Ecological Footprint - Conservation Biology - Lecture Slides, Slides of Biology

Download Ecological Footprint - Conservation Biology - Lecture Slides and more Slides Biology in PDF only on Docsity!

Ecological Footprint & Sustainable

Development

INTRODUCTION

 The concepts of sustainable development and ecological footprint are firmly embedded in the principle of sustainability

 Looked at this when considering sustainable harvesting – removal of resources at a rate lower than the replacement rate, to prevent reduction in capacity of the resource

 Sustainable development – “economic development that satisfies current and future needs for resources and employment while minimizing the impact on biological diversity” (Lubchenco et al. )

 Ecological footprint – the area needed to regenerate or provide resources equivalent to consumption for a given entity

 Not a simple concept to manage

 Establishment of levels of extraction for sustainability is hard  Conflict between ecocentrism and anthropocentrism

SCOPE

 Clearly many things fall directly under the scope of sustainable development  International trade  Energy development  Agricultural practices  Education  Health care  Conservation priorities

 Johannesburg Declaration (2002) from the Earth Summit committed first and third world nations to Addressing “ the worldwide conditions that pose severe threats to the sustainable development of our people”

 It also mentioned a large number of these threats: “chronic hunger; malnutrition; foreign occupation; armed conflict; illicit drug problems; organized crime; corruption; natural disasters; illicit arms trafficking; trafficking in persons; terrorism; intolerance and incitement to racial, ethnic, religious and other hatreds; xenophobia; and endemic, communicable and chronic diseases”

 Unfortunately, non-specific regarding actions and commitments from signatory nations

POTENTIAL

 Strong negotiating stance for the third world to leverage development aid (eg: NEPAD)

 Smart developing nations can focus on long-term viability (problem with the length of political terms)  Alternative energy sources might be longer lasting  Internal development focusing on renewables can lead to market share (India)

 Development of alternative national economic strategies not feasible do to global nature of capital

 However, localised solutions may be better for communities and ecology within the area

 Untapped potential of growing populations in terms of manpower can be utilised whilst reducing impacts on the environment

 Provides a framework for responsible investment by the developing world, and guidelines for developed world to achieve goals without running the risk of messy overdevelopment of areas.

 By including grassroots upliftment as a focus, it avoids the failed “trickle down” paradigm

CRITICISMS 2

 Main focus is on the third world, but there is a clear division of focus within the issue:  Developing nations focus on development , and hope to achieve American-style economies  Developed nations focus on sustainable , which means reduced consumption of resources by developing nations

 Challenged as an extension of Western imperialism, since the developed nations are not prepared to invest in alternative routes of development for the third world

 Without free technologies and considerable funding and support, developing nations have no choice but to follow the only paradigm that is proven to be effective – western industrialization

 “Greenwashing” by corporations, which use sustainable development (and “fair trade”) as a marketing tool without making serious changes to policy

ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT

 Compares human consumption of natural resources with the planet’s ecological capacity to regenerate them

 Assumes current technology levels, and looks at the amount of area needed to generate and to dispose of waste.

 Generally calculated in global hectares (gha)  In 2003, average biologically active area was 1.8gha/person  US: 9.6gha per person  China: 1.6 gha per person  Can be calculated for different entities:  Countries – assesses to what extent a nation uses more than the resources available within its territory  Per capita – compares the individual usage with a sustainable and an equitable median value  Per activity – life cycle analysis (eg: building a car) assessing the amount of land and resources required for the process, and the corresponding  Exposes the extent of disparity between rich and poor to a much larger extent than actual money.

LIVING PLANET INDEX

 Measures human impacts on biodiversity in different arenas (Terrestrial, Marine, Freshwater)

 Tracks populations of 1313 different vertebrate species as an indicator of general ecosystem wellness

 Indicates a decline of nearly 30% in all vertebrate populations since 1970.

 Impact greater in the tropics

 Clear indication that we are living off ecological capital, not the “interest” (^) Source: WWF Living Planet Report 2006  Reducing global capacity for recovery  The ecological footprint and Living Planet index provide guidelines for the setting of reasonable targets  Feeds into Life Cycle Assessment for projects and development undertakings globally  Annual or biannual updates of these measurements provides for monitoring of the success of current projects

CONCLUSION

 Sustainable development presents development opportunities for developing nations, means for developed nations to achieve biodiversity targets through globalisation

 Requires political buy-in at all levels

 Holistic focus on development, integrating economy at micro- and macro- levels as well as social and ecological benefits

 Extremely hard to plan, tends to be hijacked for personal/political agenda

 Danger of ignoring certain essential conservation processes because of total societal/economic value still exists

 Sustainability is linked to measurement of current and future impacts, assessed through ecological footprint

 Living planet index addresses some of the shortcomings of the ecological footprint model

 Footprints allow assessment of the equity of resource use globally (moral & socio-economic value)