT OF MOST INTENSIVE ECONOMIC SECTORS
0,00
0,50
1,00
1,50
2,00
2,50
3,00
GH
A p
er 1
000
LCU
Built-up Land
Fishing Grounds
Forest Land
Grazing Land
Cropland
CARBON-FOOTPRINT OF MOST INTENSIVE ECONOMIC SECTORS
8
0,00
0,10
0,20
0,30
0,40
0,50
0,60
0,70
0,80
GH
A p
er 1
000
LC
U
Carbon
Q&A
Cropland 34%
Grazing Land 4%
Forest Land 12%
Fishing Grounds 2%
Built-up Land 2%
Carbon Footprint 46%
Ecological Footprint of Consumption by Land Use Type
ISSUE-SPECIFIC POINT OF VIEW: A FOCUS ON CARBON FOOTPRINT
NOTE: 4 macro-categories are considered: fossil fuel emissions, other sources, electricity, bunker fuels
Production
Consumption
Imports
Net Trade
Exports
-
20.000.000
40.000.000
60.000.000
80.000.000
100.000.000
120.000.000
Glo
bal
Hec
tare
s
Flow of Embodied CO2 Emissions
21%
Biocapacity Debtors Biocapacity Creditors
150% 0-50%
100-150% 50-100%
50-100% 100%-150%
0-50% 150%
ISSUE-SPECIFIC POINT OF VIEW: A FOCUS ON CARBON FOOTPRINT
35% Other
4% Ukraine
16% China
45% Russia
-
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Carbon Imports 2010
GH
A in
Mill
ion
s
72% Other
9% UK 9% USA
10% Germany
-
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Carbon Exports 2010
ISSUE-SPECIFIC POINT OF VIEW: A FOCUS ON CARBON FOOTPRINT
32%
15% 15%
5%
29%
Name EFP EFI EFE EFC
[-] [gha] [gha] [gha] [gha]
Fossil Fuel Emissions 67,492,508 41,983,995 27,010,997 82,465,506
Other Sources - - - -
Traded Electricity - 150,239 230,942 -
Bunker Fuel - 3,242,189 - 3,242,189
TOTAL 67,492,508 45,376,423 27,241,939 85,626,992
4%
Name EFP EFI EFE EFC
[-] [gha] [gha] [gha] [gha]
Fossil Fuel Emissions 67,492,508 41,983,995 27,010,997 82,465,506
Other Sources - - - -
Traded Electricity - 150,239 230,942 -
Bunker Fuel - 3,242,189 - 3,242,189
TOTAL 67,492,508 45,376,423 27,241,939 85,626,992
ISSUE-SPECIFIC POINT OF VIEW: A FOCUS ON CARBON FOOTPRINT
Name EFP EFI EFE EFC
[-] [gha] [gha] [gha] [gha]
Fossil Fuel Emissions 67,492,508 41,983,995 27,010,997 82,465,506
Other Sources - - - -
Traded Electricity - 150,239 230,942 -
Bunker Fuel - 3,242,189 - 3,242,189
TOTAL 67,492,508 45,376,423 27,241,939 85,626,992
ISSUE-SPECIFIC POINT OF VIEW: A FOCUS ON CARBON FOOTPRINT
ISSUE-SPECIFIC POINT OF VIEW: A FOCUS ON CROPLAND
NOTE: 3 macro-categories are considered: crop products, animal feeds (including aquaculture) and food aids
33%
Production
Consumption
Imports
Net Trade
Exports
-
10.000.000
20.000.000
30.000.000
40.000.000
50.000.000
60.000.000
70.000.000
80.000.000
Glo
bal
Hec
tare
s
Resource Throughput
12%
Biocapacity Debtors Biocapacity Creditors
150% 0-50%
100-150% 50-100%
50-100% 100%-150%
0-50% 150%
ISSUE-SPECIFIC POINT OF VIEW: A FOCUS ON CROPLAND
61% Other
10% Russia
12% USA
17% Ukraine
-
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Cropland Imports 2010
GH
A in
Mill
ion
s
69% Other
8% Italy 10% Russia
12% Germany
-
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Cropland Exports 2010
ISSUE-SPECIFIC POINT OF VIEW: A FOCUS ON CROPLAND
Name EFP EFI EFE EFC
[-] [gha] [gha] [gha] [gha]
Crop Products
56,560,778
16,553,210
9,160,216
63,953,772
Cropland in Livestock
-
478,836
66,784
412,052
Cropland in Fish
-
5,153
9,743
(4,590)
Food Aid
-
-
-
-
TOTAL
56,560,778
17,037,200
9,236,744
64,361,234
ISSUE-SPECIFIC POINT OF VIEW: A FOCUS ON CROPLAND
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
1,2
1,4
1,6
1,8
2
Yie
ld F
acto
r
Cropland Yield Factor
1961
2009
ISSUE-SPECIFIC POINT OF VIEW: A FOCUS ON FOREST LAND
Production
Consumption
Imports Net Trade
Exports
-
5.000.000
10.000.000
15.000.000
20.000.000
25.000.000
30.000.000
Glo
bal
Hec
tare
s
Resource Throughput
43%
ISSUE-SPECIFIC POINT OF VIEW: A FOCUS ON FOREST LAND
Name EFP EFI EFE EFC
[-] [gha] [gha] [gha] [gha]
Timber Products
10,876,186
11,182,115
1,785,155
20,273,147
Wood Fuel
1,846,166
91,141
5
1,937,302
TOTAL
12,722,352
11,273,256
1,785,159
22,210,449
Biocapacity Debtors Biocapacity Creditors
150% 0-50%
100-150% 50-100%
50-100% 100%-150%
0-50% 150%
ISSUE-SPECIFIC POINT OF VIEW: A FOCUS ON FOREST LAND
62% Other
7% China
12% Ukraine
18% Russia
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Forest Land Imports 2010
GH
A in
Mill
ion
s
72% Other
7% USA 7% Iran
14% Germany
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Forest Land Exports 2010
Q&A
Next Steps
Early warning: initial information are given to generate political will and
guide policy action
Headline and Issue framing: causes of the problems and potential solution identified
Policy development: actions and policies drafted and proposed (targets set)
Implementation: political tools used to ensure
policies are implemented
Monitoring: tools used to monitor the effectiveness of policies
POLICY CYCLE
Ecological Footprint
EF
EF
OTHER INDICATORS
OTHER INDICATORS
OTHER INDICATORS
Ecological Footprint
development HDI Su
sta
ina
ble
(fi
ts o
n o
ne
pla
net)
ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT: INTEGRATED POINT OF VIEW
ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT: INTEGRATED POINT OF VIEW
Thank you
For more information please visit:
http://www.footprintnetwork.org/med