Global Hectares: How Does Australia Rate? A global hectare is a measure of the average yield from biologically productive areas on earth in a given year. Knowing the total global hectares available on the planet allows us to measure the planets ability to produce plant and animal life and, as a subset of that, the planets ability to feed the population. By knowing how much the earth can give us and subtracting how much we demand of it we can see very quickly if we are in credit or deficit. A global hectare is arrived at using only land and water that supports significant photosynthetic activity and accumulation of biomass. While I could not find a definition of what is considered to be ‘significant,’ the following geographical types are included in the calculation: ·
Cropland
·
Forests
·
Fishing Grounds
The following geographical types are not included in the calculation: ·
Deserts
·
Glaciers
·
Open oceans
The global hectare figure is a snapshot not a predictor. It assumes, amongst other things, current levels of technology, current agricultural methods, current diets, current land availability and current populations. According to Wikipedia1 in 2005 there were 13.4 billion hectares of biologically productive land and water available and 6.5 billion people on the planet. This is an average of 2.1 global hectares per person. According to the Global Footprint Network2 there were 12 billion
“According to Wikipedia …” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_hectare#cite_note-2 This page was last modified on 1 March 2013 at 09:32. Interestingly, the citation that Wikipedia uses for its figures is the Global Footprint Network Glossary of terms and that is the same place that provides the second set of figures in footnote (2). 1
“According to the Global Footprint Network …” http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/glossary/ Last updated on: 12th of October 2012. 2
www.rodmatthews.com
hectares of biologically productive land and water on this planet in 2008. Dividing by the number of people alive in that year (6.7 billion) gives 1.79 global hectares per person. It is also important to note that these figures assume that no other life forms consume the same food as humans and that 100% of the global hectare is used to feed humans. According to Dr. Mathis Wackernagel, Executive Director of the Global Footprint Network, 3 97% of the biomass of all vertebrate species is human.
What is your nation's global footprint? According to The Global Footprint Network’s country factsheet for Australia,4 Australia needs 6.68 global hectares per person. Compare this to our bio-capacity as a nation which stands at 14.57 global hectares per person and one could very easily arrive at the conclusion that all is well. In order to gain a bigger picture there are a couple of things we need to consider: 1. The trend: In 1961 the gap between capacity and demand was just over 20 global hectares. In 2008 the gap has narrowed to less than 8 global hectares. 2. More than our fair share: A note on the country factsheet for Australia5 states “If everyone in the world consumed like Australians then the Ecological Footprint would be 3.76 Planets. 3. Countries in severe deficit: 6The US has a deficit of 3.33 global hectares, China has a deficit of 1.26 global hectares and even Costa Rica, champions of the Happy Plant Index,7 have a deficit of .92 global hectares and if everyone lived like they do in Coast Rica we would still need 1.42 planets.
3
) Dr Mathis Wackernagel, Executive Director of the Global Footprint Network http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjyrAHzthTo&feature=player_embedded Uploaded on the 19th of August 2009. 4 The Global Footprint Network’s country factsheet for Australia http://www.footprintnetwork.org/images/trends/2012/pdf/2012_australia.pdf These pages were last updated on the 8th of May 2012. 5 Ibid. 6 “Countries in severe deficit …” These figures were taken from the Footprint of Nations part of the Global Footprint Network website. http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/footprint_for_nations/ and these pages were last updated on the 8th of May 2012. “… champions of the Happy Planet Index” http://www.ted.com/talks/nic_marks_the_happy_planet_index.html Filmed Jul 2010, Posted Aug 2010. 7
www.rodmatthews.com
4. Overall trends: On top of that, with a few exceptions, the overall trend of bio-capacity is falling. This suggests that technology and advances in agricultural methods is not keeping pace with the growing demand and we will need a game changer like, perhaps controversially, genetically modified foods, to help us keep pace. Looking at the figures in this light, I can understand why there are calls to open up the top end of Australia to large scale agriculture and to become the food bowl of Asia.
What is the world's global footprint now in terms of the number of worlds we would need to attain sustainability? According to the Global Footprint Network8 we currently need 1.5 planets like our own. Another way of viewing this is to say that the earth needs 18 months to provide and absorb 12 months’ worth of human activity. When you combine this with the suggestion by Hans Rosling in his TED talk9 that only 2 billion live above the ‘washing line’ and another 2 billion live on less than $2 USD per day it is hard to see, from our current position, how we will be able to feed everyone at levels equivalent to the top 2 billion people.
From the Happy Planet Index http://www.happyplanetindex.org/about/
How is the Happy Planet Index calculated? There are three components to the calculation of the Happy Planet Index. They are: 1.
Experienced well-being
2.
Life expectancy
3.
Ecological footprint
Experienced well-being: This is a number that comes to us from the Gallup Organizations work that produces the report “Wellbeing Meta-Analysis: A Worldwide Study of the Relationship Between the Five
“According to …” http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/world_footprint/ Last updated on the 14th of May 2012. 9 “ … Hans Rosling in his TED talk …” Hans Rosling “The Magic Washing Machine” http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_and_the_magic_washing_machine.html Filmed Dec 2010, Posted Mar 2011. 8
www.rodmatthews.com
Elements of Wellbeing and Life Evaluation, Daily Experiences, Health, and Giving.”10 The Gallup Organisation uses 12 questions to determine well-being. The Happy Plant index only uses one of these questions to determine its Well-being score.11 The question that is used is the Present Life Evaluation (ladder scale): “Please imagine a ladder, with steps numbered from 0 at the bottom to 10 at the top. The top of the ladder represents the best possible life for you and the bottom of the ladder represents the worst possible life for you. On which step of the ladder would you say you personally feel you stand at this time?”12 The authors of the Happy Planet Index defend their decision of only including this one question by saying “When asking people how they themselves feel about their lives, we allow them to decide what is important to them, to assess the issues according to their own criteria … This democratic, non-paternalistic approach does not rely on experts knowing what is ‘best’ for people.”13 The drawback of this decision is that it becomes a highly subjective measure and people are notoriously poor at assessing such things with any accuracy. This drawback is in part mitigated by the fact that with multiple measures you can see a trend and the trend is more important that the accuracy of an individual’s assessment. Life Expectancy: The qualitative score of experienced well-being is countered with the quantitative measure of life expectancy as calculated for the UN Development Report.
Sangeeta Agrawal, M.S., & James K. Harter, Ph.D., Gallup; April 2011; “Wellbeing MetaAnalysis: A Worldwide Study of the Relationship Between the Five Elements of Wellbeing and Life Evaluation, Daily Experiences, Health, and Giving” Available at http://www.gallup.com/strategicconsulting/157229/wellbeing-meta-analysis.aspx 10
“The Happy Plant index’s only uses one of these questions to determine its Well-being score.” Saamah Abdallah, Juliet Michaelson, Sagar Shah, Laura Stoll and Nic Marks; June 2012; “The Happy Planet Index: 2012 Report” Available at http://www.happyplanetindex.org/assets/happy-planet-index-report.pdf 11
Ibid “Wellbeing Meta-Analysis: A Worldwide Study of the Relationship Between the Five Elements of Wellbeing and Life Evaluation, Daily Experiences, Health, and Giving” Page 3 12
“The authors of the Happy Planet Index defend their decision …” Ibid “The Happy Planet Index: 2012 Report” Page 6 13
www.rodmatthews.com
Ecological Footprint: This number is provided by the Global Footprint Network and is a measure of global hectares as discussed above. The final calculation looks like this: Happy Planet Index ≈ (Experienced well-being x Life expectancy) ÷ Ecological Footprint What country has the highest HPI and what is the score? The country with the highest HPI score is Costa Rica with a HPI score of 64.0 14 15 What is the HPI score for Australia? Australia scores 42.0 which is, to be totally judgmental, pretty pathetic when you consider that Botswana is 22.6. Perhaps somewhat predictably, Australia scores well in the life expectancy scores and OK in the experienced well-being score. It is our ecological footprint that pulls us down overall.16 Living within the doughnut In the Oxfam discussion paper entitled “A safe and just space for humanity – Can we live within the doughnut?”17 Kate Raworth suggests there is a sweet spot for humanity to thrive. The sweet spot is between a floor of social foundation and a ceiling of environmental capacity. When we fall below the social foundation floor, basic human rights such as access to clean drinking water, food, sanitation, health, income, equality and freedom etc. are threatened. When we exceed the environmental ceiling we threaten critical natural thresholds like biodiversity, climate, freshwater, ocean acidification etc. The graphic representations of our current positions in relation to this floor and ceiling provides a fantastic tool for assessing areas of most urgent need.
14
Marks, Nic; Ted Talk; Filmed Jul 2010, Posted Aug 2010. http://www.ted.com/talks/nic_marks_the_happy_planet_index.html 15
The Happy Planet Index website http://www.happyplanetindex.org/data/ 2013 Ibid. The Happy Planet Index website http://www.happyplanetindex.org/data/ 2013. 17 Raworth, Kate; February 2012; “A safe and just space for humanity – Can we live within the doughnut?” http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/dp-a-safe-and-just-spacefor-humanity-130212-en.pdf 16
www.rodmatthews.com