This page has only limited features, please log in for full access.
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.
Mathis Wackernagel; David Lin; Mikel Evans; Laurel Hanscom; Peter Raven. Defying the Footprint Oracle: Implications of Country Resource Trends. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2164 .
AMA StyleMathis Wackernagel, David Lin, Mikel Evans, Laurel Hanscom, Peter Raven. Defying the Footprint Oracle: Implications of Country Resource Trends. Sustainability. 2019; 11 (7):2164.
Chicago/Turabian StyleMathis Wackernagel; David Lin; Mikel Evans; Laurel Hanscom; Peter Raven. 2019. "Defying the Footprint Oracle: Implications of Country Resource Trends." Sustainability 11, no. 7: 2164.
Ecological Footprint accounting quantifies the supply and demand of Earth’s biocapacity. The National Footprint Accounts (NFA) are the most widely used Ecological Footprint (EF) dataset, and provide results for most countries and the world from 1961 to 2014, based primarily on publicly available UN datasets. Here, we review the evolution of the NFA, describe and quantify the effects of improvements that have been implemented into the accounts since the 2012 edition, and review the latest global trends. Comparing results over six editions of NFAs, we find that time-series trends in world results remain stable, and that the world Ecological Footprint for the latest common year (2008) has increased six percent after four major accounting improvements and more than thirty minor improvements. The latest results from the NFA 2018 Edition for the year 2014 indicate that humanity’s Ecological Footprint is 1.7 Earths, and that global ecological overshoot continues to grow. While improved management practices and increased agricultural yields have assisted in a steady increase of Earth’s biocapacity since 1961, humanity’s Ecological Footprint continues to increase at a faster pace than global biocapacity, particularly in Asia, where the total and per capita Ecological Footprint are increasing faster than all other regions.
David Lin; Laurel Hanscom; Adeline Murthy; Alessandro Galli; Mikel Evans; Evan Neill; Maria Serena Mancini; Jon Martindill; Fatime-Zahra Medouar; Shiyu Huang; Mathis Wackernagel. Ecological Footprint Accounting for Countries: Updates and Results of the National Footprint Accounts, 2012–2018. Resources 2018, 7, 58 .
AMA StyleDavid Lin, Laurel Hanscom, Adeline Murthy, Alessandro Galli, Mikel Evans, Evan Neill, Maria Serena Mancini, Jon Martindill, Fatime-Zahra Medouar, Shiyu Huang, Mathis Wackernagel. Ecological Footprint Accounting for Countries: Updates and Results of the National Footprint Accounts, 2012–2018. Resources. 2018; 7 (3):58.
Chicago/Turabian StyleDavid Lin; Laurel Hanscom; Adeline Murthy; Alessandro Galli; Mikel Evans; Evan Neill; Maria Serena Mancini; Jon Martindill; Fatime-Zahra Medouar; Shiyu Huang; Mathis Wackernagel. 2018. "Ecological Footprint Accounting for Countries: Updates and Results of the National Footprint Accounts, 2012–2018." Resources 7, no. 3: 58.
Following the UN adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in September 2015, the Government of Montenegro entered in the final phase of revising of National Strategy for Sustainable Development (NSSD 2030). Under the supervision of the National Council for Sustainable Development, Climate Change and Integrated Coastal Zone Management, an NSSD team of national and international experts was assembled under the coordination of the Ministry of Sustainable Development and Tourism. To demonstrate commitment to the UN 2030 Agenda, Montenegro decided to center the NSSD 2030 on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), targets and indicators. One of the first UN member countries to implement the UN 2030 Agenda within the national policy context, Montenegro adopted its NSSD 2030 on July 7, 2016. As members of the NSSD team, here we 1) describe how the UN 2030 Agenda has been implemented within the policy context of Montenegro’s NSSD 2030, and 2) focus on the identification of the NSSD 2030 monitoring and reporting framework. Our key finding is that 26 institutions will be handling data for assessing 137 out of the 241 (56.8%) SDG indicators in the first reporting period scheduled for 2019. Although the paper deals with the implementation of the SDGs in Montenegro and its implications, we believe it will be useful in informing other countries in their process of national transposition and operationalization of the UN 2030 Agenda.
Alessandro Galli; Gordana Đurović; Laurel Hanscom; Jelena Knežević. Think globally, act locally: Implementing the sustainable development goals in Montenegro. Environmental Science & Policy 2018, 84, 159 -169.
AMA StyleAlessandro Galli, Gordana Đurović, Laurel Hanscom, Jelena Knežević. Think globally, act locally: Implementing the sustainable development goals in Montenegro. Environmental Science & Policy. 2018; 84 ():159-169.
Chicago/Turabian StyleAlessandro Galli; Gordana Đurović; Laurel Hanscom; Jelena Knežević. 2018. "Think globally, act locally: Implementing the sustainable development goals in Montenegro." Environmental Science & Policy 84, no. : 159-169.
Over the past decade, Ecological Footprint has become one of the most popular and widespread indicators for sustainability assessment and resource management. However, its popularity has been coupled, especially in recent years, by the emergence of critical views on the indicator's rationale, methodology and policy usefulness. Most of these criticisms commonly point to the inability of the Ecological Footprint to track the human-induced depletion of natural capital stocks as one of the main shortcomings of the methodology. Fully addressing this issue will require research efforts and, most likely, further methodological refinements. The aim of this paper is therefore to outline the basis of a new area of investigation in Ecological Footprint research, primarily aimed at implementing the distinction between the use of stocks and the use of flows in Ecological Footprint Accounting and debating its implications
Maria Serena Mancini; Alessandro Galli; Valentina Niccolucci; David Lin; Laurel Hanscom; Mathis Wackernagel; Simone Bastianoni; Nadia Marchettini. Stocks and flows of natural capital: Implications for Ecological Footprint. Ecological Indicators 2017, 77, 123 -128.
AMA StyleMaria Serena Mancini, Alessandro Galli, Valentina Niccolucci, David Lin, Laurel Hanscom, Mathis Wackernagel, Simone Bastianoni, Nadia Marchettini. Stocks and flows of natural capital: Implications for Ecological Footprint. Ecological Indicators. 2017; 77 ():123-128.
Chicago/Turabian StyleMaria Serena Mancini; Alessandro Galli; Valentina Niccolucci; David Lin; Laurel Hanscom; Mathis Wackernagel; Simone Bastianoni; Nadia Marchettini. 2017. "Stocks and flows of natural capital: Implications for Ecological Footprint." Ecological Indicators 77, no. : 123-128.