Defying the Footprint Oracle: Implications of Country Resource Trends

Mathis Wackernagel,David Lin,Mikel Evans,Laurel Hanscom,Peter Raven

doi:10.3390/su11072164

Abstract

Mainstream competitiveness and international development analyses pay little attention to the significance of a country’s resource security for its economic performance. This paper challenges this neglect, examining the economic implications of countries resource dynamics, particularly for low-income countries. It explores typologies of resource patterns in the context of those countries’ economic prospects. To begin, the paper explains why it uses Ecological Footprint and biocapacity accounting for its analysis. Data used for the analysis stem from Global Footprint Network’s 2018 edition of its National Footprint and Biocapacity Accounts. Ranging from 1961 to 2014, these accounts are computed from UN data sets. The accounts track, year by year, how much biologically productive space is occupied by people’s consumption and compare this with how much productive space is available. Both demand and availability are expressed in productivity-adjusted hectares, called global hectares. Using this biophysical accounting perspective, the paper predicts countries’ future socio-economic performance. This analysis is then contrasted with a financial assessment of those countries. The juxtaposition reveals a paradox: Financial assessments seem to contradict assessments based on biophysical trends. The paper offers a way to reconcile this paradox, which also elevates the significance of biophysical country assessments for shaping successful economic policies.

Highlights

Identifying a Gap in Current National MetricsGiven the strong international consensus on the climate challenge, as expressed in the Paris Agreement, or on the need for sustainable development, as laid out in the UN Sustainable Development Goals, there is a surprising lack of comprehensive national metrics that evaluate a country’s economic performance from an environmental perspective
A prominent example is the economic expansion punctuated by a contraction of mostly Southern European countries as they were affected by the 2008 Euro crisis
The better alternative is to reduce Ecological Footprint by design, in ways that enhance human well-being, to avoid exactly these kinds of forced reductions that lead to significant human suffering

Summary

Introduction

Given the strong international consensus on the climate challenge, as expressed in the Paris Agreement, or on the need for sustainable development, as laid out in the UN Sustainable Development Goals, there is a surprising lack of comprehensive national metrics that evaluate a country’s economic performance from an environmental perspective. The results section shows how these accounts distinguish resource risk-induced development patterns among low-income countries, identifying eight countries that have entered an “ecological poverty trap” and 23 more that are approaching this state. The discussion contrasts these biophysical findings with the financial performance of countries, pointing to a fundamental paradox as these two views on countries come to seemingly fundamentally opposing conclusions. The conclusion identifies how the resource risks can be addressed, should they be accepted as primary drivers of lasting development success

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion