PPPPPRIMARYRIMARYRIMARYRIMARYRIMARY A A A A AUTHORSUTHORSUTHORSUTHORSUTHORS ANDANDANDANDAND A A A A ANALNALNALNALNALYYYYYSSSSSTTTTTSSSSS

DDDDDRRRRR. J. J. J. J. JASONASONASONASONASON V V V V VENETOULISENETOULISENETOULISENETOULISENETOULIS, D, D, D, D, DAHLIAAHLIAAHLIAAHLIAAHLIA C C C C CHAZANHAZANHAZANHAZANHAZAN, , , , , ANDANDANDANDAND C C C C CHRISTOPHERHRISTOPHERHRISTOPHERHRISTOPHERHRISTOPHER G G G G GAUDETAUDETAUDETAUDETAUDET

Sustainability Indicators ProgramMarch 2004

www.RedefiningProgress.org

FFFFFor Peor Peor Peor Peor People, Naople, Naople, Naople, Naople, Nattttture, and ure, and ure, and ure, and ure, and ttttthe Ehe Ehe Ehe Ehe Ecccccooooonnnnnooooommmmmyyyyy

2004

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2004 Footprint of Nations, Copyright Redefining Progress, 2004. All rights reserved.

www.RedefiningProgress.org

Overview .................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................................................... 5

Footprints of Nations, 2000 Update ......................................................................................................................... 7

What is an Ecological Footprint? .............................................................................................................................. 7The Results of the 2000 Footprint Updates: Searching for Bigfoot ........................................................................ 8Footprints in Regions Around the Globe ................................................................................................................. 8Footprint Mix: Variations by Income Group .......................................................................................................... 10

Santa Monica’s Ecological Footprint 1990-2000 .................................................................................................... 13Summary of Findings in Santa Monica .................................................................................................................. 13What goes into a Municipality’s Ecological Footprint? .......................................................................................... 13Methodology ............................................................................................................................................................ 13Results ...................................................................................................................................................................... 14Sustainability in the City ......................................................................................................................................... 15

Ecological Footprint for the San Francisco Bay Region ......................................................................................... 15Preview of San Francisco Bay Area Ecological Footprint Results .......................................................................... 16Policy Implications ................................................................................................................................................... 16Referenced Publications and Websites .................................................................................................................... 17

Illustration 1: Humanity’s Total Footprint 1961-2000 ............................................................................................. 7Illustration 2: Global Per Capita Footprint 1980-2000 ............................................................................................ 8Illustration 3: Per Capita Footprints by Region 1999-2000 ..................................................................................... 9Illustration 4: Total Footprint by Region 1999-2000 ............................................................................................... 9Illustration 5: Global Footprint Sources ................................................................................................................. 10Illustration 6: Lower Income Countries Sources of Footprint .............................................................................. 11Illustration 7: Middle Income Countries Sources of Footprint ............................................................................. 11Illustration 8: Higher Income Countries: Sources of Footprint ............................................................................ 11

Table 1: Changes in Western European Footprints………………………………………………………………………….. .......... 9Table 2: Footprint of Nations………………………………………………………………………………………………….................. 12

2

3

OVERVIEW

Ecological Footprint analysesprovide an important reminder ofthe implications of resource useat the global level and thedifferences between countriesaround the globe. The EcologicalFootprint can also help tellimportant stories at the local,national, and internationallevels, providing support forpolicies that make cities andregions more sustainable.

In the Living Planet Reports 2000 and 2002, WWF International and Redefining Progressdocumented that humanity’s Ecological Footprint has breached the limits of environmentalsustainability. The Ecological Footprint revealed that nature has been utilized beyond itscapacity to renew and regenerate indefinitely, as observers have seen with the decline of mostof the world’s major marine fisheries and the steady depletion of fossil fuels.

The update of the National Ecological Footprints Accounts, presented in this report,indicates that the situation has remained fundamentally unchanged except for one no-table exception in the case of the United States. In 2000, the most recent year for whichdata are available, the US became the country with the largest per capita Ecological Foot-print on the planet. Changes in the Footprint between 1999 and 2000 in Western Europeancountries are featured, as are the disparities between regions and income groups. The find-ings reveal stark distributive implications, highlighting the serious environmental justice andequity issues that remain global and intergenerational in scope.

In turning from the global problem to local solutions, this report also features the paththrough which one municipality, situated in what might be considered one of the mostunsustainable places on the planet, has attempted to change its Ecological Footprint. Lo-cated in the county of Los Angeles, California, the City of Santa Monica’s ambitious Sustain-able City Program provides a concrete example of how progress toward sustainability can bemade, measured, and advanced using the Ecological Footprint methodology.

Farther north, in the San Francisco Bay Area, a similar process is beginning to unfold.With a population over six million, the region’s size makes the task daunting. However, amajority of the region’s residents favor sustainability, and regional agendas increasingly em-phasize the need to achieve greater sustainability. A preliminary look at the Bay Area region’sFootprint is presented, with the full results scheduled to be released on March 30, 2004.

The municipality of Almada, in Portugal, has also found the Ecological Footprint con-cept useful for communicating issues of sustainability to its citizens.

Ecological Footprint analyses provide an important reminder of the implications of re-source use at the global level and the differences between countries around the globe. TheEcological Footprint can also help tell important stories at the local, national, and interna-tional levels, providing support for policies that make cities and regions more sustainable.

The City of Santa Monica’sambitious SSSSSuuuuussssstttttainainainainainabababababllllle Ce Ce Ce Ce CityityityityityPrPrPrPrProgrogrogrogrogramamamamam provides a concreteexample of how progress towardsustainability can be made,measured, and advanced usingthe Ecological Footprintmethodology.

4

5

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Primary authors and analysts: Dr. Jason Venetoulis, Dahlia Chazan, and ChristopherGaudet; Redefining Progress.

Acknowledgements: Many thanks to Dean Kubani, Santa Monica’s Sustainable CityProgram, and the City of Santa Monica for the inspiration, funding, and outstanding assis-tance in data collection for Santa Monica’s Footprint. Likewise, heartfelt thanks go to PeterMelhus and the rest of the steering committee and members of the Bay Area Alliance forSustainable Communities. And, thanks to Christina Maynard for design assistance.

The findings in this report are based upon the most recent Ecological Footprint Ac-counting methodology created in February 2003 at Redefining Progress. The Ecological Foot-print concept was initially developed by William Rees and Mathis Wackernagel in the mid-1990s. The Ecological Footprint Accounts were expanded and refined at Redefining Progressin the late 1990s and subsequent years.

Redefining Progress (RP) is a non-profit organization that works with a broad array ofpartners to shift the economy and public policy toward sustainability. RP measures the realstate of our economy, of our environment, and of social justice with tools like the GenuineProgress Indicator and the Ecological Footprint. We design policies—like environmental taxreform—to shift behavior in these three domains towards sustainability. We promote andcreate new frameworks—like common assets—to replace the ones that are taking us away fromlong-term social, economic, and environmental justice.

6

7

ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINTS OF NATIONS

This section of the report provides an introduction to the conceptual basis of the Eco-logical Footprint™ Index (Ecological Footprint, or Footprint, hereafter) and summarizes themajor findings of the National Ecological Footprint Accounts in 2000, the most recent yearfor which data are available. The key findings of the National Footprint Accounts at the turnof the Millennium were that:

• Humanity’s total Ecological Footprint increased to 13.2 billion global hectares, grow-ing by 147 million global hectares between 1999 and 2000;

• The per capita global Ecological Footprint continued its twenty year decline; and

• The United States became the nation with the largest per capita Ecological Foot-print on the planet.

WHAWHAWHAWHAWHAT IST IST IST IST IS AN EC AN EC AN EC AN EC AN ECOLOLOLOLOLOGICALOGICALOGICALOGICALOGICAL FOO FOO FOO FOO FOOTPRINT?TPRINT?TPRINT?TPRINT?TPRINT?

The Ecological Footprint is a tool formeasuring and analyzing human natural re-source consumption and waste output withinthe context of nature’s renewable and regen-erative capacity (or biocapacity). It representsa quantitative assessment of the biologicallyproductive area (the amount of nature) re-quired to produce the resources (food, en-ergy, and materials) and to absorb the wastesof an individual, city, region, or country.

Footprints are not bad or good per se.Every living entity possesses an EcologicalFootprint; it is the size that differs. On a glo-bal scale, humanity’s entire Ecological Foot-print can be compared to the total availablenatural capital and services. Whenhumanity’s Footprint is within the annualregenerative capabilities of nature, its Foot-print is sustainable. For some it may be sur-prising to learn that the Footprint (i.e. ameasure of human consumption) can exceedthe planet’s ecological limits, but only for alimited time, by using resources more quicklythan they can be renewed.

From the Footprint perspective,sustainability requires living within the re-generative and absorptive capacity of theplanet. The corollary in the biological sci-ences is typically referred to as a “sustainableyield.” If we remove more from nature thancan be provided indefinitely, we are on anunsustainable track. The liquidation of ourecological assets is called “overshoot” and isnot sustainable. In this situation, the Earth’s

natural capital is drawn down and nature’sabsorptive sinks are swamped. This leaves lessnature for future generations.

In the Living Planet Reports 2000 and2002, providing Footprint results for theyears 1997 and 1999 respectively,WWF In-ternational and Redefining Progress reportedthat in the late 1970s humanity’s collectiveEcological Footprint breached thesustainability mark for the first time, and hasremained unsustainable ever since (Loh etal., 2000 and 2002). By the year 2000, theecological deficit reached nearly 1 acre perperson, or 9 million square miles (23 mil-lion square kilometers) (Illustration 1).

Admittedly, the Ecological Footprintmethodology does not capture all of

ILLILLILLILLILLUSUSUSUSUSTRATRATRATRATRATION 1:TION 1:TION 1:TION 1:TION 1:HUMANITHUMANITHUMANITHUMANITHUMANITY’SY’SY’SY’SY’S TOTOTOTOTOTTTTTALALALALAL FOO FOO FOO FOO FOOTPRINT 1961-2000TPRINT 1961-2000TPRINT 1961-2000TPRINT 1961-2000TPRINT 1961-2000

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

1961

1963

1965

1967

1969

1971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

Mill

ions

of A

cre

Footprint Biocapacity

The Ecological Footprint is a toolfor measuring and analyzinghuman natural resourceconsumption and waste outputwithin the context of nature’srenewable and regenerativecapacity (or biocapacity).

From the Footprint perspective,sustainability requires livingwithin the regenerative andabsorptive capacity of theplanet.

8

humanity’s impacts on the environment.Toxic pollutants and species extinction, forexample, are not incorporated into the Foot-print model. Moreover, the “value” of natureextends far beyond the goods and servicesthat humans take from it. Footprinting does,however, offer one of the most comprehen-sive assessment techniques that can help in-form, educate, and point the way toward amore sustainable path.

TTTTTHEHEHEHEHE RE RE RE RE RESULSULSULSULSULTTTTTSSSSS OF OF OF OF OF THETHETHETHETHEFOOFOOFOOFOOFOOTPRINT OFTPRINT OFTPRINT OFTPRINT OFTPRINT OF NA NA NA NA NATIONSTIONSTIONSTIONSTIONS:::::SEARCHING FOR BIGFOOSEARCHING FOR BIGFOOSEARCHING FOR BIGFOOSEARCHING FOR BIGFOOSEARCHING FOR BIGFOOTTTTT

As Illustration 1 indicates, between 1960and 2000 the combined Ecological Footprintof Nations steadily increased to what appearsto be an unsustainable level in the 1970s.Much of this growth has been due to theincrease in human population and the con-comitant demands on natural resources. Ona per capita basis, however, the average Foot-print in the world has declined, as many ar-eas of production have become more effi-cient. From 1980 to 2000, the global percapita Footprint declined by about one halfhectare per person (Illustration 2).

Are unsustainable and growing globalFootprints a function of increasing consump-tion, population, or some other variables?The above findings indirectly point to a pre-existing controversy in the sustainability field.

ILLILLILLILLILLUSUSUSUSUSTRATRATRATRATRATION 2:TION 2:TION 2:TION 2:TION 2:GLGLGLGLGLOBOBOBOBOBALALALALAL PER CAPIT PER CAPIT PER CAPIT PER CAPIT PER CAPITA FOOA FOOA FOOA FOOA FOOTPRINT 1980-2000TPRINT 1980-2000TPRINT 1980-2000TPRINT 1980-2000TPRINT 1980-2000

To help tease out what is going on, in thefollowing pages we will examine separatelywhat are often considered two of the primaryfactors driving unsustainability: consumptionand population. We will also examine therole of economic income and regional varia-tions in the make-up and size of a Footprint.

FOOFOOFOOFOOFOOTPRINTTPRINTTPRINTTPRINTTPRINTSSSSS IN RE IN RE IN RE IN RE IN REGIONSGIONSGIONSGIONSGIONSAROUND AROUND AROUND AROUND AROUND THETHETHETHETHE GL GL GL GL GLOBEOBEOBEOBEOBE

The link between unsustainable con-sumption and higher income levels is evidentupon examination of Footprints in each re-gion of the globe. As depicted in Illustration3 (on page 9), Western Europe and particu-larly North America, have the highest percapita Footprints of any region on Earth. At9.57 hectares (23.6 acres) per person, theUnited States has the largest per capita Eco-logical Footprint on the planet.

In Western Europe, the overall changeamong countries between 1999 and 2000 waslarger than the U.S., with some countrieswitnessing increases in their Ecological Foot-print as others declined. Norway and Italy,the European countries with the largest andsmallest per capita Ecological Footprints,respectively, both had larger Footprints in2000.

In contrast, the Netherlands’ per capitaEcological Footprint, already smaller than theWestern European average, decreased by2.5% in 2000. In part, this may be due tothe Netherlands’ efforts to secure commit-ments to social and environmental responsi-bility from the financial sector measures tocontrol consumption, and a commitment toprotect open spaces and biological diversity.Table 1 (on page 9) shows the regional dif-ferences in Western Europe.

Despite the high per capita EcologicalFootprints of the United States and West-ern Europe, Illustration 4 shows that, dueto the population differences between re-gions, aggregated regional Footprints are quitedifferent.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Ecological Footprint

Footprinting offers one of themost comprehensive assessmenttechniques that can help inform,educate, and point the waytoward a more sustainable path.

9

In this respect, the Asia-Pacific region,home to 3.5 billion or nearly 60% of theglobal population, can be viewed as the placewith the largest Footprint. Africa, on theother hand, has a population that is nearly480 million larger than the U.S, and yet thecontinent’s total Footprint is 1.6 billion hect-ares smaller.

One implication of this analysis is thatconsumption (or the impacts associated withconsumption and waste output) in higher-income/consumption countries will have tobe reduced in order to move toward a sus-tainable global Footprint. However, while theresponsibility may fall most heavily onwealthier nations, the burden does not restwith these countries alone.

Even if North America and WesternEurope succeed in reducing the size of theirFootprints, the possibility of more populousregions increasing their per capita Footprintand/or population could swamp any gains.Population stabilization and the develop-ment of lower-impact technologies can there-fore contribute to a smaller global Footprint.

TABLE 1:TABLE 1:TABLE 1:TABLE 1:TABLE 1:CHANGECHANGECHANGECHANGECHANGESSSSS IN IN IN IN IN WEWEWEWEWESSSSSTERN EUROPEAN FOOTERN EUROPEAN FOOTERN EUROPEAN FOOTERN EUROPEAN FOOTERN EUROPEAN FOOTPRINTTPRINTTPRINTTPRINTTPRINTSSSSS

Ranked for highest decline to largest increase in Footprint (gha/capita)

1999 2000 Real PercentageFootprint Footprint Change Change

Denmark 5.71 5.32 -0.39 -6.82%Netherlands 3.91 3.81 -0.10 -2.45%Austria 4.97 4.87 -0.09 -1.91%United Kingdom 4.80 4.72 -0.08 -1.60%Finland 7.06 7.00 -0.06 -0.82%Germany 4.28 4.26 -0.02 -0.55%Greece 4.78 4.78 0.00 0.02%Norway 8.16 8.17 0.01 0.11%Italy 3.24 3.26 0.02 0.65%France 5.68 5.74 0.05 0.93%Western Europe 5.29 5.34 0.05 1.01%Ireland 4.90 4.97 0.07 1.44%Switzerland 5.11 5.26 0.14 2.80%Spain 4.75 4.90 0.15 3.19%Portugal 5.18 5.34 0.16 3.04%Belgium & Luxembourg 4.80 5.11 0.31 6.39%Sweden 7.27 7.95 0.68 9.37%

ILLILLILLILLILLUSUSUSUSUSTRATRATRATRATRATION 3:TION 3:TION 3:TION 3:TION 3:PER CAPITPER CAPITPER CAPITPER CAPITPER CAPITA FOOA FOOA FOOA FOOA FOOTPRINTTPRINTTPRINTTPRINTTPRINTSSSSS B B B B BYYYYY RE RE RE RE REGION 1999-2000GION 1999-2000GION 1999-2000GION 1999-2000GION 1999-2000

ILLILLILLILLILLUSUSUSUSUSTRATRATRATRATRATION 4:TION 4:TION 4:TION 4:TION 4:TTTTTOOOOOTTTTTALALALALAL FOO FOO FOO FOO FOOTPRINT BTPRINT BTPRINT BTPRINT BTPRINT BYYYYY RE RE RE RE REGION 1999-2000GION 1999-2000GION 1999-2000GION 1999-2000GION 1999-2000

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00

10.00

Africa Latin America & Caribbean

Asia-Pacific Middle East and Central

Asia Central &

Eastern Europe

Western Europe

North America

United States of America

10

FOOFOOFOOFOOFOOTPRINT MIX:TPRINT MIX:TPRINT MIX:TPRINT MIX:TPRINT MIX:VARIAVARIAVARIAVARIAVARIATIONSTIONSTIONSTIONSTIONS B B B B BYYYYY INC INC INC INC INCOMEOMEOMEOMEOME GROUP GROUP GROUP GROUP GROUP

This section provides information on thesources of Footprint factors in higher,middle, and lower income countries.

The factors contributing to a country’sor region’s Ecological Footprint vary in anumber of ways. The biggest portion of theglobal Ecological Footprint is from the burn-ing of fossil fuels. Fossil fuel consumption isfollowed by the utilization of cropland andpasture land (Illustration 5). The very highlevels of coal, oil, and natural gas consump-tion in the wealthier regions of the worldheavily influence this global pattern. In con-

trast, nearly half of the Footprint in lowerincome countries is attributable to the utili-zation of cropland (Illustration 6).

Is there a correlation between Ecologi-cal Footprints and economic income/con-sumption? In looking at countries in 2000,the answer seems to be yes.1 This is not sur-prising given that GDP and energy use tendto be highly correlated, and globally Foot-prints are dominated by the consumption offossil fuel.

Table 2 (on page 12) shows the Foot-prints of nations as they relate to the globalaverage per capita Footprint. At presentpopulation levels, the global Ecological Foot-print is estimated to be above the amount ofrenewable biocapacity on the planet.

In policy terms, this analysis suggests twodirections. First, international cooperationin many areas is clearly important in address-ing the distribution inequalities in globalFootprints. Second, local efforts are neces-sary to reduce resource use on a smaller geo-graphic scale.

It is informative to examine places wherepolicy and social changes have been under-taken at this scale. In the next section of thisreport we turn to the City of Santa Monicato see how a progressive municipality’s ef-forts have affected their Ecological Footprint.

ILLILLILLILLILLUSUSUSUSUSTRATRATRATRATRATION 5:TION 5:TION 5:TION 5:TION 5:GLGLGLGLGLOBOBOBOBOBALALALALAL FOO FOO FOO FOO FOOTPRINT TPRINT TPRINT TPRINT TPRINT SOURCSOURCSOURCSOURCSOURCEEEEESSSSS

1 A strong correlation was found between per capita Gross Domestic Product and per capita EcologicalFootprints for 134 countries in 2000. A bivariate regression on per capita Footprints and GDP resulted in a0.14 adjusted R-square at a 0.01 significance level. Both findings suggest a positive relationship betweeneconomic activity measured by GDP and Footprints.

The biggest portion of the globalEcological Footprint is from theburning of fossil fuels.

11

ILLILLILLILLILLUSUSUSUSUSTRATRATRATRATRATION 6:TION 6:TION 6:TION 6:TION 6:LOLOLOLOLOWER INCWER INCWER INCWER INCWER INCOMEOMEOMEOMEOME COUNTRIE COUNTRIE COUNTRIE COUNTRIE COUNTRIESSSSS SOURCSOURCSOURCSOURCSOURCEEEEESSSSS OF OF OF OF OF FOO FOO FOO FOO FOOTPRINTTPRINTTPRINTTPRINTTPRINT

ILLILLILLILLILLUSUSUSUSUSTRATRATRATRATRATION 7:TION 7:TION 7:TION 7:TION 7:MIDDLEMIDDLEMIDDLEMIDDLEMIDDLE INC INC INC INC INCOMEOMEOMEOMEOME COUNTRIE COUNTRIE COUNTRIE COUNTRIE COUNTRIESSSSS SOURCSOURCSOURCSOURCSOURCEEEEESSSSS OF OF OF OF OF FOO FOO FOO FOO FOOTPRINTTPRINTTPRINTTPRINTTPRINT

ILLILLILLILLILLUSUSUSUSUSTRATRATRATRATRATION 8:TION 8:TION 8:TION 8:TION 8:HIGHER INCHIGHER INCHIGHER INCHIGHER INCHIGHER INCOMEOMEOMEOMEOME COUNTRIE COUNTRIE COUNTRIE COUNTRIE COUNTRIES: S: S: S: S: SOURCSOURCSOURCSOURCSOURCEEEEESSSSS OF OF OF OF OF FOO FOO FOO FOO FOOTPRINTTPRINTTPRINTTPRINTTPRINT

In policy terms, this analysis seems to suggesttwo directions. First, international cooperationin many areas is clearly important inaddressing the distribution inequalities inglobal Footprints. Second, local efforts arenecessary to reduce resource use on a smallergeographic scale.

12

Footprint (globalCountry hectares per capita)

United States of America 9.57United Arab Emirates 8.97Canada 8.56Norway 8.17New Zealand 8.13Kuwait 8.01Sweden 7.95Australia 7.09Finland 7.00France 5.74Mongolia 5.68Estonia 5.37Portugal 5.34Denmark 5.32Switzerland 5.26Belgium & Luxembourg 5.11Ireland 4.97Spain 4.90Austria 4.87Greece 4.78United Kingdom 4.72Latvia 4.40Russia 4.28Germany 4.26Czech Republic 4.24Korea DPRP 4.07Saudi Arabia 4.05Israel 3.97Japan 3.91Lithuania 3.87Netherlands 3.81Kazakhstan 3.75Ukraine 3.53Slovenia 3.52South Africa 3.52Poland 3.40Uruguay 3.32Slovakia 3.27Italy 3.26Hungary 3.26Mauritius 3.25Libya 3.21Argentina 3.18Belarus 3.17Chile 3.04Malaysia 2.99

TABLE 2:TABLE 2:TABLE 2:TABLE 2:TABLE 2:EEEEECCCCCOLOLOLOLOLOGICALOGICALOGICALOGICALOGICAL FOO FOO FOO FOO FOOTPRINT OFTPRINT OFTPRINT OFTPRINT OFTPRINT OF NA NA NA NA NATIONSTIONSTIONSTIONSTIONS

Footprint (globalCountry hectares per capita)

Croatia 2.76Botswana 2.70Macedonia 2.69Bulgaria 2.65Turkmenistan 2.60Mexico 2.59Namibia 2.52Romania 2.46Korea Republic 2.43Venezuela 2.42Brazil 2.39Lebanon 2.37Mauritania 2.36Paraguay 2.29Turkey 2.20World 2.18Jamaica 2.15Costa Rica 1.91Azerbaijan 1.91Panama 1.89Gabon 1.87Iran 1.85Ecuador 1.77Syria 1.74Trinidad and Tobago 1.73El Salvador 1.72Dominican Republic 1.69Algeria 1.67Bolivia 1.67Cote D’Ivoire 1.60Nicaragua 1.57Honduras 1.54Cuba 1.53Tunisia 1.51Colombia 1.51Bosnia Herzegovina 1.49Central African Republic 1.48Thailand 1.41Jordan 1.39China 1.36Chad 1.31Guatemala 1.30Uganda 1.29Peru 1.26Albania 1.25Papua New Guinea 1.25

Footprint (globalCountry hectares per capita)

Cameroon 1.24Senegal 1.23Ghana 1.23Guinea 1.22Sudan 1.20Burkina Faso 1.19Egypt 1.16Mali 1.16Moldova Republic 1.13Philippines 1.11Nigeria 1.10Kyrgyzstan 1.10Laos 1.09Kenya 1.08Zimbabwe 1.05Guinea-Bissau 1.05Cambodia 1.03Zambia 1.02Gambia 1.01Indonesia 0.98Madagascar 0.97Benin 0.92Morocco 0.92Tanzania 0.89Sri Lanka 0.88Sierra Leone 0.88Georgia 0.85Liberia 0.85Eritrea 0.81Congo 0.80Rwanda 0.78Vietnam 0.76Myanmar 0.76India 0.76Angola 0.76Armenia 0.75Pakistan 0.67Ethiopia 0.67Tajikistan 0.65Malawi 0.64Burundi 0.63Congo Dem Rep 0.62Haiti 0.62Nepal 0.57Mozambique 0.56Bangladesh 0.50

13

SANTSANTSANTSANTSANTA MONICA’SA MONICA’SA MONICA’SA MONICA’SA MONICA’SECECECECECOLOLOLOLOLOGICALOGICALOGICALOGICALOGICAL FOO FOO FOO FOO FOOTPRINT 1990-2000TPRINT 1990-2000TPRINT 1990-2000TPRINT 1990-2000TPRINT 1990-2000

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS IN SANTA MONICA

This section of the report examines theCity of Santa Monica’s Ecological Footprintin 1990 and 2000. The major results of SantaMonica’s Footprint assessment reveal thatthe city’s Footprint declined between 1990and 2000.

However, the study also indicates thatin the larger context of global ecologicalsustainability and equity, the city’s Footprintstill cannot be considered ecologically sus-tainable. Furthermore, increases in electric-ity and gasoline use and built space have off-set many of the gains made in the 1990s.

Reductions in the use of natural gas anddiesel, increased recycling rates, and theCity’s procurement of geothermal energyexplain much of the Footprint reduction overthe decade. Santa Monica’s dedication tosustainability has helped reduce its Ecologi-cal Footprint, though there remains roomfor further progress as the pursuit ofsustainability continues.

WHAT GOES INTO A MUNICIPALITY’SECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT?

The Ecological Footprint measureshumanity’s use of nature. A city’s Footprintis the biologically productive area requiredto produce the resources (food, energy, andmaterials) and to absorb the waste put outby the city’s residents over the course of ayear. Since people use resources from all overthe world, the Footprint methodology addsup the cropland, forests, and other naturalresources that are required to produce theproducts consumed by a given population —wherever they may be located on the planet.Footprints can be used to evaluate a city,country, or the entire human population interms of ecological sustainability. They canalso be used to help explore where the great-est potential for progress towardsustainability can be achieved.

When considering a municipality’s Foot-print it is worthwhile to examine it withinthe context of global sustainability. Is thecity’s Footprint above or below the world

average? If everyone on the planet had simi-lar Footprints to the average city resident,would this be sustainable? Is the city’s Foot-print getting bigger or smaller? Ifsustainability is the city’s goal, where can thegreatest progress be made in reducing humanpressure on the planet and future genera-tions? The Footprint helps to answer theseimportant questions.

METHODOLOGY

Redefining Progress has calculated Eco-logical Footprints for over 130 countries (seepage 12), numerous regions (most recentlyin the San Francisco Bay Area), and an in-creasing number of municipalities and busi-nesses around the world. The Footprint cal-culations for Santa Monica were estimatedusing local data where available and reliable.In the case of limited or missing local data,county, state, or national data was scaled tothe local level. In the case of Santa Monica,local data included:

• Acreage and land use types• Electricity use by source• Natural gas use• Gasoline and Diesel fuel use• Transportation and vehicles

statistics• Road miles• Housing characteristics• Waste and recycling mix

and tonnage

Footprinting facilitates the conversionof various factors into ecologically produc-tive land area equivalents. For example, theproduction of 100 pounds of beans mightrequire one half acre of arable (farm) land.However, on top of the production acreage,the energy, transportation, packaging, andbuilt space requirements involved in bring-ing the beans to market are incorporated inthe Footprint in a common unit.

The largest component of a Footprinttends to be associated with energy use. Thecarbon dioxide emitted from fossil fuel usetypically accounts for the largest part of theenergy component of the Footprint. Globalaverage (per acre) forest sequestration ratesare used as the baseline for estimating the‘carbonprint.’ For example, if one metric tonof CO

2 requires about 2.5 acres (1 hectare)

Santa Monica’s dedication tosustainability has helped reduceits Ecological Footprint, thoughthere remains room for furtherprogress as the pursuit ofsustainability continues.

The carbon dioxide emitted fromfossil fuel use typically makes upthe largest part of the energycomponent of the Footprint.

14

of forest land to absorb, fossil fuel use thatresulted in a tonne of CO

2 would add 2.5

acres to a Footprint.

Emission factors for natural gas, gaso-line, and diesel are standardized in the sci-entific literature. The combination of energysources that go into the production of elec-tricity varies by region. To some extent, thisreduces a city’s ability to change its Footprintwithout reducing energy use. In the case ofSanta Monica, the Lawrence Berkeley Na-tional Laboratory estimates that for each kilo-watt hour used in Southern California, 2.2pounds of carbon are emitted (Price et al.,2002), which is nearly double San FranciscoBay Area average. The City of Santa Monicaalso purchases geothermal energy, and thecalculations account for this.

Other factors in the Footprint include:built space, housing, food (including seafood)products and services, and waste/recycling.Built space is treated as formerly productivearable land. Sea space (fisheries) impacts areestimated based on the most productive ar-eas of the ocean (near the shore) and notthe entire ocean. Wood and materials inhousing are amortized over 40 years andbased upon the materials and energy that gointo the construction of the average homein the US, adjusted for Santa Monica’s aver-

ALMADALMADALMADALMADALMADAAAAA, POR, POR, POR, POR, PORTUGALTUGALTUGALTUGALTUGAL

The municipality of Almada, located near Lisbon chose to use the Ecologi-cal Footprint as a municipal theme for measuring their progress towardgreater sustainability.

The measure has been featured in their city magazine, with a headline chal-lenging readers to calculate their own Ecological Footprints. The municipal-ity worked with Redefining Progress to develop a customized front end forthe individual Footprint calculator, translated into Portuguese (view the web-page at: http://www.m-almada.pt/pegada/).

Redefining Progress and the municipality also worked together to add graph-ics to a free-standing version of the Footprint calculator, making the quizmore suitable for children. This cd-based version was distributed to schoolsthroughout the city, so schoolchildren can calculate their own EcologicalFootprints in the classroom.

The effort to help citizens become aware of their own impact on the planetis part of a broader campaign at the municipal level to improve localsustainability.

age square footage per housing unit and ageof housing stock. Recycling is treated as apositive because it reduces energy and land-fill space demand.

The food, products, and services Foot-print factors are based on national data fromRedefining Progress’s national EcologicalFootprint calculations. These estimates usegovernment data on national production andtrade of all major resources and goods. Forthis study, they were scaled to the local levelusing population figures and adjusted for netimports-exports using Los Angeles countyeconomic data. More information about theFootprinting methodology can be found atRedefining Progress’s website,www.redefiningprogress.org.

RESULTS

The full results of the study of SantaMonica’s Ecological Footprint for 1990 and2000 will be released later in the spring of2004. They will be posted on RedefiningProgress’s regional and local sustainabilityweb page: www.RegionalProgress.Org. Fol-lowing is a preview of the findings related toenergy.

Since 1990 there has been an overallreduction in the energy component of theSanta Monica’s total Footprint. In part, thisreduction is explained by the City’s procure-ment of renewable (geothermal) energy in1999, and a decrease in overall natural gasand diesel fuel use. Additional reductions inoverall energy use and an increase in the mixof renewable (solar, wind, and geothermal)energy would further generate significantreductions in Santa Monica’s Footprint.

Most of the environmental impacts as-sociated with transportation also show upin the energy category. For example, carbonemissions associated with gasoline, diesel,and increasingly natural gas-powered vehiclesare incorporated in energy use. Reduceddependence on fossil fuel-powered vehicleswould curtail this component of the city’sFootprint. The City of Santa Monica is mov-ing ahead of the curve on this front with solarpowered electric vehicle charging stations,aggressive public transportation promotions,and a city employee trip reduction program.

15

Additional benefits to the economy may re-sult from a reduction in fossil fuel use.Whereas the purchase of imported oil ulti-mately results in the export of local economiccapital abroad, increased reliance on domes-tic renewable resources would help to retainthose resources.

Increased recycling rates during the1990s helped the city reduce its Footprint.According to the Natural Resources DefenseCouncil (1997), for every ton of glass, paper,plastic, and metal diverted from landfills andrecycled the city reduces its potential energyuse by about 50%. Santa Monica residentscurrently recycle at a rate of 54%; reducingthe size of the total waste stream would helpreduce Santa Monica’s Footprint. Municipalgovernments can make important contribu-tions to increasing recycling rates throughinnovative disposal programs.

SUSTAINABILITY IN THE CITY

The City of Santa Monica has earnedits reputation as a leader in the sustainablecommunities movement (ICLEI, 1997;Venetoulis 2001). For decades, the city’s pro-gressive population has elected representa-tives to the local and state government whoare willing to be leaders on environmental,social, and economic issues — the three pil-lars of sustainability. The commitment tosustainability combined with the political willand leadership helped lay the groundworkfor the City of Santa Monica’s SustainableCity Program’s official adoption in 1994. Itis worth noting that many communities pur-suing sustainability often lack the politicalwherewithal to move the agenda forward;clearly this has not been the case in SantaMonica.

From the outset, the Sustainable City’sguiding principle has been to meet currentgenerations’ needs without compromisingthe ability of future generations to meet theirown needs. “The long-term impacts of policychoices will be considered to ensure a sus-tainable legacy” (City of Santa Monica,1994). Santa Monica’s theme draws from thehistoric 1987 international agreement onsustainable development (World Commis-sion on Sustainable Development, 1987)—atheme echoed by a majority of local and re-

gional sustainability programs throughoutthe world.

Santa Monica has bolstered this rheto-ric with the establishment of a sustainabilityprogram, indicators to track progress towardspecific targets, and substantive actions. Asa result, the City has adopted practices andpolicies that have decreased fossil fuel use,water use and pollution, increased greenspace, and engaged community members.Despite the high level of dedication, not allthe trends over the last decade are entirelyfavorable. In particular, the City of SantaMonica’s 2002 Status reports indicates thata booming local economy in the late 1990scontributed to increase waste generation andenergy use in the residential and commer-cial sectors.

The Ecological Footprint provides a cap-tivating and compelling way to analyze nu-merous environmental impacts within thecontext of ecological sustainability. To besure, it does not address all the concerns ofthe City’s sustainability program. For ex-ample, household hazardous waste is notcovered in the Footprint methodology. Still,by examining significant energy, land use,transportation, material consumption, andwaste/recycling factors in Santa Monica, theEcological Footprint analysis conducted forthis report revealed that the City has under-taken many positive actions.

The results of this study indicate thatSanta Monica’s dedication to sustainabilityhas helped significantly reduce its Ecologi-cal Footprint and helped point the way to-ward future progress. Redefining Progressand the City of Santa Monica have commit-ted to continue to track Santa Monica’s Eco-logical Footprint over the next several years.

ECECECECECOLOLOLOLOLOGICALOGICALOGICALOGICALOGICAL FOO FOO FOO FOO FOOTPRINT FORTPRINT FORTPRINT FORTPRINT FORTPRINT FORTHETHETHETHETHE SAN FRANCISCSAN FRANCISCSAN FRANCISCSAN FRANCISCSAN FRANCISCO BAO BAO BAO BAO BAYYYYY RE RE RE RE REGIONGIONGIONGIONGION

PRODUCING AN ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINTFOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA

The Bay Area Alliance for SustainableCommunities (Alliance) is a multi-stake-holder coalition established in 1997 to de-velop and implement an action plan that willlead to a more sustainable region. The Alli-

Santa Monica has bolstered thisrhetoric with the establishmentof a sustainability program,indicators to track progresstoward specific targets, andsubstantive actions. As a result,the City has adopted practicesand policies that have decreasedfossil fuel use, water use andpollution, increased green space,and engaged communitymembers.

The Ecological Footprint providesa captivating and compellingway to analyze numerousenvironmental impacts withinthe context of ecologicalsustainability.

16

ance works to ensure that representatives ofthe ‘three Es’ (Economy, Equity, and Envi-ronment)—and Government—come togetherat all levels to address major regional chal-lenges.

The Alliance released its first indicatorsreport in January of 2003, “Bay Area Indica-tors: Measuring Progress Toward Sustainabil-ity.” The report, summarizing sustainabilityindicators data for the Bay Area, is intendedto support the group’s Compact for a Sus-tainable Bay Area, which seeks to reach re-gional consensus among a critical mass ofstakeholder organizations and civic leaderson a shared vision rooted in common valuesabout how the region can grow in a moresustainable manner. The initial draft of theindicators report did not include the region’sEcological Footprint, but did leave room forit to be included in a future version.

Redefining Progress became more in-volved with the Alliance during the latter halfof 2003 and has calculated Ecological Foot-print results for the nine counties in the BayArea and the region as a whole. Working withthe Alliance’s steering committee to help themembers understand the methodology andmessage of the Ecological Footprint, Rede-fining Progress and the Alliance are preparedto jointly release the results at the end ofMarch 2004. The full report, including re-sults for each county and the region, will befound at: www.RegionalProgress.Org.

PREVIEW OF SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREAECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT RESULTS

The Bay Area’s residents on average havea per capita Footprint that is smaller thanthe United States average, but is still wellbeyond the Fair Earthshare and can be con-sidered unsustainable. The analyses suggestthat there are some significant differencesbetween the counties that make up the re-gion. For example, San Francisco County’soverall Ecological Footprint index is thesmallest in the region. This difference ap-pears to largely be due to the strong publictransportation infrastructure and balance ofjobs to housing in the county.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The Ecological Footprint results for theBay Area suggest policy changes that will behighlighted in the forthcoming report to beposted at www.RegionalProgress.Org. Suchchanges, particularly on the part of local gov-ernment agencies, can result in improvedquality of life while helping to reduce theregion’s Ecological Footprint. The single larg-est component of any Ecological Footprinton the basis of land area is Energy Land.Therefore, policies that reduce local relianceon non-renewable energy sources are themost effective way to reduce the overall sizeof a community’s Footprint. Local govern-ments can, for example:

• Require developers to build greenbuildings out of recycled content ma-terials that are more reliant on renew-able energy such as wind and solar.Such buildings are more pleasant andproductive places to live, work, andplay.

• Encourage compact building to reducereliance on single-passenger vehiclesand make public transit more viable.Compact communities encourage in-teraction among residents and makeit possible to provide local serviceswith fewer ecological impacts.

Forest Land is another major compo-nent of the Ecological Footprint over whichlocal governments have some control. Localgovernments can, for example:

• Require housing developers to usesustainably harvested wood productsand recycled content building materi-als where possible. Encourage the re-use of building materials after demo-litions.

• Implement more aggressive paper re-cycling and re-use campaigns.

The Bay Area’s Ecological Footprint re-port will be released on March 30, 2004 atwww.RegionalProgress.Org

The Bay Area’s EcologicalFootprint report will be releasedon March 30, 2004 atwww.RegionalProgress.Org

The Bay Area’s residents onaverage have a per capitaFootprint that is smaller than theUnited States average, but is stillwell beyond the Fair Earthshareand can be consideredunsustainable.

Fair Earthshare: The FairEarthshare represents the totalamount of ecologicallyproductive land area (included inthe Footprint) divided by theworld’s population. So, forexample, if there were 1 millionhectares (247 million acres) ofecologically productive land andsea area on the planet and 1million people, the FairEarthshare would be 1 hectare(2.47 acres) per person.Currently, it is estimated that theFair Earthshare is about 4-5acres (2 hectares) per person.

17

REFERENCED PUBLICATIONS AND WEBSITES

City of Santa Monica, 1992. Santa Monica Sustainable City Program.http://pen.ci.santa-monica.ca.us/environment/policy/adopted2.pdf

City of Santa Monica, 2004. Sustainability Indicators. http://santa-monica.org/environ-ment/policy/indicators.htm (Accessed February 2004).

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2003. Statistical Data Base.FAO, Rome, Italy. http://faostat.fao.org

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2003. Agricultural Data Base.FAO, Rome, Italy. http://faostat.fao.org

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2003. FishStat. FAO, Rome,Italy. http://faostat.fao.org

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2003. Forestry. FAO, Rome,Italy. http://faostat.fao.org

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2003. Statistical Data Base.FAO, Rome, Italy. http://faostat.fao.org

International Commission for Local Environmental Initiatives, 1997. Local Agenda 21 in theUnited States: Municipal Sustainability Efforts Status Report. http://www.iclei.org/us/statrpt/SANTAMON.HTM

Loh, Jonathan (Editor), 2000. Living Planet Report 2000. World Wildlife Fund & Redefin-ing Progress: Switzerland.

Loh, Jonathan (Editor), 2002. Living Planet Report 2002. World Wildlife Fund & Redefin-ing Progress: Switzerland.

Price, L., C. Marnay, J. Sathaye, S. Murtishaw, D. Fisher, A. Phadke, & G. Franco, 2002.The California Climate Action Registry: Development of Methodologies for Calculating GreenhouseGas Emissions from Electricity Generation. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory & Califor-nia Energy Commission. http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/EMS/EMS_pubs.html

Venetoulis, Jason, 2001. “Working Toward Sustainability: Successful Community-BasedEfforts,” Creating Sustainable Community Programs: A Guide for Public Administrators. Daniels(Ed.). Praeger: Connecticut.

World Commission on Sustainable Development, 1987. http://ods-dds.ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N87/184/67/IMG/N8718467.pdf

18

REDEFINING PROGREREDEFINING PROGREREDEFINING PROGREREDEFINING PROGREREDEFINING PROGRESSSSSSSSSS1904 Fr1904 Fr1904 Fr1904 Fr1904 Frankankankankanklin lin lin lin lin StrStrStrStrStreeteeteeteeteet

SSSSSuituituituituite 600e 600e 600e 600e 600OOOOOakakakakakllllland, CA 94612and, CA 94612and, CA 94612and, CA 94612and, CA 94612

TTTTTelelelelelephone:ephone:ephone:ephone:ephone: (510) 444-3041(510) 444-3041(510) 444-3041(510) 444-3041(510) 444-3041FFFFFAX: AX: AX: AX: AX: (510) 444-3191(510) 444-3191(510) 444-3191(510) 444-3191(510) 444-3191

EEEEE-m-m-m-m-maiaiaiaiail: l: l: l: l: infinfinfinfinfo@ro@ro@ro@ro@redefininedefininedefininedefininedefiningprgprgprgprgprogrogrogrogrogreeeeessssss.s.s.s.s.orororororgggggWWWWWeeeeeb sb sb sb sb sititititite: e: e: e: e: wwwwwwwwwwwwwww.R.R.R.R.RedefininedefininedefininedefininedefiningPrgPrgPrgPrgProgrogrogrogrogreeeeessssss.s.s.s.s.orororororggggg

Redefining Progress (RP) is a non-profit organization that works with a broad array of partners to shift theeconomy and public policy toward sustainability. RP measures the real state of our economy, of our environment,and of social justice with tools like the Genuine Progress Indicator and the Ecological Footprint. We design policies—like environmental tax reform—to shift behavior in these three domains towards sustainability. We promote and createnew frameworks—like common assets—to replace the ones that are taking us away from long-term social, economic,and environmental justice.