+ All Categories
Home > Documents > Africa Factbook

Africa Factbook

Date post: 04-Apr-2018
Category:
Upload: modyescu1897
View: 237 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend

of 87

Transcript
  • 7/29/2019 Africa Factbook

    1/87

    Africas Ecological Footprint:Human Well-Being and Biological Capital

    Swiss Agency for Development and CooperationGlobal Footprint Network

    FACTBOOKJuly 19, 2006

  • 7/29/2019 Africa Factbook

    2/87

    Global Footprint Network

    www.footprintnetwork.org

    The Global Footprint Network is committed to fostering a world where all people have the opportunity to live satis-I\LQJ OLYHV ZLWKLQ WKH PHDQV RI (DUWKV HFRORJLFDO FDSDFLW\ :H DUH GHGLFDWHG WR DGYDQFLQJ WKHSUDFWLFDO DSSOLFDWLRQ RI WKH (FRORJLFDO )RRWSULQW D WRRO WKDW TXDQWLHV KXPDQ GHPDQG RQ QD-pacity to meet these demands.

    Contact Information:

    Global Footprint Network3270 Lakeshore AveOakland,CA 94610USATel. +1-510-839-8879 (Time Zone -8 GMT)Fax +1-510-251-2410

    Please address all enquiries to:

    Martin Krcher ([email protected]) or Audrey Peller ([email protected])

    To access a PDF version of this document and questionnaire, please visit:

    http://www.footprintnetwork.org/Africa

    Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation

    www.sdc.admin.ch

    The Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) is Switzerlands international cooperation agencyZLWKLQ WKH 6ZLVV )RUHLJQ 0LQLVWU\ 7RJHWKHU ZLWK RWKHU IHGHUDO RIFHV WKH 6'& LV UHVSRQVLEOH-tion of development activities and cooperation with Eastern Europe, as well as humanitarian aid.The SDC carriesout its activities in Switzerland and abroad, with an annual budget of CHF 1.3 billion (2005). The agency under-WDNHV GLUHFW DFWLRQV VXSSRUWV WKH SURJUDPPHV RI PXOWLODWHUDO RUJDQLVDWLRQV DQG KHOSV WRby Swiss and international aid organisations.

  • 7/29/2019 Africa Factbook

    3/87

    1. Purpose of This Factbook 3

    2. Africa and Ecological Limits 4

    3. Measuring Human Development 54. Ecological Footprint 6 5. Ecological Limits and Development 10

    6. Human Development and Biocapacity 12in Africa

    7. Trading Biological Capacity 14

    8. Managing Ecological Assets to 15Secure Human Well-Being: Five Factors at Play

    9. Fact Pages for Selected Countries: 17

    Table of Contents Figures and Tables Figure 4.1 Ecological Footprint per person, by country, 2002 6

    Figure 4.2 Humanitys Ecological Footprint, 2002 6

    Figure 4.3 Ecological Footprint by Region, 2002 6

    Figure 4.4 Global Distribution of Ecological Footprint Intensity, 2001 7

    Figure 4.5 Living on Less, Living on More, 2001 8Figure 4.6 Ecological Debtor and Creditor Countries, 2001 9

    Figure 5.1 Human Development Index and Ecological Footprint of Nations 11

    Figure 6.1 HDI of Africa by Component 12

    Figure 6.2 Ecological Footprint in Africa 13

    Table 7.1 Biocapacity export of selected African countries 14

    Figure 8.1 Five Factors of Biological Supply and Demand 15

    7KH IROORZLQJ WDEOHV DQG JXUHV UHSHDW IRU DOO FRXQWULHV LQRI WKLV GRFXPHQW EHJLQQLQJ RQ SDJH

    Table 9.1 Countries included in this studyFigure 9.1.1 HDI Components, IndexedFigure 9.1.2 Income DistributionTable 9.1.1 HDI Components, AbsolutesTable 9.1.2 Gender Related DevelopmentTable 9.1.3 Public HealthFigure 9.2.1 Human Development and Ecological Footprint of NationsTable 9.2.1 Trade and Debt

    Table 9.2.2 Population GDP and Ecological FootprintFigure 9.3.1 Population TrendFigure 9.3.2 Footprint and Biocapacity TrendFigure 9.3.3 Ecological Footprint by Component, 1961-2002Figure 9.3.4 Biocapacity by Component, 1961-2002

    Appendices Appendix 1: Ecological Footprint and Biocapacity Table 72

    Appendix 2. Technical Notes 74

    Appendix 3. Glossary of UNDP Terms 81 Appendix 4. Literature and Reference 82

    Africa 20 Algeria 22Benin 24Brazil 26Burkina Faso 28Burundi 30China 32Egypt 34Ethiopia 36France 38Ghana 40India 42Kenya 44Madagascar 46Mali 48Mozambique 50

    Niger 52Nigeria 54Rwanda 56South Africa 58Switzerland 60Tanzania 62Uganda 64United Kingdom 66United States of America 68World 70

    Global Footprint Network : Africa 2006 -- the Ecological Footprint : Factbook 1

  • 7/29/2019 Africa Factbook

    4/87

    2 Global Footprint Network: Africas Ecological Footprint - 2006 Factbook

  • 7/29/2019 Africa Factbook

    5/87

    1. Purpose of this Factbook

    This factbook on human well-being and ecological assets in Africais the result of a joint project between the Swiss Agency for Devel-opment and Cooperation (SDC) and Global Footprint Network. It isa collection of key indicators on human development and ecologi-cal performance derived from UN statistics. What is new is the at-tempt to show a link between human development and ecologicalperformance.

    The purpose of the factbook is to open a conversation with you,the reader, and get your frank input. As a partner of SDC, GlobalFootprint Network, or an active organization in your region, youhave been selected to participate in this collaborative effort. Wevalue your expertise in African development, and we ask for your honest reactions and critical assessment of the presented informa-

    tion: Is this information valid? Does it capture the reality in your country? Does the discussion framework make sense to you?

    Your uninhibited and open feedback will be crucial for the project.Our goal is twofold: Provide more consistent and accessible information on eco-

    logical limits and sustainability; and Make this information relevant to existing debates on devel

    opment and long-term human prosperity in the region.

    This factbook provides a starting point for this discussion for themany people involved. It offers data to compare various countriesdevelopment, as well as their supply and demand of biologicalcapital the ultimate resource upon which all human well-beingdepends.

    $IULFDV VLJQLFDQW QDWXUDO ZHDOWK LQ VRPH DUHDV DQG HFRORJLFDOscarcity in others, suggest that a debate informed by ecologicalrealities could lead to more successful human development strat-egies. If overuse of ecological resources continues, we expectELRORJLFDO FDSLWDOQRW MXVW KXPDQ KXPDQ PDGH DQG QDQFLDO

    capitalto play an increasingly dominant role in economic, social,and policy planning everywherenot only in Africa. Yet Africahosts many countries that are already facing ecological bottle-necks. This makes, we believe, the debates suggested by thisfactbook particularly pertinent for Africa. At this stage the availabledata allows discussion on a national level however the debatemust continue at a more local scale, especially as one takes intoaccount growth in urbanization that some African countries areexperiencing.

    This factbook builds on a simple tenet: Effective managementstrategy for biological capital requires accounting tools that trackavailability and use of this capital. Ecological Footprint accounting,presented here, is one tool for exactly this purpose. This factbookVKRZV IRUW\ \HDU WLPH WUHQGV RI HFRORJLFDO DVVHWV IRUcountries. The feedback from the attached questionnaire will in-form four stakeholder workshops in Africa, which in turn will pro-YLGH NH\ LQSXW LQWR WKH QDO UHSRUW RQ (FRORJLFDO $V-man Well-Being to be released and distributed internationally.

    We invite your organization to participate in this process by re-sponding to the attached questionnaire, and possibly by partici-pating in one of the four workshops to be held in the later part of 2006. Considering the overuse of resources and accumulation of waste in the rest of the world, Africa is and will increasingly faceserious human development and environmental challenges. By

    bringing the experience and analysis of your organization into aninternational arena, and informing local and regional work with aJOREDO DQG FRXQWU\ VSHFLF SHUVSHFWLYH RQ ELRORJLFDOare hopeful that together we can create tools to help developmentexperts face the 21st century challenges more effectively.

    Martin Sommer, Head of Environment DivisionSwiss Agency for Development and Cooperation

    Mathis Wackernagel, Executive Director Global Footprint Network

    Global Footprint Network : Africa 2006 -- the Ecological Footprint : Factbook 3

  • 7/29/2019 Africa Factbook

    6/87

    4 Global Footprint Network: Africas Ecological Footprint - 2006 Factbook

    2. Africa and Ecological LimitsHumanity is living beyond the planets ecological means. Althoughthe global economy and population continue to grow, our planetUHPDLQV WKH VDPH VL]H 'HVSLWH UHSHDWHG FDOOV IRU VXVWDLQDEOH GH-velopment, humanity has now entered into a state of global over-shoot with demand for resources exceeding the Earths regenera-tive capacity by more than twenty percent. The global biospherenow takes nearly one year and three months to regenerate whathumanity uses each year (see Section 4).

    This is the essence of overshoot: demand on nature exceeds sup-ply, resulting in over harvesting of resources and accumulation of wastes. It inevitably leads to the degradation of the natural assetsthat society depends on. What are the consequences for humanwell-being of using up resources faster than nature can renew

    them?Feedback interactions between the planet and human society arenot immediate. The resource demand of economies and societiescan continue to grow while the biosphere is degraded. This stateis possible only for a limited time, however, and the faster we canrecognize and begin to reverse this over use, the better chancewe will have to succeed with human development and create asustainable and prosperous future for all people.

    Within the context of global overshoot, different regions showvastly different levels of consumption and ecosystem capacity. Af-ricans, on average, use less biological capacity than people in anyother region of the world. This demand on biological capital can bemeasured with the Ecological Footprint (see Section 4).

    Calculations by Global Footprint Network show that while the aver-age world inhabitant has an Ecological Footprint of 2.2 global hect-ares, the African average is at 1.1 global hectares per capita. Incomparison, Africas biocapacity is 1.3 global hectares per person,slightly more than what Africans use. Yet, Africas biocapacity is

    28 percent lower than the world-average of 1.8 global hectares per person.

    Limited access to biocapacity can affect a societys well-being.Residents of countries with severe biocapacity constraints areoften among the countries with the largest human developmentchallenges. There are a number of historical reasons for whichcountries got into this situation.

    The assessment presented in this factbook documents where thecountries chosen for this report are today, not the mechanismsthat led them to their situation. In other words, we offer a descrip-tion of the current state, not an analysis of the causes.

    Many of the challenges and opportunities facing the African con-tinent are linked to biological capital. These include rapid demo-graphic growth, food security and persistent malnutrition, violentFRQLFW SROLWLFDO LQVWDELOLW\ KXPDQ ULJKWV DEXVHVaccess to resources.

    Coupled with other challenges, such as the HIV/AIDS epidemic,WKHVH SUREOHPV FDQ PDNH LW PRUH GLIFXOW IRU D UHJLRQ-age its own ecological assets and advance human well-being.Healthy, productive ecosystems are the source of the materials

    and services that satisfy human needs. Accounting and manage-ment of biological capital will be critical to any attempt to meethuman development challenges.

    In a world with rapidly growing resource demand, largely driven byhigh-income countries as well as emerging economies like Chinaand India, African development and biocapacity constraints can nolonger be seen in isolation. Managing biological assets becomeshence not only more critical, but also more challenging.

  • 7/29/2019 Africa Factbook

    7/87

    Global Footprint Network: Africas Ecological Footprint - 2006 Factbook 5

    Considering both the necessary and desired human developmentin Africa and Africas biocapacity constraints, leads to the followingTXHVWLRQV +RZ FDQ QDWLRQV ZLWK ORZ ELRFDSDFLW\ GHYRWH VXIFLHQWUHVRXUFHV ERWK QDQFLDO DQG HFRORJLFDO WR PHHW WKHLU GHYHORS-ment goals? And how much biocapacity is necessary to meet theQHHGV RI HDFK DQG HYHU\ SHUVRQ" +RZ FDQ ZH PDNH VXUH VXI-cient biocapacity is available for those who need to increase their resource demand in order to meet basic material needs?

    Further, a number of African countries are endowed with biologicalcapacity that exceeds their own resource consumption. For theseecologically wealthy countries, there is a third question: How canthese nations enhance their own resource security, both optimisingthe yield from their natural capital reserves and ensuring the futureviability of these critical assets?

    3. Measuring Human Development

    The goal of development is to create satisfying lives for all. Howdo we know we are achieving this goal, when human well-being issuch a subjective concept?

    There is growing recognition that existing economic indicatorsVXFK DV *'3 RU *URVV 'RPHVWLF 3URGXFW DUH LQVXIFLHQW DVmetrics of human well-being and development. Richard Layard,a leading British economist and respected government advisor,explores this issue in his latest book Happiness: Lessons from aNew Science. As Layard indicates, a science of human happinessis emerging, and the parameters of happiness include much morethan just income.

    7KH FRPSOH[LW\ RI KDSSLQHVV QRWZLWKVWDQGLQJ WKHUH LV EURDG FRQ-sensus that some bottom-line conditions are essential for a happy,healthy society. These include basic material security, longevity,and access to education. Recognizing this, the United Nations

    Development Programme created the Human Development Index (HDI). Published annually in the Human Development ReportVHULHV WKH +', JRHV EH\RQG WKH *'3 LQ UHHFWLQJ WKH Hwhich these three conditions have been achieved in any given na-tion.

    The HDI is an average of three sub-indices, each normalized ona scale of zero to one. These sub-indices are life expectancy atbirth, education (combined gross enrollment and adult literacyrate) and GDP per capita (expressed in US dollars and adjustedfor parity in purchasing power (PPP).

    While the HDI is a more reliable measure of well-being than per capita income or GDP, it still has limitations. These include thenarrowness of the parameters it captures, the somewhat arbitraryweighting for aggregating its component indices, and its underly-ing mechanistic concept of well-being. The HDI is measured at anational scale and thereby reduces what would otherwise be largedifferences between rural and urban populations. Nevertheless,it is one of the few standardized and globally available well-beingmeasures, allowing direct comparisons of different countries, andit is possibly the most cited measure of human development. For these reasons we have chosen to use HDI as the main measureof human development in this report.

  • 7/29/2019 Africa Factbook

    8/87

    6 Global Footprint Network: Africas Ecological Footprint - 2006 Factbook

    4. Ecological Footprint

    The Ecological Footprint is an accounting tool that measures apopulations demand on nature. The Footprint of a country, for H[DPSOH LV WKH WRWDO DUHD UHTXLUHG WR SURGXFH WKH IRRG EUH DQGtimber that the nation consumes, absorb its waste, and providespace for its infrastructure. Since a nation consumes resourcesand ecological services that come from all over the world, itsFootprint is the sum of these areas, wherever they are located onthe planet. In 2002, the global Ecological Footprint was 13.5 bil-lion global hectares, or 2.2 global hectares per person.

    This demand on nature can be compared with the Earths bioca-pacity, a measure of natures ability to produce resources from itsbiologically productive area. In 2002, the Earths biocapacity was

    11.2 billion global hectares, a quarter of the planets surface, or,given a global population of 6.2 billion people, 1.8 global hectaresper person.

    In 2002, humanitys Ecological Footprint exceeded global bio-capacity by 0.4 global hectares per person, or twenty-three per cent. This global overshoot began in the 1980s and has beengrowing ever since (see Figure 4.2). In overshoot, natures capi-tal is being spent faster than it is being regenerated. Continuedovershoot can permanently reduce ecological capacity.

    -2.00

    0.00

    2.00

    4.00

    6.00

    8.00

    10.00

    12.00

    U n i t e d A r a b E m i r a t e s

    U n i t e d S t a t e s o f A m e r i c a

    C a n a d a

    K u w a i t

    A u s t r a l i a

    F i n l a n d

    N e w Z e a l a n d

    N o r w a y

    E s t o n i a

    U n i t e d K i n g d o m

    F r a n c e

    S w e d e n

    D e n m a r k

    B e l g i u m

    & L u x e m b o u r g

    C z e c h R e p u b l i c

    S p a i n

    I s r a e l

    G r e e c e

    A u s t r i a

    S w i t z e r l a n d

    S a u d i A r a b i a

    N e t h e r l a n d s

    G e r m a n y

    R u s s i a

    K o r e a R e p u b l i c

    T r i n i d a d a n d T o b a g o

    J a p a n

    P o r t u g a l

    L i t h u a n i a

    I r e l a n d

    I t a l y

    H u n g a r y

    S l o v e n i a

    K a z a k h s t a n

    L a t v i a

    S l o v a k i a

    P o l a n d

    L i b y a

    T u r k m e n i s t a n

    B e l a r u s

    B u l g a r i a

    C r o a t i a

    U k r a i n e

    B e l i z e

    L e b a n o n

    M o n g o l i a

    S e r b i a a n d M o n t e n e g r o

    S o u t h A f r i c a

    M e x i c o

    M a l a y s i a

    V e n e z u e l a

    I r a n

    B o s n i a H e r z e g o v i n a

    M a c e d o n i a

    C h i l e

    A r g e n t i n a

    R o m a n i a

    U r u g u a y

    B r a z i l

    B o l i v i a

    T u r k e y

    C o s t a R i c a

    P a r a g u a y

    M a u r i t i u s

    U z b e k i s t a n

    P a n a m a

    J a m a i c a

    C u b a

    S y r i a

    J o r d a n

    M a u r i t a n i a

    C h i n a

    D o m i n i c a n R e p u b l i c

    P a p u a N e w G u i n e a

    B o t s w a n a

    A z e r b a i j a n

    A l g e r i a

    T u n i s i a

    K o r e a D P R P

    N a m i b i a

    A l b a n i a

    E c u a d o r

    T h a i l a n d

    E g y p t

    N i g e r

    M o l d o v a R e p u b l i c

    K y r g y z s t a n

    H o n d u r a s

    E l S a l v a d o r

    C o l o m b i a

    G u a t e m a l a

    N i c a r a g u a

    G a m b i a

    S e n e g a l

    G l o b a l h e c t a r e s ( 2 0 0 2 )

    Built-up land

    Food, fibre, and timber

    Energy

    Figure 4.1 Ecological Footprint per person, by country 2002

    0

    2

    4

    6

    8

    10

    G l o b a

    l H e c

    t a r e s p e r

    P e r s o n

    North AmericaWestern EuropeCentral/Eastern EuropeMiddle East and Central AsiaLatin America Asia Pacific Africa

    0.0

    0.2

    0.4

    0.6

    0.8

    1.0

    1.2

    1.4

    1961 1971 1981 1991 2001

    N u m b e r o f E a r t h s

    Humanity's total Ecological Footprint

    Earth's biological capacity

    CO2 portion of humanity's Ecological Footprint

    Figure 4.2 Humanitys Ecological Footprint Figure 4.3 Ecological Footprint by Region, 2002

    Width of bar is proportional to population (shown in millions)

  • 7/29/2019 Africa Factbook

    9/87

    Global Footprint Network: Africas Ecological Footprint - 2006 Factbook 7

    N i g e r i a

    S w a z i l a n d

    B u r k i n a F a s o

    G a b o n

    C h a d

    U g a n d a

    G h a n a

    A r m e n i a

    S u d a n

    I n d o n e s i a

    B e n i n

    P h i l i p p i n e s

    I r a q

    G u i n e a

    L e s o t h o

    M o r o c c o

    A n g o l a

    C e n t r a l A f r i c a n R e p

    P e r u

    T o g o

    Z i m b a b w e

    M y a n m a r

    M a l i

    L a o s

    S r i L a n k a

    S i e r r a L e o n e

    C a m e r o o n

    E t h i o p i a

    K e n y a

    V i e t n a m

    I n d i a

    C o t e d i v o i r e

    G e o r g i a

    B u r u n d i

    R w a n d a

    T a n z a n i a

    Y e m e n

    G u i n e a - B

    i s s a u

    E r i t r e a

    T a j i k i s t a n

    M a d a g a s c a r

    L i b e r i a

    M o z a m b i q u e

    P a k i s t a n

    N e p a l

    Z a m b i a

    C o n g o

    C o n g o

    M a l a w i

    H a i t i

    C a m b o d i a

    B a n g l a d e s h

    S o m a l i a

    A f g h a n i s t a n

    Figure 4.4 Global Distribution of Ecological Footprint Intensity, 2001

    World average biocapacity per person: 1.8 global hectares, with nothing set aside for wild speciesWorld average Ecological Footprint: 2.2 global hectares

    6RXUFH ::) $VLD 3DFLF 5HSRUW

  • 7/29/2019 Africa Factbook

    10/87

    8 Global Footprint Network: Africas Ecological Footprint - 2006 Factbook

    Figure 4.5 Living on Less, Living on More, 2001

    In the global context, Footprints in Africa are some of the lowest in the world. Low Footprints can place material constraints on meetinghuman development objectives.

    6RXUFH ::) $VLD 3DFLF 5HSRUW

  • 7/29/2019 Africa Factbook

    11/87

    Global Footprint Network: Africas Ecological Footprint - 2006 Factbook 9

    )LJXUH (FRORJLFDO 'HEWRU DQG &UHGLWRU &RXQWULHV GDWD 1RWH *LYHQ WKH UHQHG IRRWSULQW DFFHFRORJLFDO GHEWRU WKLV PDS ZLOO EH XSGDWHG IRU WKH QDO UHSRUW

    &RXQWULHV ZLWK HFRORJLFDO UHVHUYHV KDYH ELRORJLFDO FDSDFLW\ WKDW H[FHHGV WKHLU RZQ FRQVXPSWLRQ &RXFRQVXPH PRUH WKDQ WKH HFRV\VWHPV ZLWKLQ WKHLU ERUGHUV FDQ SURYLGH 'HFLWV DUH FRPSHQVDWHG E\ LPSRUWHFRORJLFDO DVVHWV :KLOH 6RXWK $IULFD DQG PXFK RI QRUWKHUQ $IULFD DUH FXUUHQWO\ UXQQLQJ HFRORJLFDO GHFbiocapacity beyond what they consume. These reserves can be used for biodiversity protection, for increased consumption by their own

    UHVLGHQWV RU IRU H[SRUW WR RWKHU QDWLRQV 0DQDJLQJ WKHVH DVVHWV IRU WKH EHQHW RI D FRXQWU\V UHVL-sures from the global economy will require robust accounting and planning tools.

    6RXUFH ::) $VLD 3DFLF 5HSRUW

  • 7/29/2019 Africa Factbook

    12/87

    10 Global Footprint Network: Africas Ecological Footprint - 2006 Factbook

    The health and well-being of human society is intricately linked toto the health of the biological capital on which it depends. Rec-ognizing and accounting for biological capacity available to, andused by a society can help identify opportunities and challenges in

    meeting human development goals.

    The loss in human well-being due to ecological degradation oftenFRPHV ZLWK D VLJQLFDQW WLPH GHOD\ H J RYHUVKLQJ FDQ RFFXU IRUmany years before catches start to plummet) yet such degradationLV RIWHQ GLIFXOW WR UHYHUVH ,Q WKH VKRUW WHUP LW LV IDU OHVV FRVWO\ WRVDYH KXPDQ OLYHV E\ FRQYHQWLRQDO PHWKRGV VXFK DV ZDWHU SXULFD-tion, basic medicine, or electricity for hospitals. These strategiesare essential in their own right.

    8QIRUWXQDWHO\ WKHVH PHDVXUHV DUH QRW VXIFLHQW 7KLV LV QRW WRquestion the importance of conventional methods that provideVLJQLFDQW DGYDQFHV LQ KXPDQ KHDOWK 5DWKHU LW DUJXHV WKDW VKRUWterm interventions need to be complemented by effective resourcemanagement. Short-term interventions can neither address nor reverse the cumulative ecological degradation that results fromcontinued overshoot. Failing to address the causes of overshootleads to resource stress, an insecure future, and a trap from whichLW LV LQFUHDVLQJO\ GLIFXOW WR HVFDSH

    Human demand on ecosystems can exceed biocapacity for sometime, by liquidating resource stocks, and allowing wastes, suchas carbon dioxide to accumulate in the biosphere. As overshootFRQWLQXHV VKHULHV ZLOO FROODSVH VXUIDFH ZDWHU DQG JURXQGZDWHUwill become scarce, and forest will disappear. A reduction in avail-DEOH UHVRXUFHV ZLOO WUDQVODWH LQWR HQRUPRXV KXPDQ VXIIHULQJ UVWfor those who cannot immigrate to more plentiful regions, or affordto import increasingly expensive necessities.

    The challenge of maintaining a high level of human well-beingwhile preserving our resource base is illustrated on the global levelin Figure 5.1 (Similar graphs can be generated for populations of any region or country).

    Plotting HDI results against Ecological Footprint links resourceconsumption with human development. Some countries achievehigh levels of development (as measured by HDI) with relativelysmall resource demand (as measured by average per-personFootprint). By taking an HDI of 0.8 as the boundary between me-dium and high development and 1.8 global hectares per personas the largest Footprint that could be replicated globally dividesFigure 5.1 into four quadrants. Only countries located in the lower right quadrant meet the minimum requirements for sustainability:

    A high level of human development and a lifestyle that could beextended globally. Hardly any country has been able to meet thischallenge.

    Figure 5.1 also demonstrates the different challenges facing re-gions throughout the world. Higher-income countries in EuropeDQG 1RUWK $PHULFD ZLOO QHHG WR QG ZD\V WR UHGXFH Wwithout compromising quality-of-life for their citizens. Currently,WKH PRVW FRPPRQO\ GLVFXVVHG VWUDWHJ\ LV WR LQFUHDVHby reducing material throughput of the economy, however there is

    OLWWOH HYLGHQFH WKDW WKLV VWUDWHJ\ DORQH SURGXFHVresource savings. Four more factors exist for closing the gap be-tween human demand on biocapacity and the supply of biocapac-ity. Whether in Africa or the rest of the world, all of these factorsneed to be employed in order to be successful. The four additionalfactors are: Population size and per capita consumption on the de-mand side, and available area and its bioproductivity on the supplyside (see Section 8 and Figure 8.1).

    5. Human Development and Ecological Limits

  • 7/29/2019 Africa Factbook

    13/87

    Global Footprint Network: Africas Ecological Footprint - 2006 Factbook 11

    Figure 5.1 Human Development Index (HDI) and Ecological Footprint of Nations (2002 data).

    Human Development Index (HDI)

    Algeria

    BeninEthiopiaUganda

    Burundi

    Burkina Faso

    Mozambique

    Mali

    Madagascar

    Ghana

    South Africa

    RwandaNigeria

    Niger

    Tanzania

    India

    France, UK

    China

    Brazil

    USA

    Switzerland

    Egypt

    Algeria

    BeninEthiopiaUganda

    Burundi

    Burkina Faso

    Mozambique

    Mali

    Madagascar

    Ghana

    South Africa

    RwandaNigeria

    Niger

    Tanzania

    India

    France, UK

    China

    Brazil

    USA

    Switzerland

    Egypt

  • 7/29/2019 Africa Factbook

    14/87

    12 Global Footprint Network: Africas Ecological Footprint - 2006 Factbook

    Between 1990 and 2003, twelve African countries (out of eigh-teen worldwide) experienced reversals in human development asmeasured by HDI, affecting some 240 million people. The number RI $IULFDQ FRXQWULHV LGHQWLHG DV KDYLQJ ORZ KXPDQ GHYHORSPHQWincreased from seventeen countries in 1990 to thirty countries in2005 (UNDP 2005).

    Many African nations with an HDI of less than 0.5 have been ableto improve their quality of life without radically increasing demandon natural resources (see p. 12). African nations with mediumlevels of development (an HDI of 0.5 to 0.8), have witnessed ex-amples of high-income nations that followed a development pathlinking improvements in quality of life to rapid growth in EcologicalFootprint. As appealing as such a development path appears for

    nations and individuals, these paths will prove increasingly riskyDQG GLIFXOW WR IROORZ LQ D UHVRXUFH FRQVWUDLQHG ZRUOG

    While not always obvious, disparities in the level of ecological de

    demand among countries with high levels of development (suchas the United States at 9.7 gha per person and Italy at 4.0 gha per person) shows that nations do have a choice about the Footprint-intensity of their development.

    Figure 6.2 shows how individual nations contribute to Africas over-all Footprint. The height of each bar is proportional to a nationsaverage Footprint per person and the width is proportional to itsSRSXODWLRQ 7KH DUHD RI HDFK EDU UHHFWV WKH FRXQWU-print.

    As individual countries and the African region work toward improv-ing sustainable development, decision makers will need solid infor-mation and metrics in order to set goals and track progress. Mea-sures such as the Ecological Footprint will be critical to managingdemand and supply of an increasingly scarce resource, ecologicalcapital.

    Figure 6.1 HDI by components (GDP, adult literacy, and life expectancy)

    6RXUFH 81(3

    6. Human Development and Biocapacity in Africa

  • 7/29/2019 Africa Factbook

    15/87

    Global Footprint Network: Africas Ecological Footprint - 2006 Factbook 13

    Figure 6.2 Ecological Footprint in Africa

    :,GWK RI EDU LV SURSRUWLRQDO WR SRSXODWLRQ VKRZQ LQ PLOOLRQV

    L i b y a

    ( 5. 4 )

    S o u t h

    A f r i c a

    ( 4 4. 8 )

    M a u r i t

    i u s( 1. 2 )

    M a u r i t a

    n i a( 2. 8

    B o t s w

    a n a( 1.

    8 )

    A l g e r i a

    ( 3 1. 7 )

    T u n i s

    i a( 9. 7 )

    N a m i b

    i a( 2. 0 )

    E g y p t

    ( 7 0. 5 )

    N i g e r

    ( 1 1. 5 )

    G a m b

    i a( 1. 4

    )

    S e n e g

    a l( 9. 9

    )

    N i g e r i a

    ( 1 2 0. 9

    )

    S w a z i

    l a n d(

    1. 1 )

    B u r k i n

    aF a s o

    ( 1 2. 6 )

    G a b o n

    ( 1. 3 )

    C h a d

    ( 8. 3 )

    U g a n

    d a( 2 5

    . 0 )

    G h a n a

    ( 2 0. 5 )

    S u d a n

    ( 3 2. 9 )

    B e n i n

    ( 6. 6 )

    G u i n e

    a( 8. 4

    )

    L e s o t h o

    ( 1. 8 )

    M o r o c

    c o( 3 0

    . 1 )

    A n g o l

    a( 1 3.

    2 )

    C e n t r a lA

    f r i c a n

    R e p u b

    l i c( 3. 8 )

    T o g o( 4. 8

    )

    Z i m b a b

    w e( 1 2

    . 8 )

    M a l i( 1

    2. 6 )

    S i e r r a

    L e o n e

    ( 4. 8 )

    C a m e

    r o o n(

    1 5. 7 )

    E t h i o p

    i a( 6 9.

    0 )

    K e n y a

    ( 3 1. 5 )

    C o t eD

    i v o i r e

    ( 1 6. 4 )

    B u r u n

    d i( 6. 6

    )

    R w a n d

    a( 8. 3

    )

    T a n z a

    n i a( 3 6

    . 3 )

    G u i n e

    a - B i s s

    a u( 1.

    4 )

    M a d a g

    a s c a r

    ( 1 6. 9 )

    L i b e r i a

    ( 3. 2 )

    M o z a m

    b i q u e

    ( 1 8. 5 )

    C o n g o

    D e mR

    e p( 5 1

    . 2 )

    Z a m b

    i a( 1 0.

    7 )

    C o n g o

    ( 3. 6 )

    M a l a w

    i( 1 1. 9

    )

    S o m a

    l i a( 9. 5 )

  • 7/29/2019 Africa Factbook

    16/87

    14 Global Footprint Network: Africas Ecological Footprint - 2006 Factbook

    For any nation, the Ecological Footprint can be measured from anumber of angles. The angle used most commonly is the one re-SRUWHG KHUH LQ DOO GDWD WDEOHV DQG JUDSKV NQRZQ DV WKH FRQVXPS-tion Footprint. It is the Footprint of all of the ecological goods andservices consumed by the residents of the nation.

    Another angle is to measure the Footprint of all the demands puton the ecosystems within the borders of the nation. The differenceEHWZHHQ WKLV GRPHVWLF )RRWSULQW DQG WKH FRQVXPSWLRQ )RRWSULQWcomes from two sources: a) net imports and b) demands the na-tion makes on the global commons (such as carbon dioxide emis-VLRQV DQG VKLQJ IURP LQWHUQDWLRQDO ZDWHUV

    Because of imports and demands on the commons, a nationsconsumption is not always constrained by the biocapacity limitsof their territory. While at the global level, overshoot leads to thedegradation of biological capital, nations can run an ecologicalGHFLW ZLWKRXW GHJUDGLQJ WKHLU RZQ HFRV\VWHPV LI WKH\ KDYH WKHmeans to import biological capacity from elsewhere in the world.Inversely, nations with ecological reserves (those who consume, innet terms, less than what their ecosystems can regenerate) mightstill experience overuse of their ecological assets due to exportpressures or overuse of particular ecosystems (such as local de-IRUHVWDWLRQ RU RYHUVKLQJ

    Like all regions, Africa is both an importer and an exporter of biological capacity. Overall, the region receives imports of crop-land and pasture land capacity from elsewhere and supplies other UHJLRQV RI WKH ZRUOG ZLWK SURGXFWV IURP VKLQJ JURXQG DQG IRUHVWV:KLOH PDQ\ $IULFDQ FRXQWULHV DUH VLJQLFDQW H[SRUWHUV RI QRQ UH-newable resources such as diamonds, oil and ore, many nationsalso supply the rest of the world with large quantities of biologicalcapacity.

    Table 7.1 Biocapacity export of selected African countries (inglobal hectares, 2002 data)

    As rapidly growing economies around the world continue to in-crease their consumption of resources, export pressures anddemand on African countries renewable resources will continueto increase. The available biocapacity within the African region willbecome even more important on a global stage in a future withgrowing global overshoot.

    7. Trading Biological Capacity

    Cropland Fishing Grounds ForestCameroon 4,300,000 - -Cote DIvoire 8,000,000 - 1,100,000Gabon - - 1,800,000Morocco - 1,500,000 -Namibia - 5,200,000 -South Africa 7,300,000 1,700,000 4,600,000Sudan 2,200,000 - -Zambia 2,700,000 - -

  • 7/29/2019 Africa Factbook

    17/87

    Global Footprint Network: Africas Ecological Footprint - 2006 Factbook 15

    Local overshoot occurs when ecosystems are exploited beyondWKHLU UHJHQHUDWLYH FDSDFLW\ )RU H[DPSOH VKHULHV FDQ EH RYHU -VKHG RU IRUHVWV RYHUKDUYHVWHG OHDGLQJ WR D GHFOLQH RI WKH H[LVW-ing stock of ecological capital. Local overshoot has occurred inmany places such as the Mediterranean basin, sometimes leavingbehind indelible scars and ecosystems with permanently reducedproductivity.

    Today, however, humanity has entered into an era of global over-shoot, as described in Section 4. Global overshoot inevitably leadsto the degradation of the ecological capital base on which humansocieties depend. The recent Millennium Ecosystem Assessmentgives detailed information on the current status (www.greenfacts.org).

    At the regional and national scale, however, countries can con-sume more resources than their domestic ecosystems can providewithout depleting their own capital if they are able to import capac-ity from elsewhere. Furthermore, countries can demand less thantheir ecosystems can provide, but still experience local overshootdue to export pressures or poor management. Countries with aconsumption Footprint larger than their own biocapacity, including1RUWK $PHULFD DQG PRVW RI (XURSH DUH FDOOHG HFRORJLFDO GHEWRUV while countries with biocapacity that exceed their Footprint, includ-

    LQJ PXFK RI $VLD DQG $IULFD DUH HFRORJLFDO FUHGLWRUV ,Q RWKHUZRUGV QDWLRQV FDQ QDQFH DQ HFRORJLFDO GHFLW E\ OLTXLGDWLQJ WKHLUdomestic ecological capital or by importing biocapacity from else-where.

    Five factors LQXHQFH WKH VL]H RI WKH JDS LI DQ\ EHWZHHQ DYDLO-able biocapacity and demand on biocapacity. Three factors deter-mine the Ecological Footprint and two determine the amount of available biocapacity.

    Three Ecological Footprint Factors: Ecological Footprints - or total demand on biocapacity - are a function of three factors: popu-lation, consumption per person, and resource intensity:

    Population growth can be reduced and eventually reversed

    through measures that support families who choose to have fewer children. Offering women better education, economic opportunitiesand health care are three proven approaches.

    To meet regional development challenges, consumption per per-son in the region may need to rise. In some cases, this increasecan be offset by technology and management systems that in-FUHDVH )RRWSULQW HIFLHQF\ H J )RRWSULQW HIFLHQW DORZ )RRWSULQW KRXVLQJ DQG HQHUJ\ V\VWHPV DQG HQHUJ\transportation systems).

    Two Biocapacity Factors : The total available biocapacity or eco-system supply is determined by two factors: the amount of biologi-cally productive area available, and the productivity or yield of thatarea.

    :KLOH LQFUHDVLQJ WRWDO ELRSURGXFWLYH DUHD FDQ EH GLI-cially in arid regions), improved technology and management canhelp to increase yields on already productive land. Biocapacity can

    be maintained by protecting soil from erosion and degradation andpreserving cropland for agriculture. This involves protecting river basins, wetlands and watersheds to secure freshwater supplies,DQG PDLQWDLQLQJ KHDOWK\ IRUHVWV DQG VKHULHV ,W LQFaction to protect ecosystems from climate change and eliminatingthe use of toxic chemicals that degrade ecosystems.

    8. Managing Ecological Assets to Secure Human Well-Being: Five Factors at Play

  • 7/29/2019 Africa Factbook

    18/87

    16 Global Footprint Network: Africas Ecological Footprint - 2006 Factbook

    Figure 8.1 Five factors of Biological Supply and Demand. Five factors determine the gap between biological demand and supply.3RSXODWLRQ SHU FDSLWD FRQVXPSWLRQ DQG HIFLHQF\ GHWHUPLQH GHPDQG ZKLOH DUHD DQG ELRSURGXFWLYLW\ GH

    Gap BetweenBiological

    Demand andSupply

    x = EcologicalFootprint(Demand)Population

    Per CapitaConsumption

    ResourceIntensityResourceIntensity

    x

    =Biocapacity

    (Supply)

    x

    AreaAreaBio-

    productivityBio-

    productivity

  • 7/29/2019 Africa Factbook

    19/87

    Global Footprint Network: Africas Ecological Footprint - 2006 Factbook 17

    9. Fact Pages for Selected Countries

    The key information in this factbook is displayed in a country-spe-FLF GRXEOH SDJH OD\RXW ZLWK FRQVLVWHQWO\ RUJDQL]HG JUDSKV DQGtables. These graphs and tables provide a quantitative descriptionof human development, ecological performance and links betweenWKH WZR IRU WZHQW\ YH FRXQWULHV $V DQ RYHUYLHZ SDJHV DQG21 summarize the situation for Africa as a whole, using the samelayout.

    Each fact page (Section 9) is divided into three sections:9.1 Human development benchmarks9.2 Human development and ecological performance9.3 Ecological time trends

    9.1. Human development benchmarks

    Figure 9.1.1 shows the countrys Human Development Index (HDI)for the year 2003 broken down into its three components: life ex-pectancy, education, and per capita income or GDP. Tables 9.1.1

    9.1.3 provide the same information in absolute values rather than in an indexed format. Figure 9.1.1 compares the countrysHDI performance against the world average (dotted lines), andthe pie chart in Figure 9.1.2 shows the percentage of the nationalincome going to the top and bottom income quintiles.

    Africas income distribution pattern among income groups is

    similar to other countries. The income distribution in the UK, for example, resembles Africas average, where the richest twentypercent of the population control about forty percent of the nationalincome. However, the overall per capita income in the UK is muchhigher than in Africa and, as a result this disparity deprives thepoorest segments of African society from meeting basic materialneeds.

    Among the HDI component indicators, life expectancy is the cat-egory in which Africa scores visibly lower than many other regionsRI WKH ZRUOG 7KH PRVW VLJQLFDQW FRQWULEXWRU WR WKLV ODUJH GLVFUHS

    ancy is the HIV/AIDS epidemic that affects African communities,most dramatically in the Southern Africa sub-region. Diseases likemalaria are also widespread and contribute to increased infantmortality and decreased life expectancy. The Human DevelopmentIndex parallels the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in how

    it frames the development challenges.

    Table 9.1.2 summarizes development impacts on gender. Accord-ing to the World Health Organization, the adult literacy rate is theSHUFHQWDJH RI WKH SRSXODWLRQ DJHG IWHHQ \HDUV DQG Rboth read and write a short, simple statement about their everydaylife. The combined gross enrollment ratio, according to UNESCO,is the total enrollment in all levels of education, regardless of age,GLYLGHG E\ WKH SRSXODWLRQ RI WKH DJH JURXS ZKLFK RIFL-sponds to primary, secondary, and tertiary schooling.

    The GDP Index looks at earned income normalized by purchas-LQJ SRZHU SDULW\ 333 ZKLFK UHHFWV WKH IDFW WKDW Rbuy different amount of goods in different countries. PPP US$ arecalibrated according to what one dollar can buy within the US.

    While most African countries lag behind the world average in the+', RYHU WKH SDVW IRUW\ YH \HDUV $IULFD KDV PDGH UHPDprogress in improving the basic education and literacy rates for

    both males and females. This is indeed an extremely promisingdevelopment as education is strongly interlinked with other humandevelopment outcomes such as health and gender equity. All datapresented in this factbook are taken from the Human DevelopmentReport of UNDP.

    9.2. Human development and ecological performanceFigure 9.2.1 is the key diagram used in this report to discuss thelink between human development and ecological assets. Glob-ally, sustainable development can be assessed using the Human

    Development Index (HDI) as an indicator of socio-economic

  • 7/29/2019 Africa Factbook

    20/87

    18 Global Footprint Network: Africas Ecological Footprint - 2006 Factbook

    development and the Ecological Footprint as a measure of humandemand on the biosphere. The United Nations considers an HDI of RYHU WR UHHFW KLJK KXPDQ GHYHORSPHQW $Q (FRORJLFDO )RRW-print less than 1.8 global hectares per person makes a countrysresource demands globally replicable. Despite growing adoption of sustainable development as an explicit policy goal, most countriesdo not meet both minimum requirements.

    7KLV JUDSK LV XVHG DV D EDFNGURS IRU PRUH FRXQWU\ VSHFLF LQ-formation and to put each country in context with the rest of theworld. The dark line on the graph represents change in EcologicalFootprint and HDI over time, for most countries from 1975 to 2003.In all but one case (South Africa), either or both Ecological Foot-print and HDI have increased over time. (Note: Footprint data re-ported through year 2002; HDI data reported through year 2003).

    Tables 9.2.1 and 9.2.1 show economic outcomes.

    Trade is depicted in Table 9.2.1, which show imports, exports, andthe trade balance in both dollar terms and Footprint terms. A nega-tive Footprint balance of 10 million global hectares, for example,would indicate that the country imported 10 million more globalhectares than it exported. The dollar intensity of imports and ex-ports shows to what extent imports or exports are more resourceintensive. Higher numbers here indicate lower resource intensity.

    Table 9.2.1 also shows the percentage of development assistanceas well as debt service payments as a percentage of the countrysGDP.

    Table 9.2.2 compares population, income in absolute dollars andthe countrys Ecological Footprint per capita.

    9.3. Ecological time trendsBiocapacity and Ecological Footprints are measured in globalhectares. A global hectare is an area-normalized unit of productiv-ity, equal to the annual productivity of one hectare of biologically

    productive land or sea with world-average productivity. Useof global hectares as a productivity measure allows world-widecomparisons of biocapacity and demand, while recognizing largedifferences in ecosystem productivities.

    )RUW\ YH \HDUV DJR $IULFD ZDV HQGRZHG ZLWK H[SDQVLYH-

    cal reserves. In 1961, Africa had an available biocapacity of 3.5global hectares per person compared to an Ecological Footprintof 1.2 global hectares per person. By 2002, this ecological reservehad shrunk from 2.3 to 0.2 global hectares per person. Today, theaverage African has a Footprint of 1.1 global hectares comparedwith an available biocapacity of 1.3 global hectares per person.Considering recent population growth rates and the age distribu-tion of Africas population, it is likely that Africas Ecological Foot-print will soon overtake its biocapacity. This will leave Africa, for WKH UVW WLPH LQ LWV KLVWRU\ ZLWK D FRQWLQHQWDO H

    Rapid population growth over the past half-century has played aVLJQLFDQW UROH LQ $IULFDV GLPLQLVKLQJ ELRFDSDFLW\ ,Qper capita biocapacity was approximately equal to the world aver-DJH DW WKDW WLPH 2YHU WKH SDVW IRUW\ YH \HDUV SH-ity of biocapacity in Africa decreased at a more rapid rate than inthe rest of the world. Consequently, Africas present endowment of natural capital is substantially less than the world average. A major driver of this reduction is population growth, where Africa has out-

    paced other continents.Over the last half-century, advances in agricultural technologyhave helped Africa increase the productivity of each global hect-DUH SURGXFLQJ IWHHQ SHUFHQW PRUH ELRFDSDFLW\ SHU \HDthan in 1961. This means that despite maintaining a constantEcological Footprint of 1.3 global hectares per person over the lastIRUW\ YH \HDUV $IULFDQV QRZ FRQVXPH RQ DYHUDJH IWH-cent more biocapacity per person than in 1961. Africa, on average,has also kept pace with other regions in the world in boosting its

    absolute biocapacity.

  • 7/29/2019 Africa Factbook

    21/87

    Global Footprint Network: Africas Ecological Footprint - 2006 Factbook 19

    Yet, as shown in Figure 9.3.1 in Africa, in spite of the stable (butUHODWLYHO\ VPDOO SHU FDSLWD )RRWSULQW RYHU WKH ODVW IRUW\ YH \HDUVFootprint components have shifted. For instance, all food-orientedFRPSRQHQWV VXFK DV FURSODQG JUD]LQJ ODQG DQG VKLQJ JURXQGVshow a decline. This decrease is offset by an increase in AfricasFDUERQ )RRWSULQW 7KLV UHHFWV DQ RYHUDOO JOREDO WUHQG WRZDUGV XU -

    banization. Africas present urban population of thirty-nine percentLV H[SHFWHG WR LQFUHDVH WR IW\ IRXU SHUFHQW LQ 81(3exhibiting the fastest growth rate in the world at 3.5 percent per year.

    Most striking are the overall comparisons of Ecological Footprintand biocapacity trends as depicted in Figure 9.3.2. Overall, coun-tries that have the economic ability to purchase resources fromabroad are less constrained by their own biocapacity.

    For instance, the Footprints of France, the UK, the US, Switzer-land and even China far exceed their own biocapacity. Yet for mostof these nations, the Footprint increase seems to slow down or stabilize as their Footprint continues to exceed domestic biocapac-ity. These graphs are consistent with the economic news todaydominated by Chinas demand for resources.

    ,Q FRQWUDVW FRXQWULHV ZLWK OLPLWHG QDQFLDO DELOLW\ WR SXUFKDVHresources from abroad, such as Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi,

    Rwanda, and Uganda, show a remarkable trend of Footprint beingconstrained by domestic biocapacity. These countries are experi-encing real ecological constraints that directly impact their ability toDFFHVV VXIFLHQW UHVRXUFHV 7KH JUDSK IRU 5ZDQGD VKRZV D VPDOOincrease in the Footprint curve, attributed to receipt of food aid inthe late 1990s.

    Other countries have experienced such limitations only morerecently. Kenya, Niger and Nigeria, for example, once exceedingtheir domestic biocapacity were not able to increase their

    Footprint any further. South Africa shows a particularly dramaticshift in Footprint growth after exceeding its own biocapacity.

    Further, the curves in Figure 9.3.4 show that Ghana and Tanzaniamight be running into similar resource constraints as Kenya, Niger,South Africa, or Nigeria within decades if not years.

    Algeria provides an example of the opposite effect. Due to its oilexports, Algeria has been able to afford extra imports. Additionally,because of Algerias access to cheap fossil fuel, it has been ableto transcend its own biocapacity, externalizing the CO2 costs onthe rest of the world much like many other high or middle-incomecountries.

    Figures 9.3.2 and 9.3.4 show details of each countrys EcologicalFootprint and Biocapacity.

    Fact pages for the following countries and regions are included inthe Section 9:

    AlgeriaBeninBrazilBurkina FasoBurundiChina

    EgyptEthiopiaFranceGhanaIndiaKenyaMadagascar

    MaliMozambiqueNiger NigeriaRwandaSouth Africa

    SwitzerlandTanzaniaUgandaUnited KingdomUSWorld

    Africa

  • 7/29/2019 Africa Factbook

    22/87

    )LJXUH +', &RPSRQHQWV ,QGH[HG )LJXUH ,QFRPH 'LVWULEXWLRQ

    7DEOH +', &RPSRQHQWV $EVROXWHV

    7DEOH 3XEOLF +HDOWK

    7DEOH 7UDGH DQG 'HEW

    7DEOH 3RSXODWLRQ *'3 DQG (FRORJLFDO )RRWSULQW

    9.2 Human Development and Environmental Performance

    20 Global Footprint Network: Africas Ecological Footprint - 2006 Factbook

    Africa

    Life Expectancy (years) 51Gross Enrollment (%) 55% Adult Literacy Rate (% ) 59%GDP per capita (PPP US$) $2,424

    Female adult literacy rate (%) 50%Male adult literacy rate (%) 67%

    Female combined gross enrollment ratio (%) 44%Male combined gross enrollment ratio (%) 51%Female estimated earned income (PPP US$) $1,457Male estimated earned income (PPP US$) $3,395

    Urban population with access to improved sanitation facilities (%) 44%Urban population with access to improved water source (%) 65%Percentage of population undernourished 22%

    Billion US$ Million gha $/ghaImports $229.4 178.2 1,287Exports $218.2 136.5 1,598Net (Exports - Imports) -$11.2 -41.7ODA (% of GDP) 3.6%Debt Service (% of GDP) 4.0%

    World AfricaPopulation (Millions) 6225 824GDP per capita (US$) $5,801 $794Footprint (gha/capita) 2.20 1.10Biocapacity (gha/capita) 1.80 1.30

    0.470.44

    0.58

    0.750.77

    0.70

    0

    0.1

    0.2

    0.3

    0.4

    0.50.6

    0.7

    0.8

    0.9

    1

    Lif e Ex pec tanc y Educ ation Index GDP Index

    Af rica

    World Average

    44%

    5%

    50%

    Top 20%

    Bottom 20%

    Middle 60%

    0

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

    Human Development Index

    F o o

    t p r i n

    t ( g h

    a / c

    a p

    i t a

    )

    Africa

    )LJXUH ,QFRPH 'LVWULEXWLRQ

    7DEOH *HQGHU 5HODWHG 'HYHORSPHQW

    9.1 Human Development Benchmarks

    )LJXUH +XPDQ 'HYHORSPHQW DQG (FRORJLFDO )RRWSULQW RI 1DWLRQ7LPH 7UHQG /LQH IURP

    6RXUFH 81'3 +XPDQ 'HYHORSPHQW 5HSRUW GDWD

  • 7/29/2019 Africa Factbook

    23/87

    )LJXUH (FRORJLFDO )RRWSULQW E\ &RPSRQHQW

    )LJXUH %LRFDSDFLW\ E\ &RPSRQHQW

    )LJXUH 3RSXODWLRQ 7UHQG

    )LJXUH )RRWSULQW DQG %LRFDSDFLW\ 7UHQG

    9.3 Ecological Time Trends

    Global Footprint Network: Africas Ecological Footprint - 2006 Factbook 21Africa

    3OHDVH VHH $SSHQGL[ $ IRU )XUWKHU &RXQWU\ )RRWSULQW DQG %LRFDSDFLW\ 9DOXHV

    0.0

    0.5

    1.0

    1.5

    2.0

    2.5

    3.0

    3.5

    4.0

    1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

    F o o

    t p r i n

    t a n

    d B i o c a p a c i

    t y ( g h a

    / c a p

    i t a

    )

    FootprintNational BiocapacityWorld Biocapacity

    0

    100

    200

    300

    400

    500

    600

    700

    800

    900

    1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

    M i l l i o n

    P e o p

    l

    0.0

    0.2

    0.4

    0.6

    0.8

    1.0

    1.2

    1.4

    1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001

    F o o

    t p r i n

    t ( g h a

    / c a p

    i t a )

    Nuclear FootprintCarbon FootprintBuilt-up Land FootprintFishing GroundGrazing FootprintForest Footprint

    Cropland Footprint

    0.0

    0.5

    1.0

    1.5

    2.0

    2.5

    3.0

    3.5

    4.0

    1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001

    B i o c a p a c i

    t y ( g h a

    / c a p

    i t a

    )

    Built-up Land BiocapacityFishing GroundGrazing BiocapacityForest BiocapacityCropland Biocapacity

  • 7/29/2019 Africa Factbook

    24/87

    )LJXUH +', &RPSRQHQWV ,QGH[HG )LJXUH ,QFRPH 'LVWULEXWLRQ

    7DEOH +', &RPSRQHQWV $EVROXWHV

    7DEOH 7UDGH DQG 'HEW

    9.2 Human Development and Environmental Performance

    22 Global Footprint Network: Africas Ecological Footprint - 2006 Factbook

    Algeria

    Life Expectancy (years) 71Gross Enrollment (%) 74% Adult Literacy Rate (%) 70%GDP per capita (PPP US$) $6,107

    Female adult literacy rate (%) 60%Male adult literacy rate (%) 80%

    Female combined gross enrollment ratio (%) 72%Male combined gross enrollment ratio (%) 76%Female estimated earned income (PPP US$) $2,896Male estimated earned income (PPP US$) $9,244

    Urban population with access to improved sanitation facilities (%) 99%Urban population with access to improved water source (%) 87%Percentage of population undernourished (%) 5%

    0.690.710.77

    0.700.77 0.75

    0

    0.1

    0.2

    0.3

    0.4

    0.5

    0.6

    0.7

    0.8

    0.9

    1

    Lif e Ex pec tanc y Educ ation Index GDP Index

    Algeria

    World Average

    43%

    7%

    50%

    Top 20%

    Bottom 20%

    Middle 60%

    Billion US$ Million gha $/ghaImports $16.0 18.6 860Exports $25.9 4.2 6,249Net (Exports - Imports) $10.0 -14.4ODA (% of GDP) 0.3%Debt Service (% of GDP) 6.5%

    World Africa AlgeriaPopulation (Millions) 6225 824 31GDP per capita (US$) $5,801 $794 $2,090Footprint (gha/capita) 2.20 1.10 1.50Biocapacity (gha/capita) 1.80 1.30 0.60

    0

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

    Human Development Index

    F o o

    t p r i n

    t ( g h

    a / c

    a p

    i t a )

    Algeria

    World Biocapacity 2002: 1.8 gha per capita

    7DEOH *HQGHU 5HODWHG 'HYHORSPHQW

    9.1 Human Development Benchmarks

    7DEOH 3XEOLF +HDOWK

    7DEOH 3RSXODWLRQ *'3 DQG (FRORJLFDO )RRWSULQW

    )LJXUH +XPDQ 'HYHORSPHQW DQG (FRORJLFDO )RRWSULQW RI 1DWLRQV7LPH 7UHQG /LQH IURP

    6RXUFH 81'3 +XPDQ 'HYHORSPHQW 5HSRUW GDWD

  • 7/29/2019 Africa Factbook

    25/87

    )LJXUH (FRORJLFDO )RRWSULQW E\ &RPSRQHQW

    )LJXUH %LRFDSDFLW\ E\ &RPSRQHQW

    )LJXUH 3RSXODWLRQ 7UHQG

    )LJXUH )RRWSULQW DQG %LRFDSDFLW\ 7UHQG

    9.3 Ecological Time Trends

    Global Footprint Network: Africas Ecological Footprint - 2006 Factbook 23

    3OHDVH VHH $SSHQGL[ $ IRU )XUWKHU &RXQWU\ )RRWSULQW DQG %LRFDSDFLW\ 9DOXHV

    0.0

    0.5

    1.0

    1.5

    2.0

    2.5

    3.0

    3.5

    4.0

    1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

    F o o

    t p r i n

    t a n

    d B i o c a p a c

    i t y ( g h a

    / c a p

    i t a )

    FootprintNational BiocapacityWorld Biocapacity

    0

    5

    10

    15

    20

    25

    30

    35

    1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

    M i l l i o n

    P e o p

    l

    0.0

    0.5

    1.0

    1.5

    2.0

    2.5

    1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001

    B i o c a p a c i

    t y ( g

    h a

    / c a p

    i t a

    )

    Built-up Land BiocapacityFishing GroundGrazing BiocapacityForest BiocapacityCropland Biocapacity

    0.0

    0.5

    1.0

    1.5

    2.0

    1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001

    F o o

    t p r i n

    t ( g h a

    / c a p

    i t a

    )

    Nuclear FootprintCarbon FootprintBuilt-up Land FootprintFishing GroundGrazing FootprintForest Footprint

    Cropland Footprint

    Algeria

  • 7/29/2019 Africa Factbook

    26/87

    )LJXUH +', &RPSRQHQWV ,QGH[HG )LJXUH ,QFRPH 'LVWULEXWLRQ

    7DEOH +', &RPSRQHQWV $EVROXWHV

    7DEOH 7UDGH DQG 'HEW

    7DEOH 3RSXODWLRQ *'3 DQG (FRORJLFDO )RRWSULQW

    9.2 Human Development and Environmental Performance

    24 Global Footprint Network: Africas Ecological Footprint - 2006 Factbook

    Benin

    0.48

    0.41 0.40

    0.750.77

    0.70

    0

    0.1

    0.2

    0.3

    0.4

    0.5

    0.6

    0.7

    0.8

    0.9

    1

    Lif e Ex pec tanc y Educ ation Index GDP Index

    Benin

    World Average

    *Income distribution data for Benin unavailable

    Life Expectancy (years) 54Gross Enrollment (%) 55% Adult Literacy Rate (%) 34%GDP per capita (PPP US$) $1,115

    Female adult literacy rate (%) 23%Male adult literacy rate (%) 46%

    Female combined gross enrollment ratio (%) 43%Male combined gross enrollment ratio (%) 66%Female estimated earned income (PPP US$) $910Male estimated earned income (PPP US$) $1,316

    Urban population with access to improved sanitation facilities (%) 58%Urban population with access to improved water source (%) 68%Percentage of population undernourished (%) 15%

    Billion US$ Million gha $/ghaImports $0.9 1.6 580Exports $0.5 0.9 544Net (Exports - Imports) -$0.5 -0.7ODA (% of GDP) 8.5%Debt Service (% of GDP) 1.7%

    World Africa BeninPopulation (Millions) 6225 824 7GDP per capita (US$) $5,801 $794 $517Footprint (gha/capita) 2.20 1.10 1.00Biocapacity (gha/capita) 1.80 1.30 0.80

    0

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00Human Development Index

    F o o

    t p r i n

    t ( g h a

    / c a p

    i t a

    )

    Benin

    World Biocapacity 2002: 1.8 gha per capita

    7DEOH *HQGHU 5HODWHG 'HYHORSPHQW

    7DEOH 3XEOLF +HDOWK

    9.1 Human Development Benchmarks

    )LJXUH +XPDQ 'HYHORSPHQW DQG (FRORJLFDO )RRWSULQW RI 1DWLRQ

    7LPH 7UHQG /LQH IURP

    6RXUFH 81'3 +XPDQ 'HYHORSPHQW 5HSRUW GDWD

  • 7/29/2019 Africa Factbook

    27/87

    )LJXUH (FRORJLFDO )RRWSULQW E\ &RPSRQHQW

    )LJXUH %LRFDSDFLW\ E\ &RPSRQHQW

    )LJXUH 3RSXODWLRQ 7UHQG

    )LJXUH )RRWSULQW DQG %LRFDSDFLW\ 7UHQG

    9.3 Ecological Time Trends

    Global Footprint Network: Africas Ecological Footprint - 2006 Factbook 25

    0.0

    0.2

    0.4

    0.6

    0.8

    1.0

    1.2

    1.4

    1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001

    F o o

    t p r i n

    t ( g h a

    / c a p

    i t a

    )

    Nuclear FootprintCarbon FootprintBuilt-up Land FootprintFishing GroundGrazing FootprintForest Footprint

    Cropland Footprint

    0.0

    0.2

    0.4

    0.6

    0.8

    1.0

    1.2

    1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001

    B i o c a p a c

    i t y ( g h a

    / c a p

    i t a )

    Built-up Land BiocapacityFishing GroundGrazing BiocapacityForest BiocapacityCropland Biocapacity

    0.0

    0.5

    1.0

    1.5

    2.0

    2.5

    3.0

    3.5

    4.0

    1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

    F o o

    t p r i n

    t a n

    d B i o c a p a c

    i t y ( g h a

    / c a p

    i t a

    FootprintNational BiocapacityWorld Biocapacity

    0

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

    M i l l i o n

    P e o p

    l

    Benin

  • 7/29/2019 Africa Factbook

    28/87

    )LJXUH +', &RPSRQHQWV ,QGH[HG )LJXUH ,QFRPH 'LVWULEXWLRQ

    7DEOH +', &RPSRQHQWV $EVROXWHV

    7DEOH *HQGHU 5HODWHG 'HYHORSPHQW

    7DEOH 3XEOLF +HDOWK

    7DEOH 3RSXODWLRQ *'3 DQG (FRORJLFDO )RRWSULQW

    9.2 Human Development and Environmental Performance

    26 Global Footprint Network: Africas Ecological Footprint - 2006 Factbook

    Brazil

    0.76

    0.89

    0.73

    0.750.77

    0.70

    0

    0.1

    0.2

    0.3

    0.4

    0.5

    0.6

    0.7

    0.8

    0.9

    1

    Lif e Ex pec tanc y Educ ation Index GDP Index

    Brazil

    World Average

    63%2%

    34%

    Top 20%

    Bottom 20%

    Middle 60%

    Life Expectancy (years) 71Gross Enrollment (%) 91%

    Adult Literacy Rate (%) 88%GDP per capita (PPP US$) $7,790

    Female adult literacy rate (%) 89%Male adult literacy rate (%) 88%

    Female combined gross enrollment ratio (%) 93%Male combined gross enrollment ratio (%) 89%Female estimated earned income (PPP US$) $4,704Male estimated earned income (PPP US$) $10,963

    Urban population with access to improved sanitation facilities (%) 83%Urban population with access to improved water source (%) 89%Percentage of population undernourished (%) 9%

    0

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

    Human Development Index

    F o o

    t p r i n

    t ( g h

    a / c a p

    i t a

    )

    Brazil

    Billion US$ Million gha $/ghaImports $64.0 34.8 1,837Exports $83.7 135.7 617Net (Exports - Imports) $19.7 100.9ODA (% of GDP) 0.1%Debt Service (% of GDP) 11.5%

    World Africa BrazilPopulation (Millions) 6225 824 176GDP per capita (US$) $5,801 $794 $2,788Footprint (gha/capita) 2.20 1.10 2.10Biocapacity (gha/capita) 1.80 1.30 10.10

    9.1 Human Development Benchmarks

    7DEOH 7UDGH DQG 'HEW

    )LJXUH +XPDQ 'HYHORSPHQW DQG (FRORJLFDO )RRWSULQW RI 1DWLRQV

    7LPH 7UHQG /LQH IURP

    6RXUFH 81'3 +XPDQ 'HYHORSPHQW 5HSRUW GDWD

  • 7/29/2019 Africa Factbook

    29/87

    )LJXUH (FRORJLFDO )RRWSULQW E\ &RPSRQHQW

    )LJXUH %LRFDSDFLW\ E\ &RPSRQHQW

    )LJXUH 3RSXODWLRQ 7UHQG

    )LJXUH )RRWSULQW DQG %LRFDSDFLW\ 7UHQG

    9.3 Ecological Time Trends

    Global Footprint Network: Africas Ecological Footprint - 2006 Factbook 27

    0

    20

    40

    60

    80

    100

    120

    140160

    180

    200

    1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

    M i l l i o n

    P e o p

    l

    0.0

    5.0

    10.0

    15.0

    20.0

    25.0

    1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

    F o o

    t p r i n

    t a n

    d B i o c a p a

    c i t y ( g h a

    / c a p

    i t a

    )

    FootprintNational BiocapacityWorld Biocapacity

    0.0

    0.5

    1.0

    1.5

    2.0

    2.5

    1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001

    F o o

    t p r i n

    t ( g h a

    / c a p

    i t a

    )

    Nuclear FootprintCarbon FootprintBuilt-up Land FootprintFishing GroundGrazing FootprintForest FootprintCropland Footprint

    0.0

    5.0

    10.0

    15.0

    20.0

    25.0

    1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001

    B i o c a p a c i

    t y ( g h a / c a p

    i t a

    )

    Built-up Land BiocapacityFishing GroundGrazing BiocapacityForest BiocapacityCropland Biocapacity

    Brazil

  • 7/29/2019 Africa Factbook

    30/87

    )LJXUH +', &RPSRQHQWV ,QGH[HG )LJXUH ,QFRPH 'LVWULEXWLRQ

    7DEOH +', &RPSRQHQWV $EVROXWHV

    7DEOH 3XEOLF +HDOWK

    7DEOH 7UDGH DQG 'HEW

    9.2 Human Development and Environmental Performance

    28 Global Footprint Network: Africas Ecological Footprint - 2006 Factbook

    Life Expectancy (years) 48Gross Enrollment (%) 24%

    Adult Literacy Rate (%) 13%GDP per capita (PPP US$) $1,174

    Female adult literacy rate (%) 8%Male adult literacy rate (%) 19%

    Female combined gross enrollment ratio (%) 20%Male combined gross enrollment ratio (%) 27%Female estimated earned income (PPP US$) $986Male estimated earned income (PPP US$) $1,357

    Urban population with access to improved sanitation facilities (%) 45%Urban population with access to improved water source (%) 51%Percentage of population undernourished (%) 19%

    Burkina Faso

    0.38

    0.16

    0.41

    0.750.77

    0.70

    0

    0.1

    0.2

    0.3

    0.4

    0.5

    0.6

    0.7

    0.8

    0.9

    1

    Lif e Ex pec tanc y Educ ation Index GDP Index

    Burkina Faso

    World Average

    61%

    5%

    35%

    Top 20%

    Bottom 20%

    Middle 60%

    0

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

    Human Development Index

    F o o

    t p r i n

    t ( g h a

    / c a p

    i t a

    )

    Burkina Faso

    World Biocapacity 2002: 1.8 gha per capita

    Billion US$ Million gha $/ghaImports $1.0 1.7 553Exports $0.4 0.8 487Net (Exports - Imports) -$0.6 -1.0ODA (% of GDP) 10.8%Debt Service (% of GDP) 1.2%

    World Africa Burkina FasoPopulation (Millions) 6225 824 13GDP per capita (US$) $5,801 $794 $345Footprint (gha/capita) 2.20 1.10 1.10Biocapacity (gha/capita) 1.80 1.30 1.00

    7DEOH *HQGHU 5HODWHG 'HYHORSPHQW

    9.1 Human Development Benchmarks

    7DEOH 3RSXODWLRQ *'3 DQG (FRORJLFDO )RRWSULQW

    )LJXUH +XPDQ 'HYHORSPHQW DQG (FRORJLFDO )RRWSULQW RI 1DWLRQ7LPH 7UHQG /LQH IURP

    6RXUFH 81'3 +XPDQ 'HYHORSPHQW 5HSRUW GDWD

  • 7/29/2019 Africa Factbook

    31/87

    )LJXUH (FRORJLFDO )RRWSULQW E\ &RPSRQHQW

    )LJXUH %LRFDSDFLW\ E\ &RPSRQHQW

    )LJXUH 3RSXODWLRQ 7UHQG

    )LJXUH )RRWSULQW DQG %LRFDSDFLW\ 7UHQG

    9.3 Ecological Time Trends

    Global Footprint Network: Africas Ecological Footprint - 2006 Factbook 29

    0

    2

    4

    6

    8

    10

    12

    14

    1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

    M i l l i o n

    P e o p

    l

    0.0

    0.5

    1.0

    1.5

    2.0

    2.5

    3.0

    3.5

    4.0

    1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

    F o o

    t p r i n

    t a n

    d B i o c a p a c i

    t y ( g h a

    / c a p

    i t a

    )

    FootprintNational BiocapacityWorld Biocapacity

    0.0

    0.5

    1.0

    1.5

    1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001

    F o o

    t p r i n

    t ( g h a

    / c a p

    i t a

    )

    Nuclear FootprintCarbon FootprintBuilt-up Land FootprintFishing GroundGrazing FootprintForest FootprintCropland Footprint

    0.0

    0.5

    1.0

    1.5

    1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001

    B i o c a p a c i

    t y ( g h a / c a p

    i t a

    )

    Built-up Land BiocapacityFishing GroundGrazing BiocapacityForest BiocapacityCropland Biocapacity

    Burkina Faso

  • 7/29/2019 Africa Factbook

    32/87

    )LJXUH +', &RPSRQHQWV ,QGH[HG )LJXUH ,QFRPH 'LVWULEXWLRQ

    7DEOH +', &RPSRQHQWV $EVROXWHV

    7DEOH 3XEOLF +HDOWK

    7DEOH 7UDGH DQG 'HEW

    9.2 Human Development and Environmental Performance

    30 Global Footprint Network: Africas Ecological Footprint - 2006 Factbook

    Burundi

    0.31

    0.51

    0.31

    0.750.77

    0.70

    0

    0.1

    0.2

    0.3

    0.4

    0.5

    0.6

    0.7

    0.8

    0.9

    1

    Lif e Ex pec tanc y Educ ation Index GDP Index

    Burundi

    World Average

    48%

    5%

    47%

    Top 20%

    Bottom 20%

    Middle 60%

    Life Expectancy (years) 44Gross Enrollment (%) 35%

    Adult Literacy Rate (%) 59%GDP per capita (PPP US$) $648

    Female adult literacy rate (%) 52%Male adult literacy rate (%) 67%

    Female combined gross enrollment ratio (%) 31%Male combined gross enrollment ratio (%) 40%Female estimated earned income (PPP US$) $545Male estimated earned income (PPP US$) $758

    Urban population with access to improved sanitation facilities (%) 36%Urban population with access to improved water source (%) 79%Percentage of population undernourished (%) 68%

    0

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

    Human Development Index

    F o o

    t p r i n

    t ( g h

    a / c a p

    i t a

    )

    Burundi

    World Biocapacity 2002: 1.8 gha per capita

    Billion US$ Million gha $/ghaImports $0.1 0.4 267Exports $0.0 0.1 632Net (Exports - Imports) -$0.1 -0.3ODA (% of GDP) 37.6%Debt Service (% of GDP) 4.9%

    World Africa BurundiPopulation (Millions) 6225 824 7GDP per capita (US$) $5,801 $794 $83Footprint (gha/capita) 2.20 1.10 0.70Biocapacity (gha/capita) 1.80 1.30 0.60

    9.1 Human Development Benchmarks

    7DEOH *HQGHU 5HODWHG 'HYHORSPHQW

    7DEOH 3RSXODWLRQ *'3 DQG (FRORJLFDO )RRWSULQW

    )LJXUH +XPDQ 'HYHORSPHQW DQG (FRORJLFDO )RRWSULQW RI 1DWLRQ7LPH 7UHQG /LQH IURP

    6RXUFH 81'3 +XPDQ 'HYHORSPHQW 5HSRUW GDWD

  • 7/29/2019 Africa Factbook

    33/87

    )LJXUH (FRORJLFDO )RRWSULQW E\ &RPSRQHQW

    )LJXUH %LRFDSDFLW\ E\ &RPSRQHQW

    )LJXUH 3RSXODWLRQ 7UHQG

    )LJXUH )RRWSULQW DQG %LRFDSDFLW\ 7UHQG

    9.3 Ecological Time Trends

    Global Footprint Network: Africas Ecological Footprint - 2006 Factbook 31

    0

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

    M i l l i o n

    P e o p

    l

    0.0

    0.5

    1.0

    1.5

    2.0

    2.5

    3.0

    3.5

    4.0

    1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

    F o o

    t p r i n

    t a n

    d B i o c a p a c i

    t y ( g h a

    / c a p

    i t a

    )

    FootprintNational BiocapacityWorld Biocapacity

    0.0

    0.5

    1.0

    1.5

    1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001

    F o o

    t p r i n

    t ( g h a

    / c a p

    i t a )

    Nuclear FootprintCarbon FootprintBuilt-up Land FootprintFishing Ground

    Grazing FootprintForest FootprintCropland Footprint

    0.0

    0.5

    1.0

    1.5

    1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001

    B i o c a p a c i

    t y ( g h a

    / c a p

    i t a )

    Built-up Land BiocapacityFishing GroundGrazing BiocapacityForest BiocapacityCropland Biocapacity

    Burundi

  • 7/29/2019 Africa Factbook

    34/87

    )LJXUH +', &RPSRQHQWV ,QGH[HG )LJXUH ,QFRPH 'LVWULEXWLRQ

    7DEOH +', &RPSRQHQWV $EVROXWHV

    7DEOH 7UDGH DQG 'HEW

    7DEOH 3RSXODWLRQ *'3 DQG (FRORJLFDO )RRWSULQW

    9.2 Human Development and Environmental Performance

    32 Global Footprint Network: Africas Ecological Footprint - 2006 Factbook

    China

    0.780.84

    0.65

    0.750.77

    0.70

    0

    0.1

    0.2

    0.3

    0.4

    0.5

    0.6

    0.7

    0.8

    0.9

    1

    Lif e Ex pec tanc y Educ ation Index GDP Index

    China

    World Average

    50%

    5%

    45%

    Top 20%

    Bottom 20%

    Middle 60%

    Life Expectancy (years) 72Gross Enrollment (%) 69% Adult Literacy Rate (%) 91%GDP per capita (PPP US$) $5,003

    Female adult literacy rate (%) 87%Male adult literacy rate (%) 95%Female combined gross enrollment ratio (%) 68%Male combined gross enrollment ratio (%) 70%Female estimated earned income (PPP US$) $3,961Male estimated earned income (PPP US$) $5,976

    Urban population with access to improved sanitation facilities (%) 69%Urban population with access to improved water source (%) 77%Percentage of population undernourished (%) 11%

    Billion US$ Million gha $/ghaImports $453.4 421.5 1,076Exports $481.8 238.0 2,024Net (Exports - Imports) $28.3 -183.5ODA (% of GDP) 0.1%Debt Service (% of GDP) 2.6%

    World Africa ChinaPopulation (Millions) 6225 824 1302GDP per capita (US$) $5,801 $794 $1,100Footprint (gha/capita) 2.20 1.10 1.60Biocapacity (gha/capita) 1.80 1.30 0.80

    9.1 Human Development Benchmarks

    7DEOH *HQGHU 5HODWHG 'HYHORSPHQW

    7DEOH 3XEOLF +HDOWK

    0

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

    Human Development Index

    F o o

    t p r i n

    t ( g h

    a / c

    a p

    i t a

    )

    China

    World Biocapacity 2002: 1.8 gha per capita

    )LJXUH +XPDQ 'HYHORSPHQW DQG (FRORJLFDO )RRWSULQW RI 1DWLRQ7LPH 7UHQG /LQH IURP

    6RXUFH 81'3 +XPDQ 'HYHORSPHQW 5HSRUW GDWD

  • 7/29/2019 Africa Factbook

    35/87

    )LJXUH (FRORJLFDO )RRWSULQW E\ &RPSRQHQW

    )LJXUH %LRFDSDFLW\ E\ &RPSRQHQW

    )LJXUH 3RSXODWLRQ 7UHQG

    )LJXUH )RRWSULQW DQG %LRFDSDFLW\ 7UHQG

    9.3 Ecological Time Trends

    Global Footprint Network: Africas Ecological Footprint - 2006 Factbook 33

    0

    200

    400

    600

    800

    1000

    1200

    1400

    1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

    M i l l i o n

    P e o p

    l

    0.0

    0.5

    1.0

    1.5

    2.0

    2.5

    3.0

    3.5

    4.0

    1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

    F o o

    t p r i n

    t a n

    d B i o c a p a c i

    t y ( g h a

    / c a p

    i t a

    )

    FootprintNational BiocapacityWorld Biocapacity

    0.0

    0.5

    1.0

    1.5

    1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001

    B i o c a p a c i

    t y ( g h a

    / c a p

    i t a )

    Built-up Land BiocapacityFishing GroundGrazing BiocapacityForest BiocapacityCropland Biocapacity

    0.0

    0.5

    1.0

    1.5

    2.0

    1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001

    F o o

    t p r i n

    t ( g h a

    / c a p

    i t a )

    Nuclear FootprintCarbon FootprintBuilt-up Land FootprintFishing GroundGrazing FootprintForest Footprint

    Cropland Footprint

    China

  • 7/29/2019 Africa Factbook

    36/87

    )LJXUH +', &RPSRQHQWV ,QGH[HG )LJXUH ,QFRPH 'LVWULEXWLRQ

    7DEOH +', &RPSRQHQWV $EVROXWHV

    7DEOH *HQGHU 5HODWHG 'HYHORSPHQW

    7DEOH 3XEOLF +HDOWK

    7DEOH 7UDGH DQG 'HEW

    7DEOH 3RSXODWLRQ *'3 DQG (FRORJLFDO )RRWSULQW

    9.2 Human Development and Environmental Performance

    34 Global Footprint Network: Africas Ecological Footprint - 2006 Factbook

    Egypt

    Life Expectancy (years) 70Gross Enrollment (%) 74%

    Adult Literacy Rate (%) 56%GDP per capita (PPP US$) $3,950

    Female adult literacy rate (%) 44%Male adult literacy rate (%) 67%

    Female combined gross enrollment ratio (%) N/AMale combined gross enrollment ratio (%) N/AFemale estimated earned income (PPP US$) $1,614Male estimated earned income (PPP US$) $6,203

    Urban population with access to improved sanitation facilities (%) 98%Urban population with access to improved water source (%) 68%Percentage of population undernourished 3%

    0.61

    0.75

    0.62

    0.750.77

    0.70

    0

    0.1

    0.2

    0.3

    0.4

    0.50.6

    0.7

    0.8

    0.9

    1

    Lif e Ex pec tanc y Educ ation Index GDP Index

    Egypt

    World Average

    44%

    9%

    48%

    Top 20%

    Bottom 20%

    Middle 60%

    0

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

    Human Development Index

    F o o

    t p r i n

    t ( g h

    a / c

    a p

    i t a

    )

    Egypt

    Billion US$ Million gha $/ghaImports $0.2 28.3 8Exports $0.2 3.4 65Net (Exports - Imports) $0.0 -24.9ODA (% of GDP) 1.1%Debt Service (% of GDP) 3.4%

    World Africa EgyptPopulation (Millions) 6225 824 71GDP per capita (US$) $5,801 $794 $1,220Footprint (gha/capita) 2.20 1.10 1.40Biocapacity (gha/capita) 1.80 1.30 0.40

    9.1 Human Development Benchmarks

    )LJXUH +XPDQ 'HYHORSPHQW DQG (FRORJLFDO )RRWSULQW RI 1DWLRQ7LPH 7UHQG /LQH IURP

    6RXUFH 81'3 +XPDQ 'HYHORSPHQW 5HSRUW GDWD

  • 7/29/2019 Africa Factbook

    37/87

    )LJXUH (FRORJLFDO )RRWSULQW E\ &RPSRQHQW

    )LJXUH %LRFDSDFLW\ E\ &RPSRQHQW

    )LJXUH 3RSXODWLRQ 7UHQG

    )LJXUH )RRWSULQW DQG %LRFDSDFLW\ 7UHQG

    9.3 Ecological Time Trends

    Global Footprint Network: Africas Ecological Footprint - 2006 Factbook 35

    0.0

    0.5

    1.0

    1.5

    2.02.5

    3.0

    3.5

    4.0

    1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

    F o o

    t p r i n

    t a n

    d B i o c a p a c

    i t y ( g h a

    / c a p

    i t a )

    FootprintBiocapacityWorld Biocapacity

    0

    10

    20

    30

    40

    50

    6070

    80

    1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

    M i l l i o n

    P e o p

    l

    0.0

    0.5

    1.0

    1.5

    1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001

    F o o

    t p r i n

    t ( g h a

    / c a p

    i t a )

    Nuclear FootprintCarbon FootprintBuilt-up Land FootprintFishing GroundGrazing FootprintForest Footprint

    Cropland Footprint

    0.0

    0.5

    1.0

    1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001

    B i o c a p a c

    i t y ( g h a / c a p

    i t a

    )

    Built-up Land BiocapacityFishing GroundGrazing BiocapacityForest BiocapacityCropland Biocapacity

    Egypt

  • 7/29/2019 Africa Factbook

    38/87

    )LJXUH +', &RPSRQHQWV ,QGH[HG )LJXUH ,QFRPH 'LVWULEXWLRQ

    7DEOH +', &RPSRQHQWV $EVROXWHV

    7DEOH 7UDGH DQG 'HEW

    7DEOH 3RSXODWLRQ *'3 DQG (FRORJLFDO )RRWSULQW

    9.2 Human Development and Environmental Performance

    36 Global Footprint Network: Africas Ecological Footprint - 2006 Factbook

    Ethiopia

    0.38 0.400.33

    0.750.77

    0.70

    0

    0.1

    0.2

    0.3

    0.4

    0.50.6

    0.7

    0.8

    0.9

    1

    Lif e Ex pec tanc y Educ ation Index GDP Index

    Ethiopia

    World Average

    39%

    9%

    52%

    Top 20%

    Bottom 20%

    Middle 60%

    Life Expectancy (years) 48Gross Enrollment (%) 36% Adult Literacy Rate (%) 42%GDP per capita (PPP US$) $711

    Female adult literacy rate (%) 34%Male adult literacy rate (%) 49%Female combined gross enrollment ratio (%) 29%Male combined gross enrollment ratio (%) 42%Female estimated earned income (PPP US$) $487Male estimated earned income (PPP US$) $931

    Urban population with access to improved sanitation facilities (%) 19%Urban population with access to improved water source (%) 22%Percentage of population undernourished (%) 46%

    0

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

    Human Development Index

    F o o

    t p r i n

    t ( g h a

    / c a

    p i t a

    )

    Ethiopia

    World Biocapacity 2002: 1.8 gha per capita

    Billion US$ Million gha $/gha

    Imports $2.5 5.3 467Exports $1.1 1.3 878Net (Exports - Imports) -$1.3 -4.0ODA (% of GDP) 22.6%Debt Service (% of GDP) 1.4%

    World Africa EthiopiaPopulation (Millions) 6225 824 69GDP per capita (US$) $5,801 $794 $97Footprint (gha/capita) 2.20 1.10 0.80Biocapacity (gha/capita) 1.80 1.30 0.50

    7DEOH *HQGHU 5HODWHG 'HYHORSPHQW

    7DEOH 3XEOLF +HDOWK

    9.1 Human Development Benchmarks

    )LJXUH +XPDQ 'HYHORSPHQW DQG (FRORJLFDO )RRWSULQW RI 1DWLRQ

    7LPH 7UHQG /LQH IURP +', GDWD XQDYDLODEOH SULRU WR

    6RXUFH 81'3 +XPDQ 'HYHORSPHQW 5HSRUW GDWD

  • 7/29/2019 Africa Factbook

    39/87

    )LJXUH (FRORJLFDO )RRWSULQW E\ &RPSRQHQW

    )LJXUH %LRFDSDFLW\ E\ &RPSRQHQW

    )LJXUH 3RSXODWLRQ 7UHQG

    )LJXUH )RRWSULQW DQG %LRFDSDFLW\ 7UHQG

    9.3 Ecological Time Trends

    Global Footprint Network: Africas Ecological Footprint - 2006 Factbook 37

    0.0

    0.5

    1.0

    1.5

    2.0

    2.5

    3.0

    3.5

    4.0

    1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

    F o o

    t p r i n

    t a n

    d B i o c a p a c i

    t y ( g h a

    / c a p

    i t a

    )

    FootprintNational BiocapacityWorld Biocapacity

    0

    10

    20

    30

    40

    50

    6070

    80

    1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

    M i l l i o n

    P e o p

    l

    0.0

    0.5

    1.0

    1.5

    1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001

    F o o

    t p r i n

    t ( g h a

    / c a p

    i t a

    )

    Nuclear FootprintCarbon FootprintBuilt-up Land FootprintFishing GroundGrazing FootprintForest FootprintCropland Footprint

    0.0

    0.5

    1.0

    1.5

    2.0

    1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001

    B i o c a p a c i

    t y ( g h a

    / c a p

    i t a

    )

    Built-up Land BiocapacityFishing GroundGrazing BiocapacityForest BiocapacityCropland Biocapacity

    Ethiopia

  • 7/29/2019 Africa Factbook

    40/87

    )LJXUH +', &RPSRQHQWV ,QGH[HG )LJXUH ,QFRPH 'LVWULEXWLRQ

    7DEOH +', &RPSRQHQWV $EVROXWHV

    7DEOH *HQGHU 5HODWHG 'HYHORSPHQW

    7DEOH 7UDGH DQG 'HEW

    7DEOH 3RSXODWLRQ *'3 DQG (FRORJLFDO )RRWSULQW

    9.2 Human Development and Environmental Performance

    38 Global Footprint Network: Africas Ecological Footprint - 2006 Factbook

    France

    0.910.97 0.94

    0.750.77

    0.70

    0

    0.1

    0.2

    0.3

    0.4

    0.50.6

    0.7

    0.8

    0.9

    1

    Lif e Ex pec tanc y Educ ation Index GDP Index

    France

    World Average

    40%

    7%

    53%

    Top 20%

    Bottom 20%

    Middle 60%

    Life Expectancy (years) 80Gross Enrollment (%) 92% Adult Literacy Rate (%) NAGDP per capita (PPP US$) $27,677

    Female adult literacy rate (%) NAMale adult literacy rate (%) NA

    Female combined gross enrollment ratio (%) 94%Male combined gross enrollment ratio (%) 90%Female estimated earned income (PPP US$) $20,642Male estimated earned income (PPP US$) $35,123

    Urban population with access to improved sanitation facilities (%) NAUrban population with access to improved water source (%) NAPercentage of population undernourished (%) NA

    0

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

    Human Development Index

    F o o

    t p r i n

    t ( g h a

    / c a p

    i t a

    )

    France

    World Biocapacity 2002: 1.8 gha per capita

    Billion US$ Million gha $/ghaImports $439.4 169.1 2,598Exports $457.0 169.0 2,704Net (Exports - Imports) $17.6 -0.1ODA (% of GDP) 0.0%Debt Service (% of GDP) 0.0%

    World Africa FrancePopulation (Millions) 6225 824 60GDP per capita (US$) $5,801 $794 $29,410Footprint (gha/capita) 2.20 1.10 5.60Biocapacity (gha/capita) 1.80 1.30 3.20

    9.1 Human Development Benchmarks

    7DEOH 3XEOLF +HDOWK

    )LJXUH +XPDQ 'HYHORSPHQW DQG (FRORJLFDO )RRWSULQW RI 1DWLRQ

    7LPH 7UHQG /LQH IURP

    6RXUFH 81'3 +XPDQ 'HYHORSPHQW 5HSRUW GDWD

  • 7/29/2019 Africa Factbook

    41/87

    )LJXUH (FRORJLFDO )RRWSULQW E\ &RPSRQHQW

    )LJXUH %LRFDSDFLW\ E\ &RPSRQHQW

    )LJXUH 3RSXODWLRQ 7UHQG

    )LJXUH )RRWSULQW DQG %LRFDSDFLW\ 7UHQG

    9.3 Ecological Time Trends

    Global Footprint Network: Africas Ecological Footprint - 2006 Factbook 39

    0.0

    1.0

    2.0

    3.0

    4.0

    5.0

    6.0

    1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

    F o o

    t p r i n

    t a n

    d B i o c a p a c i

    t y ( g h a

    / c a p

    i t a

    )FootprintNational BiocapacityWorld Biocapacity

    0

    10

    20

    30

    40

    50

    60

    70

    1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

    M i l l i o n

    P e o p

    l

    0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.05.56.0

    1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001

    F o o

    t p r i n

    t ( g h a

    / c a p

    i t a )

    Nuclear FootprintCarbon FootprintBuilt-up Land FootprintFishing GroundGrazing FootprintForest Footprint

    Cropland Footprint

    0.0

    0.5

    1.0

    1.5

    2.0

    2.5

    3.0

    3.5

    4.0

    4.5

    1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001

    B i o c a p a c i

    t y ( g h a / c a p

    i t a

    )

    Built-up Land BiocapacityFishing GroundGrazing BiocapacityForest BiocapacityCropland Biocapacity

    France

  • 7/29/2019 Africa Factbook

    42/87

    )LJXUH +', &RPSRQHQWV ,QGH[HG )LJXUH ,QFRPH 'LVWULEXWLRQ

    7DEOH +', &RPSRQHQWV $EVROXWHV

    7DEOH 7UDGH DQG 'HEW

    9.2 Human Development and Environmental Performance

    40 Global Footprint Network: Africas Ecological Footprint - 2006 Factbook

    Ghana

    0.53 0.51 0.52

    0.750.77

    0.70

    0

    0.1

    0.2

    0.3

    0.4

    0.50.6

    0.7

    0.8

    0.9

    1

    Lif e Ex pec tanc y Educ ation Index GDP Index

    Ghana

    World Average

    47%

    6%

    48%

    Top 20%

    Bottom 20%

    Middle 60%

    Life Expectancy (years) 57Gross Enrollment (%) 46%

    Adult Literacy Rate (%) 54%GDP per capita (PPP US$) $2,238

    Female adult literacy rate (%) 46%Male adult literacy rate (%) 63%

    Female combined gross enrollment ratio (%) 43%Male combined g


Recommended