CANADIAN LIVING PLANET REPORT 2007assets.wwf.ca/downloads/canadianlivingplanetreport2007.pdf · CANADIAN LIVING PLANET REPORT 2007 3 Achieving sustainability means using resources

C A N A D I A N L I V I N G P L A N E T R E P O R T 2 0 0 7

312 Clay StreetSuite 300Oakland, CA 94607, USAwww.footprintnetwork.org

relleP yerduA 3

Sandra Tranquilli

Audrey Peller

Shawn MitchellFWW

efildliW dlroW sa nwonk osla(si )adanaC dna ASU eht ni dnuF

dna tsegral s’dlrow eht fo enotnednepedni decneirepxe tsomhtiw ,snoitazinagro noitavresnoc dna sretroppus noillim 5 tsomla

revo ni evitca krowten labolg asi noissim s’FWW .seirtnuoc 001

eht fo noitadarged eht pots otdna tnemnorivne larutan s’tenalpsnamuh hcihw ni erutuf a dliub ot

erutan htiw ynomrah ni evil .

YTEICOS LACIGOLOOZNODNOL FO

lacigolooZ eht ,6281 ni dednuoF si )LSZ( nodnoL fo yteicoS

,cifitneics lanoitanretni nalanoitacude dna ,noitavresnoc

ot si noissim stI .noitazinagroeht etomorp dna eveihca

fo noitavresnoc ediwdlrow .statibah rieht dna slamina

dna ooZ nodnoL snur LSZ,kraP laminA dliW edanspihW hcraeser cifitneics tuo seirrac dna ,ygolooZ fo etutitsnI eht ni

dleif ni devlovni ylevitca si.ediwdlrow noitavresnoc

TNIRPTOOF LABOLGKROWTEN

ymonoce elbaniatsus a setomorplacigolocE eht gnicnavda yb

sekam taht loot a ,tnirptooF.elbarusaem ytilibaniatsus

eht ,srentrap sti htiw rehtegoT,hcraeser setanidrooc krowteN

lacigolodohtem spolevednoisiced sedivorp dna ,sdradnats

ecruoser tsubor htiw srekamnamuh eht pleh ot stnuoccaeht nihtiw etarepo ymonoce

.stimil lacigoloce s’htraE

YGnodn

1. WWF-Canada245 Eglinton Avenue EastSuite 410Toronto, ON M4P 3J1, Canadawww.wwf.ca

OLOOZ FO ETUTITSNI .2oL fo yteicoS lacigolooZ

kraP s’tnegeRKU ,YR4 1WN nodnoL

zoi/ku.ca.mac.ooz.www

TNIRPTOOF LABOLG .3KROWTEN

FEIHC NI ROTIDE 1

SROTIDE 3

L GNIVI P TENAL I XEDN

hoL nahtanoJ 2

nelloC neB 2

eaRcM esiuoL 2

koorbloH haraS 2

Julia Latham3

3

eilliaB .M.E nahtanoJ 2

E LACIGOLOC F TNIRPTOO

leganrekcaW sihtaM 3

regnifdloG nevetS 3

seztiK nitsuJ 3

hoL nahtanoJ 2

remreW luaP 3

smailliW treboR 3

S SOIRANEC

leganrekcaW sihtaM 3

seztiK nitsuJ 3

regnifdloG nevetS 3

relleP yerduA 3

hoL nahtanoJ 2

STNETNOC

Introduction

Canada’s Living Planet Index

Canada’s Ecological Footprint

Overshoot

Achieving Sustainability

What Canada Can Do

Technical Notes

Acknowledgements

2

5

8

12

14

15

17

21

I N T R O D U C T I O N

ECOLOGICALLY, WE’RE IN THE RED

At some point in our lives, we all learnhow to manage our bank balance. Weknow that the total value of the chequeswe write shouldn’t add up to more thanthe balance in our account – becausegoing into the red has some nasty consequences.

This Living Planet Report is built on a lotof hard scientific data. But at the end ofthe day, it’s basically telling us that ourplanetary account is overdrawn.

Think of the planet and all the naturalresources it contains as a chequingaccount (a joint account shared by severalbillion people). Every day we writecheques against the balance of our naturalresources by doing things like turning on the air conditioner, driving a car, orbuilding a house. This report crunches the numbers and shows that, givenEarth’s balance, we’re writing way toomany cheques.

The good news is that we have time andopportunity on our side. We can curb ourecologically irresponsible spending habitsand give the planet the time it needs torejuvenate. And given half a chance, the

planet will replenish most of theresources we’ve used up – which is amuch better deal than we’ll ever get froma traditional bank.

IT’S SIMPLE ACCOUNTING

This Living Planet Report is built aroundtwo measures. The Living Planet Index(Figure 1) measures the health of theplanet’s ecosystems. The EcologicalFootprint (Figure 2) calculates how muchof those ecosystems are needed to produce the resources we use and toabsorb the waste we generate.

The bottom line is that, unless somethingchanges, our average global EcologicalFootprint will use up the resources of twowhole Earths by 2050. And if everyoneon the planet consumed resources theway Canadians do, we would need 4.3 Earths just to keep up (Figure 3).

Since we have only one Earth, it’s clearthat something has to give. This isn’trocket science; it’s simple accounting.

Fig. 1: GLOBAL LIVING PLANET INDEX, 1970–2003

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Living Planet Index

03

0.8

0.6

1.4

1.6

0

0.2

0.4

1.2

1.8

1.0In

dex

(197

0=1.

0)

CANADIAN LIVING PLANET REPORT 2007 2

LIVIN

G P

LAN

ET

EC

OLO

GIC

AL FO

OT

PR

INT

SU

STA

INA

BILIT

YT

EC

HN

ICA

L NO

TE

S

THE LIVING PLANET INDEX represents

the balance in our planetary bank

account. Our ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT

represents the value of the

cheques we are writing – how

much of those resources are used

in our daily activities.

Everyday activities that depend on the Earth’sresources are like cheques written against theplanet’s ecological bank account.

©G

etty

Imag

es

LIVING WITHIN OUR PLANETARY MEANS

We are writing cheques our planet can’tcash. On a global scale we’re already seeing the consequences: climate changeand extreme weather, the collapse of fish-eries around the world, shrinking suppliesof clean water, and the destruction of natural habitats.

To turn around these negative trends, weneed to take stock. Where we are today? Where we are heading? What can we doto make sure that the natural resources weneed will be there for us in the future?

After all, our quality of life – and our survival as a species – ultimately dependson living within our ecological means.

CANADA CAN LEAD THE WAY FORWARD

Canada can help lead the world towardmore sustainable lifestyles andeconomies. But we have a ways to go.Currently, Canada enjoys an incrediblewealth of ecological and naturalresources, yet we also have one of thehighest levels of resource consumptionper capita of any nation in the world.

If our country is going to become anenvironmental and economic leader, weneed accurate information about the state of our environment and the demands

we’re putting on it. We also need tounderstand how this information relatesto the health of the planet as a whole.This is exactly the kind of informationthat this Living Planet Report provides.

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

1961

1963

1965

1967

1969

1971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

Num

ber

of E

arth

s

Fig. 3: NUMBER OF EARTHS IF THE WORLD CONSUMED AT CANADIAN LEVEL, 1961–2003

4.0

Food, fibre, timber, built-up land, and nuclear Footprint portion of Ecological Footprint

CO2 portion of Ecological Footprint

5.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

1961

1963

1965

1967

1969

1971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

Num

ber

of E

arth

s

Fig. 2: HUMANITY’S ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT, 1961–2003

Food, fibre, timber, built-up land, and nuclear Footprint portion of Ecological Footprint

CO2 portion of Ecological Footprint



Achieving sustainability means

using resources at a rate that can

be maintained over the long term,

rather than using them up. Think

of it as living off the interest on

our global bank account instead

of spending the principal.

LIVIN

G P

LAN

ET

EC

OLO

GIC

AL FO

OT

PR

INT

SU

STA

INA

BILIT

YT

EC

HN

ICA

L NO

TE

S

More extreme weather is just one of the conse-quences of living beyond our ecological means.

©G

etty

Imag

es

MEASURING THE HEALTH OF OUR PLANET

Biodiversity is the sum of life on thisplanet – all the species and all the differ-ent habitats they depend on.

The Living Planet Index (LPI) measurestrends in the Earth’s biodiversity. It trackspopulation trends for more than 1,300vertebrate species – fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals – around theworld. Healthy populations reflect healthy

ecosystems, which in turn reflect ahealthy balance between nature andhuman consumption.

A STAGGERING DECLINE

Between 1970 and 2003, the global LPIfell by about 30 percent (Figure 1). This staggering decline suggests that the balance between nature and human consumption is dangerously unstable.

The picture in Canada is not much rosier.To create the Canadian LPI, we looked at 1,057 population trends from 393 vertebrate species that live here (Figure 4). Between 1970 and 1989, these populations increased slowly,thanks in part to effective conservation,and then held relatively steady until 1994.

But between 1995 and 2003 theydecreased sharply – by almost 25 percent.This is a sign that threats like habitat lossand invasive species are stopping somespecies from recovering and causing others to decline.

The pages that follow provide a closer look at Canada’s biodiversity and some of the key trends that emerge from theCanadian LPI.

Fig. 4: CANADA’S LIVING PLANET INDEX, 1970–2003

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 03

0.8

0.6

1.4

1.6

0

0.2

0.4

1.2

1.8

1.0

Ind

ex (1

970=

1.0)

2.0 Canada’s LPIBirdsMammalsFish

Because collecting and analyzing

data can take several years, the

most recent ecological statistics

available are from 2003. This is

similar to Statistics Canada

reports, which are based on the

most recent census data, collected

every five years.

LIVIN

G P

LAN

ET

EC

OLO

GIC

AL FO

OT

PR

INT

SU

STA

INA

BILIT

YT

EC

HN

ICA

L NO

TE

S

Healthy ecosystems can support lots of life.



©G

etty

Imag

es

EVALUATING THE STATE OF CANADA’S NATURE

Evaluating the state of nature in Canadais complicated because we’re a big coun-try with a lot of biodiversity. The goodnews is that we’ve made significant con-servation gains over the past thirty years.However, as we move forward, the needfor conservation has never been greater.

ON LAND: MAMMALS IN TROUBLE

Overall, the trends for terrestrial specieshave stayed fairly steady between 1970and 2003 (Figure 5). However, Figure 5also shows that mammal populationsdropped by 40 percent during this period.

That’s worrying, especially because athird of terrestrial mammal species in Canada were already in decline before 1970.

On the other hand, bird populations as a whole have not fared quite so badly.This indicates that they’re generally cop-ing well and have benefited from conser-vation efforts. But while the general trend is better than the trend for mammals, cer-tain species such as grassland birds havedeclined (Figure 6).

One of the main problems facing terres-trial species is the loss of habitat. Forexample, most large mammals such aslynx don’t have the big protected areasthey need to survive.i Meanwhile, grassland birds are suffering as theprairies they depend on disappear.

Fig. 6: LPI OF CANADA’S GRASSLAND NESTING BIRDS, 1970–2003

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 03

1.0

0.8

1.6

1.8

0

0.2

0.4

1.4

2.0

1.2

Ind

ex (1

970=

1.0)

0.6

Grassland nesting birds

Fig. 7: CANADA’S FRESHWATER LIVING PLANET INDEX, 1970–2003

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 03

Ind

ex (1

970=

1.0)

Canada’s freshwater LPIFreshwater birds

1.0

0.8

1.6

1.8

0

0.2

0.4

1.4

2.0

1.2

0.6

C A N A D A ’ S L I V I N G P L A N E T I N D E X


Fig. 5: CANADA’S TERRESTRIAL LIVING PLANET INDEX, 1970–2003

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 030

Ind

ex (1

970=

1.0)

Canada’s terrestrial LPITerrestrial birdsTerrestrial mammals

1.0

0.8

1.6

1.8

0

0.2

0.4

1.4

2.0

1.2

Ind

ex (1

970=

1.0)

0.6

LIVIN

G P

LAN

ET

EC

OLO

GIC

AL FO

OT

PR

INT

SC

EN

AR

IOS

TE

CH

NIC

AL N

OT

ES

LAKES AND RIVERS: SPECIES IN DECLINE

Canada has about 20 percent of theworld’s freshwater supply, so protectingour lakes, rivers, and wetlands is important both nationally and globally.This index shows that while populationnumbers for freshwater species generally increased until 1995, they droppedbetween 1996 and 2003 (Figure 7).

This recent trend reflects declines in fish,reptiles, amphibians, and some birds(Figure 8) – again, mainly due to a loss of habitat.

OCEANS: OVER-FISHING

The marine story is similar. Ocean popu-lations generally increased from 1970 to1988, thanks to the recoveries of certainmarine mammals and birds. But between1988 and 1998, over-fishing contributedto a significant decline in marine popula-tions and a catastrophic 40 percent dropin fish stocks (Figure 9). Clearly ouroceans deserve better.

Fig. 8: LPI OF DECLINING FRESHWATER BIRD SPECIES IN CANADA, 1970–2003

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 03

1.0

0.8

1.6

1.8

0

0.2

0.4

1.4

2.0

1.2

Ind

ex (1

970=

1.0)

0.6

American cootMarbled godwitPied-billed grebeSora

Fig. 10: LPI OF CANADA’S FOREST AND GRASSLANDS SPECIES, 1970–2003

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 03

1.0

0.8

1.6

1.8

0

0.2

0.4

1.4

2.0

1.2

Ind

ex (1

970=

1.0)

0.6

Forest speciesGrassland species

Fig. 9: CANADA’S MARINE LIVING PLANET INDEX, 1970–2003

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 03

1.0

0.8

1.6

1.8

0

0.2

0.4

1.4

2.0

1.2

Ind

ex (1

970=

1.0)

0.6

Canada’s marine LPIMarine fish


Without the big areas of wilderness they need to survive, most large mammals are in decline.


LIVIN

G P

LAN

ET

EC

OLO

GIC

AL FO

OT

PR

INT

SC

EN

AR

IOS

TE

CH

NIC

AL N

OT

ES

©G

etty

Imag

es



MIXED EFFORTS, MIXED RESULTS

The mix of positive and negative trendsrevealed by Canada’s Living Planet Indexbetween 1970 and 2003 may reflect ourinconsistent approach to conservation.For instance, the number of hectares of protected areas in Canada (mostly in the form of parks) nearly doubledbetween 1980 and 2000, adding up to just over eight per cent of the total area of the country.

That’s certainly impressive. But at thesame time, Canada’s protection of fresh-water and marine habitat was less thanone per cent of the total area of the coun-try. This helps to explain why the state ofbiodiversity in Canada is neither all good,nor all bad.

PRAIRIES AND FRESHWATERUNDER PRESSURE

Figure 10 is a good example. While forest-dwelling species have held fairlysteady, grassland species decreased. It’s no coincidence that Canada’s borealand taiga forests remain relatively intactdue to their remoteness, helping to sustain

forest species. Meanwhile, there has beenmore and more urban development andagricultural activity on the prairies, contributing to a 43% decline in grass-land species.

Healthy freshwater ecosystems are alsocrucial for the survival of resident andmigrant birds (as well as many otherspecies, including humans). If these birdsare in trouble, it’s usually a sign thatwe’re in trouble too. And between 1970and 2003, four of these species declinedby 30 to 65 percent – probably a result of degraded natural habitat (Figure 8).

OCEANS HIT THE WORST

But it is our oceans that have suffered theworst of all. Figure 11 shows the persist-ent decline in Canada’s Atlantic codstocks, which began in 1970 and gotworse throughout the 1980s. Despite thefact that most cod fishing was banned in1992, this species has not yet recovered.

Other species of groundfish are alsoshowing signs that all is not well in ouroceans. For example, pollock andAmerican plaice have declined more than50 percent since 1970. If we don’t takedrastic measures to reverse this trend,

they are in real danger of meeting thesame fate as the cod – or worse.

THE BOTTOM LINE

Many countries in Europe would love to be in Canada’s position – to still have a chance to protect, manage and restoretheir rich natural heritage. But thesenations lost their ability to save threat-ened species and habitats decades ago.

The same could happen to us. If we aren’t careful, uncontrolled economicgrowth will jeopardize the conservationgains we’ve made and could stymie otheropportunities to protect and restore ourvital ecological resources.

Fig. 11: THREE LPIs FOR GROUNDFISH IN CANADA’S ATLANTIC WATERS, 1970–2003

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 03

1.0

0.8

1.6

1.8

0

0.2

0.4

1.4

2.0

1.2

Ind

ex (1

970=

1.0)

0.6

Atlantic codHakeAmerican plaice

LIVIN

G P

LAN

ET

EC

OLO

GIC

AL FO

OT

PR

INT

SC

EN

AR

IOS

DATA

AN

D TA

BLE

S

While Canada has created many protected areason land, we have a poor track record of protecting our lakes, rivers, and oceans.

©G

etty

Imag

es

2003

Glo

bal H

ecta

res

per

Per

son

UN

ITE

D A

RA

B E

MIR

AT

ES

UN

ITE

D S

TAT

ES

OF

AM

ER

ICA

FIN

LAN

D

CA

NA

DA

KU

WA

IT

AU

ST

RA

LIA

ES

TO

NIA

SW

ED

EN

NE

W Z

EA

LAN

D

NO

RW

AY

DE

NM

AR

K

FR

AN

CE

BE

LGIU

M/L

UX

EM

BO

UR

G

UN

ITE

D K

ING

DO

M

SP

AIN

SW

ITZ

ER

LAN

D

GR

EE

CE

IRE

LAN

D

AU

ST

RIA

CZ

EC

H R

EP.

SA

UD

I AR

AB

IA

ISR

AE

L

GE

RM

AN

Y

LIT

HU

AN

IA

RU

SS

IA

NE

TH

ER

LAN

DS

JAP

AN

PO

RT

UG

AL

ITA

LY

KO

RE

A R

EP

UB

LIC

KA

ZA

KH

STA

N

HU

NG

AR

Y

TU

RK

ME

NIS

TAN

LIB

YA

SLO

VE

NIA

BE

LAR

US

PO

LAN

D

SLO

VA

KIA

UK

RA

INE

TR

INID

AD

AN

D T

OB

AG

O

BU

LGA

RIA

MO

NG

OLI

A

CR

OA

TIA

LEB

AN

ON

LAT

VIA

ME

XIC

O

IRA

N

PA

PU

A N

EW

GU

INE

A

RO

MA

NIA

CH

ILE

BO

SN

IA A

ND

HE

RZ

EG

OV

INA

MA

CE

DO

NIA

SO

UT

H A

FR

ICA

SE

RB

IA A

ND

MO

NT

EN

EG

RO

AR

GE

NT

INA

MA

LAY

SIA

VE

NE

ZU

ELA

BR

AZ

IL

TU

RK

EY

CO

STA

RIC

A

UR

UG

UA

Y

PA

NA

MA

MA

UR

ITIU

S

UZ

BE

KIS

TAN

JOR

DA

N

AZ

ER

BA

IJA

N

JAM

AIC

A

SY

RIA

CH

INA

PA

RA

GU

AY

DO

MIN

ICA

N R

EP

UB

LIC

ALG

ER

IA

BO

TS

WA

NA

CU

BA

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Built-up land

Food, fibre, and timber

Energy

Fig. 12: ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT PER PERSON, BY COUNTRY, 2003

11

12

C A N A D A ’ S E C O L O G I C A L F O O T P R I N T


MEASURING OUR IMPACT

The Ecological Footprint measures thetotal area of biologically productive landand water we use to sustain us and supportour activities – industrial, agricultural,recreational, etc. It accounts for all the ecological goods and services we consume,including food, fibre, timber, absorption of carbon dioxide, and land for building.

An Ecological Footprint is measured inglobal hectares (gha) per person. So if your Ecological Footprint is 10 gha, for

example, it takes ten global hectares (100 square kilometres) of biologicallyproductive land and water to support youand your daily activities.

THE EARTH CAN’T KEEP UP

Since the late 1980s, humanity’sEcological Footprint has exceeded the Earth’s biocapacity. This means that the Earth is no longer keeping up with ourdemand – we are consuming resources andturning them into waste faster than naturecan turn waste back into resources.

2003 world average biocapacity per person: 1.8 global hectares, ignoring the needs of wild species

TU

NIS

IA

EC

UA

DO

R

KO

RE

A D

PR

P

ALB

AN

IA

GA

BO

N

TH

AIL

AN

D

GA

MB

IA

EL

SA

LVA

DO

R

EG

YP

T

BO

LIV

IA

GU

AT

EM

ALA

CO

LOM

BIA

MO

LDO

VA

RE

PU

BLI

C

HO

ND

UR

AS

MA

UR

ITA

NIA

KY

RG

YZ

STA

N

NIC

AR

AG

UA

NIG

ER

IA

SE

NE

GA

L

SW

AZ

ILA

ND

NA

MIB

IA

NIG

ER

AR

ME

NIA

UG

AN

DA

IND

ON

ES

IA

PH

ILIP

PIN

ES

CH

AD

AN

GO

LA

SU

DA

N

SR

I LA

NK

A

BU

RK

INA

FA

SO

GH

AN

A

GU

INE

A

MY

AN

MA

R

LAO

PD

R

MO

RO

CC

O

VIE

T N

AM

CE

NT

RA

L A

FR

ICA

N R

EP

UB

LIC

PE

RU

TO

GO

IRA

Q

ZIM

BA

BW

E

YE

ME

N

MA

LI

CA

ME

RO

ON

ET

HIO

PIA

BE

NIN

KE

NY

A

LES

OT

HO

GE

OR

GIA

IND

IA

CÔ

TE

D'IV

OIR

E

SIE

RR

A L

EO

NE

ER

ITR

EA

CA

MB

OD

IA

MA

DA

GA

SC

AR

TAN

ZA

NIA

UN

ITE

D R

EP

U.

NE

PA

L

BU

RU

ND

I

LIB

ER

IA

GU

INE

A-B

ISS

AU

RW

AN

DA

TAJI

KIS

TAN

MO

ZA

MB

IQU

E

ZA

MB

IA

CO

NG

O

PA

KIS

TAN

CO

NG

O D

EM

. RE

P.

HA

ITI

MA

LAW

I

BA

NG

LAD

ES

H

SO

MA

LIA

AF

GH

AN

ISTA

N

In 2003, our demand for ecologicalresources was 25 percent higher than theEarth’s ability to generate them (Figure 2).

If we continue to write ecological chequeswe can’t cash, our ecosystems will becomeweaker and many plants and animals willdisappear. Ultimately, we risk losing thevery biological productivity that we depend on as a species.

AN ECOLOGICALLY EXPENSIVE LIFESTYLE

As Canadians, we have the fourth highestEcological Footprint per person in the world(Figure 12) – more than ten times higherthan that of low-income countries likeBangladesh (Figure 13). This means we have some work to do if we want to reversethese negative trends in Canada and becomea world leader in balancing our ecologicalchequing account. Think of it as fiscal con-servatism for the environment.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1961

1963

1965

1967

1969

1971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

Eco

logi

cal F

ootp

rint

(glo

bal

hec

tare

s p

er c

apita

)

Canada

High income nations

Middle income nations

Low income nations

Fig. 13: ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT OF CANADA AND HIGH, MIDDLE, AND LOW INCOME NATIONS


LIVIN

G P

LAN

ET

EC

OLO

GIC

AL FO

OT

PR

INT

SC

EN

AR

IOS

DATA

AN

D TA

BLE

S

All species, including humans, use

the biologically productive areas

of the planet for the goods and

services they provide – things

like food and waste absorption.

BIOCAPACITY is the ability of eco-

systems to provide these goods

and services. Like Ecological

Footprints, it is measured in global

hectares (gha). In total, Earth has

11.2 billion gha of biocapacity.

CANADA’S FOOTPRINT: 3.5 TIMES THE GLOBAL AVERAGE

From 1961 to 2003, the average Canadian’sFootprint grew from 4.6 to 7.6 globalhectares per person (Figure 14). That’sapproximately 3.5 times greater than the2003 global average (2.2 gha). Even moreimportantly, it’s 4.3 times greater than theamount of biocapacity that the Earth canprovide for each person (1.8 gha).

ENERGY CONSUMPTION IS A KEY DRIVER

So what makes Canada’s Footprint so big?Mainly our insatiable appetite for oil andgas. Figure 14 shows Canada’s per capitaFootprint broken down by components –and the largest contributor is energy consumption. Currently, we have the fourth highest per capita carbon Footprintof any country, thanks to our fossil fuel consumption.

Indeed, the carbon component of ourFootprint grew from about 17 percent in1961 to more than 50 percent in 2003. This reflects carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels we burn for transportation,electricity, household heat and hot water,and industrial activities serving Canadianconsumers.


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Glo

bal

Hec

tare

s p

er C

apita

Fishing ground biocapacityBuilt-up land biocapacityForest biocapacityGrazing land biocapacityCropland biocapacity

1961

1963

1965

1967

1969

1971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

Fig. 15: CANADA’S BIOCAPACITY BY COMPONENT, 1961–2003


LIVIN

G P

LAN

ET

E

CO

LOG

ICA

L FOO

TP

RIN

T S

CE

NA

RIO

S D

ATA A

ND

TAB

LES

FOSSIL FUEL AND CARBON FOOTPRINTS

Burning fossil fuels like oil and

natural gas releases carbon

dioxide, one of the planet-warming

gases that are causing climate

change. A carbon Footprint

measures the biocapacity required

to absorb the carbon dioxide that

is released by burning fossil fuels.

Nuclear footprint

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 Carbon footprintBuilt-up land footprintFishing ground footprintGrazing land footprintForest footprintCropland footprint

1961

1963

1965

1967

1969

1971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

Glo

bal

Hec

tare

s P

er C

apita

Fig. 14: CANADA’S ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT BY COMPONENT, 1961–2003


A GROWING POPULATION

For the time being, Canada’s biocapacityremains larger than our oversized Footprint,mostly due to our vast forest area (Figure15). However, this does not mean that our natural environment can support moreconsumption. As Canada’s populationincreases, our biocapacity will have to beshared among more people – which meansour per capita biocapacity is shrinking(Figure 16).

It’s also important to recognize thatCanada’s biocapacity isn’t just being usedup here at home. Because we export thingslike food and natural resources around theworld, Canada’s biocapacity is also affectedby external factors.

TIME TO GET A GRIP

Unless something changes, our Footprintwill continue to grow and we’ll becomemore and more dependent on fewer andfewer ecological resources.

The bottom line is that we don’t need toconsume as much as we do to maintain ourexcellent standard of living. We just need to get a grip on the situation.

LIVIN

G P

LAN

ET

E

CO

LOG

ICA

L FOO

TP

RIN

T S

CE

NA

RIO

S D

ATA A

ND

TAB

LES


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Canada’s Ecological Footprint

Canada’s Biocapacity

Global Biocapacity

1961

1963

1965

1967

1969

1971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

Eco

logi

cal F

ootp

rint

and

Bio

cap

acity

(glo

bal

hec

tare

s p

er c

apita

)

Fig. 16: ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT AND BIOCAPACITY TRENDS

As Canada’s population grows, we’ll have to shareour ecological wealth among more people.

©G

etty

Imag

es

O V E R S H O O T

ENDING OVERSHOOT

In 2003, the average biocapacity availableper person on Earth was 1.8 gha. However,the average Ecological Footprint per person was 2.2 global hectares. That means humans used 25 percent more biocapacity than the Earth could sustain.Biologists call this overshoot (Figure 17).

Unfortunately, the overshoot is going to get worse. If we remain on our currentcourse, by 2050 humanity will be usingecological resources at twice the rate thatEarth can generate them (Figure 18).ii

The planet simply won’t be able to handlethis kind of overshoot.

THE TIME TO ACT

We don’t have to go down this path. We don’t have to stand by while ecosys-tems buckle under the weight of over-consumption. And we don’t have to sufferthe dramatic decline in quality of life thatinevitably comes with ecological collapse.It’s in our power to eliminate overshoot.

To do this, we need to close the gap between humanity’s Ecological Footprintand the planet’s biocapacity. There arebasically two ways to tackle this problem.We can increase the Earth’s biocapacity, or we can reduce the average EcologicalFootprint.


LIVIN

G P

LAN

ET

EC

OLO

GIC

AL FO

OT

PR

INT

SC

EN

AR

IOS

DATA

AN

D TA

BLE

S

Fig. 17: FOOTPRINT AND BIOCAPICITY FACTORS THAT DETERMINE OVERSHOOT

Gapbetween

supply anddemand =Overshoot

Area Biocapacity(SUPPLY)

Population EcologicalFootprint

(DEMAND)

Consumptionper person

Footprintintensity

Bioproductivityx

x =

=

x

Fig. 18: BIOCAPACITY AND ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT SCENARIOS, 1961–2100

1961-2003

–––––– Ecological Footprint

–––––– Biocapacity

Potential end of overshoot

Slow shift

Rapid reduction

2000-2100

EcologicalFootprint Biocapacity

Business as usualSlow shift

Rapid reduction

–––––– –––––– ––––––

––– ––– –––––– ––––––

1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100

12

8

20

0

4

16

24

2003

Glo

bal

Hec

tare

s


Increasing biocapacity means squeezingmore productivity out of the Earth. Thatonly makes sense if we can do it withoutinvesting more ecological resources thanwe actually get in return – a difficult task.Traditionally, boosting productivity hasbeen ecologically expensive. We’ve usedfossil fuels to create fertilizers and runfarm machinery, or we’ve planted vastfields of a single crop, hurting biodiversity.

While boosting our biocapacity would be nice, shrinking humanity’s globalEcological Footprint is a must. To do that, we need to reduce at least one of three key factors:

1) Population size

2) The amount of resources each person consumes

3) The average resource intensity of goods and services consumed

SETTING A NEW COURSE

Figure 18 shows two alternatives to busi-ness-as-usual for the planet. One pathshows a slow shift from our current course.In this case, overshoot is eliminated towardthe end of the century, at which point we begin reserving a modest amount ofbiocapacity for the use of wild species.

The other path takes us more quickly tosustainability, eliminating overshoot bymid-century and leaving even more biocapacity to support wild species.

In both scenarios, we keep adding to ourecological debt as we run smaller andsmaller ecological deficits until we beginrunning surpluses and, eventually, elimi-nate overshoot. The larger the ecologicaldebt we accumulate, the greater the risk of permanent damage to the Earth. Ofcourse, this risk must be weighed againstthe potential economic and social costs of each path.

Any strategy to eliminate overshootinvolves difficult choices. How muchshould our Footprint shrink? When can we achieve those reductions? And how will we share these reductions among individuals, nations, or regions? Thesetypes of political discussions are not easy,but they are necessary if we hope to build a sustainable future.

LIVIN

G P

LAN

ET

EC

OLO

GIC

AL FO

OT

PR

INT

SC

EN

AR

IOS

DATA

AN

D TA

BLE

S

By reducing our Footprint, we’ll be making sure thatfuture generations can enjoy a good quality of life.

O V E R S H O O T

©G

etty

Imag

es

A C H I E V I N G S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y

THE WRONG KIND OF LEADERSHIP

Canada is incredibly fortunate. We live inan economically and ecologically wealthycountry with a higher standard of livingthan most other nations. However, thatstandard of living contributes to anEcological Footprint that is significantlyhigher than the global average – 3.5 timesthe global average, in fact, and the fourthhighest in the world (Figure 12).

From 1992 to 2003, the average per capi-ta Footprint in low- and middle-incomecountries changed little. During that sameperiod, however, the average per capitaFootprint in Canada increased 13 percent(Figure 13). This suggests that wealthynations like ours must accept the bulk ofthe responsibility for overdrawing theworld’s ecological chequing account.

BALANCING OUR FOOTPRINTWITH QUALITY OF LIFE

To achieve global sustainability, we needto strike the right balance between ourstandard of living and our EcologicalFootprint.

A good standard of living scores 0.8 or higher on the United Nations Develop-ment Programme’s Human DevelopmentIndex (HDI). This widely used measurelooks at life expectancy, literacy, educa-tion, and per capita GDP. At the sametime, living within the carrying capacityof the planet means that the average person’s Footprint must be less than 1.8 gha, given today’s global population.

While Canada has one of the highestHDIs in the world, it also has one of thelargest per capita Footprints. Clearly, theplanet doesn’t have enough biocapacity to support our current lifestyle on a glob-al scale. But a high standard of livingdoesn’t have to depend on a high percapita Footprint. For example, theNetherlands has an HDI score that’s simi-lar to Canada but a per capita Footprintroughly half the size of ours.

SUSTAINABILITY IS ACHIEVABLE

Figure 19 shows how countries aroundthe world score on these two minimumcriteria for sustainability. HDI is on thehorizontal axis, while Footprint on thevertical axis. Successful countries fall inthe green quadrant of the graph, meetingboth criteria.

All North American and European Unioncountries met the HDI threshold for highhuman development in 2003. However,

they also far exceeded the Footprint cut-off for sustainable development.Meanwhile Asia-Pacific and Africancountries on average have Footprints thatare less than 1.8 gha per person, but fewof them met the HDI threshold for highhuman development.

In fact, as of 2003, Cuba was the onlycountry in the world to meet both standards, the minimum criteria for sustainability. While sustainability is achievable, humanity as a whole hasfailed to achieve it.

LIVIN

G P

LAN

ET

EC

OLO

GIC

AL FO

OT

PR

INT

SU

STA

INA

BILIT

Y D

ATA

AN

D

HAVING A GLOBAL IMPACT

Because we use ecological

resources and services from all

over the world, our Canadian

Footprint affects ecosystems

across the planet.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1Human Development Index (HDI)

Europe EU

AfricaAsia-Pacific

Europe otherLatin AmericaMiddle East/Central AsiaNorth AmericaCanada

Fig. 19: HUMAN DEVELOPMENT AND ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINTS, 2003

Eco

logi

cal F

ootp

rint

(Glo

bal

Hec

tare

s p

er C

apita

)

Historical Canada Trend Line1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2003

Sustainable DevelopmentQuadrant


W H A T C A N A D A C A N D O

Increasingly, Canada seems to be strongin sustainability theory, but weak in prac-tice. It’s true that some Canadian govern-ments, businesses and individuals haveshown innovation and leadership on thisfront. But given the data presented in thisreport, it’s clear that as a nation we haveto do more. We have to do it faster. Andwe have to do it together.

WE NEED VISION AND COMMITMENT

In the past, Canada has shown progres-sive vision on a variety of public policyissues. Now we must embrace bold poli-cies on sustainable development – poli-cies that translate into real action. Policiesthat get real results. We can turn this situ-ation around – but we don’t have muchtime.

Just as young drivers are taught to avoidcollisions by looking down the road asthey drive, Canadians must look to thefuture when making decisions about theenvironment. We can’t just think aboutnext month, next year, or next election.We have to reflect on the long-term con-sequences of the choices we make.

It’s not necessarily about avoiding ecological collapse. It’s about protectingglobal health, ensuring global prosperity,and securing a better future for ourfriends and family.

CUT THE EARTH SOME SLACK

In the long run, Canadians cannot haveclean air, clean water, a healthy economy,large natural spaces for recreation – andone of the highest rates of resource con-sumption in the world. The trends areclear: as consumption goes up, the stateof nature goes down, including funda-mental standards that we take for granted,such as clean air and water.

In the 1950s, commercial fishing technol-ogy peaked around the world. No oneimagined we could exhaust the ocean’ssupply of fish – least of all cod fishers.But in the 50 years that followed, manycommercial fish stocks were fished out,and the most dramatic decline occurredright off of Canada’s own Grand Banks.The cod fishery collapsed and many maritime communities followed suit.

The point isn’t just that too much con-sumption was responsible for bringing aspecies like cod to the brink of extinction.The point is also that individual liveli-hoods and entire regional economies wereessentially wiped out as a result.

The fact is that we depend on Earth’s natural resources, not just for the amaz-ingly diverse lifestyles that we enjoy, but for the stuff of life itself. It’s time we cut our Earth some slack.

CREATING REAL CHANGE

We must look at sustainability as a serious challenge. But we must also lookat it as a tremendous opportunity forCanada, along with other forward-think-ing nations, to show true leadership and create real change.

Canadians can do just that in the follow-ing key areas:

Climate change – We must followthrough on our commitment to the Kyoto Protocol, significantly reducinggreenhouse gas emissions up to andbeyond 2012.

Green energy – We must reduce ouraverage carbon Footprint by consumingless oil and gas and investing more in thedevelopment of renewable and alternativeenergy sources.

Conservation – Canada is already aworld leader in sustainable forestry, withthe most hectares of commercial forestscertified by the Forestry StewardshipCouncil (FSC). Now we must apply theMarine Stewardship Council (MSC) standard to Canadian fisheries.

Green infrastructure – We must developresource-efficient infrastructure and transportation systems that are orientedtoward public transit to significantlyreduce Canada’s average Footprint, whilemaking our urban centres healthier andmore “liveable.”

Environmental assessment – We need tostart accounting better for the impact thatindustry has on species and wild spaces.That means engaging in more stringentconservation planning and environmentalassessments before major developmentprojects happen.


LIVIN

G P

LAN

ET

EC

OLO

GIC

AL FO

OT

PR

INT

SU

STA

INA

BILIT

Y D

ATA

AN

D TA

BLE

S


Embrace the aims and principles ofOne Planet Living (OPL) – We mustconsider what it means to minimize ourcollective footprint on the planet. Theconcept of OPL addresses everyday concerns about our homes, clothes, food,health, education, recreation, transporta-tion, and energy consumption. It aims for:

- Zero carbon

- Zero waste

- Sustainable transportation

- Sustainable materials

- Local and sustainable food

- Sustainable water

- Natural habitats and wildlife

- Culture and heritage

- Equity and fair trade

- Health and happiness

LIVIN

G P

LAN

ET

EC

OLO

GIC

AL FO

OT

PR

INT

SU

STA

INA

BILIT

Y D

ATA

AN

D TA

BLE

S

W H A T C A N A D A C A N D O

Canada needs to get on board with more sustainable transportation. The more local our diet, the less energy it takes to put food on our plates.

Recycling programs can help us conserve natural resources and achievezero waste.

©iS

tock

phot

o

©W

WF

-Can

ada/

Fra

nk P

AR

HIZ

GA

R

©iS

tock

phot

o

©W

WF

-Can

on/C

laire

DO

OLE

Switching to greener energy sources will shrink our carbon Footprint.

T E C H N I C A L N O T E S

LIVING PLANET INDEX

Data Collection

The species population data used to calcu-late the index are gathered from a varietyof sources published in scientific journals,in NGO literature, or on the worldwideweb. Data used in constructing the indexare a time series of either population sizeor a proxy of population size.

All population time series have at least two data points and are collected by methods that are comparable across years,so that it is possible to determine a trend. A population estimate taken at one point in time is not used with a second estimatefrom another survey of the same popula-tion at another point in time, unless it was clear that the second was meant to be comparable with the first.

Plants and invertebrates were excluded, asfew population time series data were avail-able. It is assumed, therefore, that trends in vertebrate populations are indicative ofoverall trends in biodiversity.

Calculation of the Indices

Index values were calculated using gener-alized additive modelling as implementedin Buckland et al. (2005)iii (Table 1), andconfidence limits around index values weregenerated using a bootstrap resamplingtechnique as implemented in Loh et al.(2005)iv (Table 2).

The global LPI is aggregated by system –terrestrial, freshwater, and marine – eachcarrying equal weight. However, as theCanada dataset is much smaller, it wasdeemed inappropriate to aggregate theindex for Canada in the same way (Figure 20).

CANADIAN LIVING PLANET INDEX

Species 1 Species 2 Species 3

Population 1 Population 2 Population 3

Fig. 20: HIERARCHY OF INDICES WITHIN THE LIVING PLANET INDEX

Terrestrial Freshwater Marine TotalFishReptiles and AmphibiansBirdsMammalsTotal

519644

245

252052

299

31

71149

5625

25557

393

Table 1: NUMBER OF SPECIES CONTRIBUTING TO THE TERRESTRIAL,FRESHWATER, AND MARINE INDICES WITHIN EACH VERTEBRATE CLASS


LIVIN

G P

LAN

ET

EC

OLO

GIC

AL FO

OT

PR

INT

SC

EN

AR

IO T

EC

HN

ICA

L NO

TE

S

Figure 20: Hierarchy of indices within the Living Planet Index. Each population carriesequal weight within each species; each species carries equal within the overall Canadian LPI.

Number of species

Percentage Change1970–2003 Lower UpperINDEX

Global LPICanada’s LPIBirdMammalFishTerrestrialBirdMammalFreshwaterBirdMarineFishForestGrasslandGrassland nesting birdsAmerican cootMarbled godwitPied-billed grebeSoraAtlantic codHakeAmerican plaice

13133932555756

2451964499

4931

18775161111121

95% Confidence Intervals

52

-29%5%

17%-28%-38%

3%11%

-37%47%

-36%-54%

2%-23%-41%-66%-34%-37%-57%-86%-72%-55%

48%

-40%-33%-28%-91%-83%-39%-35%-96%-54%

-79%-90%-44%-75%-93%-63%-32%-35%-59%-88%-93%

-143%

-60%

-16%65%91%

441%120%74%89%

787%363%

106%111%81%

131%457%-65%-32%-35%-59%-88%35%-6%

454%

Table 2: LPI WITH 95% CONFIDENCE INTERVALS

Table 2 shows the number of species contributing to Canada’s LPI from a totalnumber of 1,057 vertebrate populations.Bird species clearly dominate the dataset and so are largely responsible for thetrends observed. However, their overallpopulation trends are not always typical ofother species. Where other reliable indiceshave been produced, these have been displayed on the appropriate figures toallow an insight into the hidden trends.

ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT

How is the Ecological Footprint calculated?

The Ecological Footprint measures theamount of biologically productive land and water area required to produce theresources an individual, population, oractivity consumes and to absorb the wastethey generate, given prevailing technologyand resource management. This area is

expressed in global hectares, hectares withworld-average biological productivity.Footprint calculations use yield factors(Table 3) to take into account national differences in biological productivity (e.g., tonnes of wheat per UK hectare versus per Argentina hectare) and equiva-lence factors (Table 4) to take into account differences in world average productivityamong land types (e.g., world average forest versus world average cropland). Footprint and biocapacity results fornations are calculated annually by Global Footprint Network. The continuingmethodological development of theseNational Footprint Accounts is overseen by a formal review committee (www.footprintstandards.org/committees). A detailed methods paper and copies ofsample calculation sheets can be obtainedat no charge: see www.footprintnetwork.org.

What is included in the EcologicalFootprint? What is excluded?

To avoid exaggerating human demand onnature, the Ecological Footprint includesonly those aspects of resource consumptionand waste production for which the Earthhas regenerative capacity and where data exist that allow this demand to beexpressed in terms of productive area.

For example, freshwater withdrawal is not included in the Footprint, although the energy used to pump or treat it is. Ecological Footprint accounts providesnapshots of past resource demand andavailability. They do not predict the future.Thus, while the Footprint does not estimatefuture losses caused by present degradationof ecosystems, if persistent this degrada-tion will likely be reflected in futureaccounts as a loss of biocapacity.

Footprint accounts also do not indicate the intensity with which a biologically productive area is being used, nor do theypinpoint specific biodiversity pressures.Finally, the Ecological Footprint is a biophysical measure; it does not evaluatethe essential social and economic dimen-sions of sustainability.

Why are Footprint and biocapacity in the scenarios expressed in “2003”global hectares?

The absolute value of a global hectarechanges slightly each year, as both the totalnumber of bioproductive hectares andworld average productivity per hectarechange annually. To simplify discussion of time trends in the Earth’s biocapacity,and how this factor affects the degree ofovershoot, the scenarios are reported inconstant 2003 global hectares. Similar tothe use of inflation-adjusted dollars in economic statistics, the use of a constantglobal hectare – in this case, referenced tothe average productivity of a global hectarein 2003 – shows how absolute levels ofconsumption and bioproductivity, ratherthan just the ratio between them, are projected to change over time.

LIVIN

G P

LAN

ET

EC

OLO

GIC

AL FO

OT

PR

INT

SC

EN

AR

IO T

EC

HN

ICA

L NO

TE

S


New Zealand

Primary Cropland Forest Pasture Ocean FisheriesWorldAlgeriaGuatemalaHungary

0.61.01.1

Table 3: YIELD FACTORS, 2003

JapanJordanLao PDR

Zambia

1.51.00.82.20.5

1.00.01.42.91.60.00.22.50.3

1.00.72.91.92.20.42.72.51.5

1.00.80.21.01.40.81.00.21.0

1.0


[gha/ha]Primary CroplandMarginal CroplandForestPermanent Pasture

1.791.340.49

Table 4: EQUIVALENCE FACTORS, 2003

MarineInland WaterBuilt

0.360.362.21

2.21



How does the Ecological Footprintaccount for the use of fossil fuels?

Fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and naturalgas are extracted from the Earth’s crustrather than produced by ecosystems.When burning this fuel, carbon dioxide is produced. In order to avoid carbonaccumulation in the atmosphere, the goalof the UN Framework Convention onClimate Change, two options exist: a) human technological sequestration,such as deep well injection; or b) naturalsequestration. Natural sequestration corresponds to the biocapacity required toabsorb and store the CO2 not sequesteredby humans, less the amount absorbed bythe oceans. This is the Footprint for fossilfuel. Currently, negligible amounts ofCO2 are sequestered through human technological processes.

The sequestration rate used in EcologicalFootprint calculations is based on an estimate of how much carbon the world’sforests can remove from the atmosphereand retain. One 2003 global hectare canabsorb the CO2 released by burningapproximately 1,450 litres of gasoline per year.

The fossil fuel Footprint does not suggestthat carbon sequestration is the key toresolving global warming. Rather theopposite: it shows that the biosphere doesnot have sufficient capacity to cope withcurrent levels of CO2 emissions. Asforests mature, their CO2 sequestrationrate approaches zero, the Footprint pertonne of CO2 sequestration increases, and eventually, forests may even becomenet emitters of carbon.

How does the Ecological Footprintaccount for nuclear energy?

The demand on biocapacity associatedwith the use of nuclear power is difficultto quantify. Also, many of its impacts are not addressed by the research questionbehind the Footprint. For lack of conclu-sive data, the Footprint of nuclear elec-tricity is presently assumed to be thesame as the Footprint of the equivalentamount of electricity from fossil fuels.Global Footprint Network and its partnersare working to refine this assumption.The Footprint of nuclear electricity currently represents approximately five per cent of the total global Ecological Footprint.

How is international trade taken into account?

The national Ecological Footprintaccounts calculate each country’s net consumption by adding its imports to itsproduction and subtracting its exports.This means that the resources used forproducing a car that is manufactured inJapan, but sold and used in India, willcontribute to the Indian, not the Japaneseconsumption Footprint.

The resulting national consumptionFootprints can be distorted, since theresources used and waste generated inmaking products for export is not fullydocumented. This affects the Footprintsof countries whose trade-flows are largerelative to their overall economies. Thesemisallocations, however, do not affect thetotal global Ecological Footprint.

Does the Ecological Footprint takeinto account other species?

The Ecological Footprint describeshuman demand on nature. Currently, thereare 1.8 global hectares of biocapacity available per person on planet Earth, lessif some of this biologically productive

area is set aside for use by wild species.The value society places on biodiversitywill determine how much of a biodiversi-ty buffer to set aside. Efforts to increasebiocapacity, such as monocropping andapplication of pesticides, may alsoincrease pressure on biodiversity; this can increase the size of the biodiversitybuffer required to achieve the same conservation results.

Does the Ecological Footprint say what isa “fair” or “equitable” use of resources?The Footprint documents what happenedin the past. It can quantitatively describethe ecological resources used by an individual or a population, but it does notprescribe what they should be using.Resource allocation is a policy issue,based on societal beliefs about what is or is not equitable. Thus, while Footprintaccounting can determine the averagebiocapacity that is available per person, it can not stipulate how that biocapacityshould be allocated among individuals ornations. However, it provides a contextfor such discussions.

LIVIN

G P

LAN

ET

EC

OLO

GIC

AL FO

OT

PR

INT

SC

EN

AR

IO T

EC

HN

ICA

L NO

TE

S

LIVIN

G P

LAN

ET

EC

OLO

GIC

AL FO

OT

PR

INT

SC

EN

AR

IO T

EC

HN

ICA

L NO

TE

S


How do I calculate the Ecological Footprint of a city or region?

While the calculations for global andnational Ecological Footprints have beenstandardized within the NationalFootprint Accounts, there are a variety of ways used to calculate the Footprint ofa city or region. The family of “process-based” approaches use productionrecipes and supplementary statistics toallocate the national per capita Footprintto consumption categories (e.g., food,shelter, mobility, goods and services).

Regional or municipal average per capitaFootprints are calculated by scaling these national results up or down based on differences between national and localconsumption patterns. The family ofinput-output approaches use monetary,physical or hybrid input-output tables for allocating overall demand to con-sumption categories.

There is growing recognition of the needto standardize sub-national Footprintapplication methods in order to increasetheir comparability across studies andover time. In response to this need, methods and approaches for calculating

the Footprint of cities and regions are currently being aligned through the globalEcological Footprint Standards initiative.For more information on currentFootprint standards and ongoing standardization debates, see www.footprintstandards.org.

For references and additional informationabout Footprint methodology, datasources, assumptions, and definitionsplease visit: www.footprintnetwork.org/2006technotes.

ENDNOTES

i WWF-Canada, The Nature Audit(Toronto: 2003).

ii This figure is based on United Nationsprojections that factor in moderateincreases in population, food and fibreconsumption, CO2 emissions, and agricultural productivity.

iii Buckland, S.T., Magurran, A.E., Green,R.E., and Fewster, R.M., 2005.Monitoring change in biodiversitythrough composite indices. Phil. Trans. R.Soc. B. 360: 243–254.

iv Loh, J., Green, R.E., Ricketts, T.,Lamoreux, J., Jenkins, M., Kapos, V., andRanders, J., 2005. The Living PlanetIndex: using species population timeseries to track trends in biodiversity. Phil.Trans. R. Soc. B. 360: 289–295.


noitavresnoC dlroW PENU-PENU( ertneC gnirotinoM

:)CMCW tenalP gniviL ehTdepoleved yllanigiro saw xednI

htiw noitaroballoc ni FWW ybytisrevidoib eht ,CMCW-PENU

ycilop dna tnemssessaeht fo mra noitatnemelpmi

tnemnorivnE snoitaN detinUCMCW-PENU .emmargorP

atad eht fo hcum detcellocwef tsrif eht ni xedni eht rof

.tcejorp eht fo sraeygro.cmcw-penu.www

licnuoC susneC driB naeporuE:)CCBE( atad dnert noitalupoP

naeporuE fo seiceps 77 noni esu rof dedivorp erew sdrib

naeporuE-naP eht yb IPL ehtgnirotinoM driB nommoC

na ,emehcs )MBCEP(itanretnI efiLdriB/CCBE lano

-ycilop reviled ot evitaitinisrotacidni ytisrevidoib tnaveler

ofni.ccbe.www .eporuE rof

knaht ot ekil dluow srohtua ehTrieht rof elpoep gniwollof ehtocnarfnaiG :stnemmoc lufpleh

nasuS ,dnoB trautS ,angoloBmoT ,nesnetsraC miK ,nworB

araL ,namkcaH nilrA ,notpmorCrefinneJ ,egroJ leugiM ,nesnaH

nomiS ,ttoM drahciR ,nagroMnacnuD ,kcottiP eimaJ ,reppeP

treboR ,srednaR negroJ ,dralloP.rettuhcS ed yorffoeG ,yelegnaR

dnuorgkcab eht fo hcuMdluow troper siht rof hcraeser

tuohtiw elbissop neeb evah ton fo troppus suoreneg eht

eht ,noitadnuoF yelduD ehTehT ,noitadnuoF ylimaF arolF

xaM ehT ,noitadnuoF ecnerwaL,noitadnuoF nosniveL annA dna,noitadnuoF ocsicnarF naS ehT

eht ,ytinummoC puoS ehtnamdloG adohR dna drahciR

tnuH .A yoR eht ,dnuFsiweL ehT ,noitadnuoF

knarF ,trebA tnarG ,noitadnuoF.O dlareG ,remlaB tirgraM dna

eiramesoR dna xaM ,yenraBdna srU ,reldnihcS-drahkruB

etatse eht ,tdrahkcruB arabraBeilseL ,tdrahkcruB suicuL fo

,esetroC .D ynohtnA ,naitsirhC,mahgnihtorF cirE ,edE norahS

derflA ,yelaH teragraM,rehcseoL aruaL ,nnamffoH

,llieNcM selrahC ,yarkaM samaT,treppoM idE-snaH dna htuR

,sreteP ztuL ,rellüM rapsaK,temaR ardnaS dna divaD

,sseihcS reteP ,deeR .G mailliW

reteP ,niewttelhcS aleinaD

reteiD ,nirimS eeL-anaD ,ledieS,leihT ennaiD dna elaD ,renietS

eniloraC ,tsiwT lliB dna ennyLdna snaH ,leganrekcaW

ellebasI ,leganrekcaW annahoJenitsirhC-eiraM ,leganrekcaWaeB dna revilO ,leganrekcaW

,adaW okihihsoY ,leganrekcaW llew sa ,etleW yraM dna moT

nhoJ ,yksnadoB aydaN sa ,ooL enirehtaK ,nednettirC

yelooC morf erooM yraG dna.PLL drawdoG

ekil ylralucitrap dluow eWlabolG egdelwonkca ot

rentrap 07 s’krowteN tnirptooFecneicS 52 sti ,snoitazinagroeht dna ,srosivdA yciloP dna

krowteN tnirptooF labolGeettimmoC stnuoccA lanoitaN

,snoitubirtnoc ,ecnadiug rieht roftsubor ot tnemtimmoc dna

.stnuoccA tnirptooF lanoitaN

ailartsuAairtsuAmuigleBnatuhBaiviloBlizarB

adanaC)aigroeG( susacuaC

)nooremaC( acirfA lartneC)aciR atsoC( aciremA lartneC

anihCaibmoloC

)airtsuA( naihtapraC-ebunaDkramneD

)ayneK( acirfA nretsaEdnalniFecnarF

ynamreG)maN teiV( gnokeM retaerG

eceerG)emaniruS( sanaiuG

gnoK gnoHyragnuH

aidnIaisenodnI

ylatInapaJ

racsagadaMaisyalaM

)ylatI( naenarretideMocixeM

ailognoMlapeN

sdnalrehteN dnalaeZ weN

yawroNnatsikaP

urePsenippilihP

dnaloPaissuR

eropagniS acirfA htuoS

)ewbabmiZ( acirfA nrehtuoS)ijiF( cificaP htuoS

niapS

nedewSdnalreztiwS

ainaznaTyekruT

modgniK detinUsetatS detinU

,anahG( acirfA nretseW)lageneS

)muigleB( yciloP naeporuE roF scimonoceorcaM

tnempoleveD elbaniatsuS)ASU(

SETAICOSSA FWW ertsevliS adiV nóicadnuF

)anitnegrA()rodaucE( arutaN nóicadnuF

sdnoF sabaD seluasaP)aivtaL(

noitavresnoC nairegiN )airegiN( noitadnuoF

)aleuzeneV( aneduF

STNEMEGDELWONKCA

KROWTEN EDIWDLROW FWW

Published November 2007 by WWF-Canada, Toronto, Canada. Any reproduction in full or in part of this publication must mention the title and credit the above-mentioned publisher as the copyright owner.

© Text (2007) WWF-Canada. No photographs from this publication may be reproduced. All rights reserved.

The material and the geographic designations in this report do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of WWF concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

WWF-Canada is a federally registered charity (no. 11930 4954 RR0001) and an official national organization of World Wide Fund for Nature, headquartered in Gland, Switzerland. WWF is known as World Wildlife Fund in Canada and the United States.

© 1986 Panda symbol WWF-World Wide Fund for Nature (also known as World Wildlife Fund)® “WWF” and “living planet” are WWF Registered Trademarks

We would also like to gratefully acknowledge the data contributed by Parks Canada, David Henry (Kluane Ecological Monitoring Project), and Lisa Wilkinson (Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division).

WWF-Canada would like to thank Michael de Pencier for his support and efforts that helped to make this project possible.

larutan s’tenalp eht fo noitadarged eht pots ot si noissim s’FWWynomrah ni evil snamuh hcihw ni erutuf a dliub ot dna tnemnorivne

:yb ,erutan htiwytisrevid lacigoloib s’dlrow eht gnivresnoc -

elbaniatsus si secruoser larutan elbawener fo esu eht taht gnirusne - .noitpmusnoc lufetsaw dna noitullop fo noitcuder eht gnitomorp -

© 1986 Pand

a symb

ol WW

F-World

Wid

e Fund For N

ature ® “W

WF” and

“living planet” are W

WF

Registered Trad

emarks 10.06 (20M

)C

over photo: NA

SA

/NO

AA

/US

GS

WWF–Canada 245 Eglinton Avenue East Suite 410 Toronto, Ontario M4P 3J1 Telephone: 416-489-8800 Toll free: 1-800-26-PANDA Fax: 416-489-3611 wwf.ca

Documents

CANADIAN LIVING PLANET REPORT 2007assets.wwf.ca/downloads/canadianlivingplanetreport2007.pdf · CANADIAN LIVING PLANET REPORT 2007 3 Achieving sustainability means using resources