The aim of this factsheet is to give an overview of the Ecological Footprint and biocapacity within each country to give both some facts and figures and to help to explain why the results and country rankings in the LPR 2012 may be different from LPR 2010.

Timor-Leste

Trends in the Ecological Footprint and biocapacity in 2010 and 2012

Comparing LPR 2010 and LPR 2012

LPR 2010 LPR 2012Ecological Footprint per person 0.44 0.47Ecological Footprint ranking 149 148Biocapacity per person 1.21 0.86Biocapacity ranking 83 105

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

20001990198019701960

Glo

bal h

ecta

res

per c

apita

Why are there differences in LPR 2010 compared to LPR 2012?

Per capita gha Percentage change ExplanationTotal Ecological Footprint: 0.47 8% Source data revision;Source data change;Carbon: 0.05 -31%Grassland: 0.07 4%Cropland: 0.24 -7% Source data revision;Source data change;Fishing grounds: 0.02 795% Source data revision;Forests: 0.05 8748% Source data revision;Built-up land: 0.04 13% Data changes

*

Per capita gha Percentage change ExplanationTotal biocapacity: 0.86 -29% Data changes; methodology changesGrassland: 0.06 1Cropland: 0.20 4%Fishing grounds: 0.00Forests: 0.56 -39% Data changesBuilt-up land: 0.04 13% Data changes

If everyone in the world consumed like Timor-Lestethen the Ecological Footprint would be 0.27 Planets.

Ecological Footprint 2012 Ecological Footprint 2010Biocapacity 2012 Biocapacity 2010

2008

*

* All countries carbon Footprint decreased 27 percent due to a revision in oceanic carbon sequestration