Global Footprinting – Do we know what our Impact REALLY is?

Where does milk come from?

A few years ago, I was working with some children in a school in Hillbrow, Johannesburg and we were discussing environment and conservation and I detected a degree of scepticism from the youngsters. I decided to test this so I asked one 15-year-old, “Where does milk come from?” His reply was quick and clear. “From the café, of course.”

Why should I conserve?

This reply illustrates a common trait that people do not appreciate where the goods and services that they rely upon for survival come from, or the amount of energy, effort and natural resources that are needed to produce them. This means that there is no incentive to conserve those resources and prevent wastage.

“The world has enough for everyone’s need, but not enough for everyone’s greed.” Mahatma Ghandi

Human Consumption versus Ecological Recovery

We rely upon the earth to provide us with the means to live through use of air, water, food and energy. Human beings have grown in numbers to such a degree that the increasing demand to feed, house, clothe and occupy all of those people has put enormous pressure upon the earth’s ecosystems. One man and an organisation, Mathis Wackernagel and Global Footprint Network, set out to quantify the effects of humankind on global ecosystems in an effort to understand how human consumption was affecting those systems.

Ecological Footprint

The impact of human activities measured in terms of the area of biologically productive land and water required to produce the goods consumed and to assimilate the wastes generated.

Mathis Wackernagel and Global Footprint Network developed a system called “ecological footprinting” to measure the impact of the human “footprint” upon the earth. Using available data and eventually influencing the development of additional indicators and data sets, they were able to develop systems to measure, globally and nationally, human ecological footprints. This developed as a kind of ecological accounting, rather like financial accounting. They also looked at the resilience of ecosystems and their ability to “recover” from use of ecosystems resources.  Financial systems talk about financial deficits, ecological systems experience ecological deficits. They very quickly realised that humankind was using global ecological resources faster than the global ecosystems could replace them (“unsustainable consumption”).

“…Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen [pounds] nineteen [shillings] and six [pence], result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery…”

Mr Micawber in Charles Dickens’ “David Copperfield”

Earth Overshoot Day

This was then translated into the concept of “Earth Overshoot Day” or when does the earth start using more resources in the year than global ecosystems could restore or replace. The 2019 Global Overshoot Day, or when we began to start using our “Ecological Overdraft”, was 29^th July.  This translates into the statistic that the earth is using 1.75 earths every year, as per 2019 calculations and measurements. South Africa’s Overshoot Day this year was the 8 July. The table below shows how over successive years since 1971, the date of Global Overshoot Day has moved.

With acknowledgment to Global Footprint Network:

Personal Ecological Footprint

The Global Footprint Network has honed its tools to the point where they can provide a means for people to calculate their own personal ecological footprint and overshoot day at https://www.footprintcalculator.org/.  They have also made freely available, the National Footprint and Biocapacity Accounts 2019 Public Data Package at https://www.footprintnetwork.org/licenses/public-data-package-free/

How much Nature do we have?

In a TED Talk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3M29BY86bP4 ), Mathis Wackernagel said the following, “…while in 1961, the Earth’s biocapacity was higher than the resources demanded by human population, now 85% of the population live in countries that use more resources than their ecosystems can renew. In fact, there is an overarching trend. It’s true, Earth biocapacity has increased by 25% over the last 50 years. But our Ecological Footprint has grown even more (2-and-half-fold). The result is that now we use 60% (using 2016 data, this is now 75%) more resources than our planet can offer us…”

Arend Hoogervorst is an environmental scientist with some 35 years of experience in South Africa in environmental management and sustainable development in local and central government, commerce and industry and private practice.

© Arend Hoogervorst, 2019

“A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step”

Chapter 64 of the Tao Te Ching by Lao Tzu

Load shedding reared its ugly head again in the first quarter of 2019, the Department of Water and Sanitation is deeply concerned about where the water is coming from to supply the country’s growing future needs, and at the end of April, we were hit by rain and floods of a magnitude and ferocity that we haven’t seen since 1987.

As a prelude to our procrastination, we can come up with a myriad of reasons and excuses as to why these things have happened: climate change, the government’s ineptitude, lack of planning, the end of the world. Take your pick. The point however, is not why did they happen but what are we going to do about them?

Reflecting on these events, it becomes clear that we must take a greater responsibility for our lifestyles and our basic requirements. Simplistically, Maslow’s hierarchy demonstrates that once we are past the “food, shelter, survival, procreation” stage, we have spare energy and resources to do things that we want to do. That’s often the start of wastage. Perhaps the time has come to reflect on what we really need and how we can manage our lives in a more sustainable manner.

Let’s take the topics that I have mentioned above. Our solar panels and batteries at home get us around the two hour load shedding windows that occur and don’t occur, depending upon how you view the promises of ESKOM. At least, we are not scrabbling for torches and trying to watch DStv movies on tiny smart phone screens. If the load shedding periods start to extend to 5 hours, we will be in trouble but for the time being, we’ve managed our power consumption, marshalled our reserves and yes, we saved electricity by generating 50% of our monthly consumption using the sun. It is a single step but we are beginning to see the journey ahead of us.

Have you considered how much treated potable water you use and how much you waste? Do you think you could survive on less if you analysed your usage and reduced the wastage?  If you installed rainwater tanks on your gutters, how much of that water could replace the treated potable water that you use? It could save on toilet flushing for a start. Then there’s washing the car and the dog, watering the garden, cleaning the walls, and so on. Have you measured how much water you use or is it too cheap for you to worry about? It will get more expensive, just like electricity. Scarcity increases price.

You may have watched the floods in the lower parts of Durban and thought, “ahhh it won’t happen to me.” So thought I. At the height of the monsoon-like rain storm, my wife and I were out in the pouring rain sweeping water away from our house to prevent it flooding. I thought I knew where water drained around my house but I hadn’t checked where the low and high points were in relation to entry to the house. It was a sobering lesson that no one is completely free from the impacts of Nature. I recall thinking that we couldn’t have got wetter if we had jumped, fully clothed, into a swimming pool.

We live in a high consumption Society which has got used to acquiring and using more “Stuff”. The negative consequences of that “stuff” are direct and indirect. More people are aspiring to more “Stuff” and the origins of the resources that produce the “stuff” are taking strain: can you help reduce carbon dioxide emissions? Can you save water? Can you use less plastic and recycle more? Can you use less electricity by using less appliances or harnessing solar power? Are you willing to take the first steps of your sustainable journey?

Arend Hoogervorst is an environmental scientist with some 35 years of experience in South Africa in environmental management and sustainable development in local and central government, commerce and industry and private practice.

© Arend Hoogervorst, 2019

Ecosystems Services – what are they and why are they so important?

By Arend Hoogervorst

Ecosystem Services?

Ecosystem services are services provided by natural capital (“Nature” or “the environment”- see Explanations below) that support life on earth and are essential to the quality of human life and the functioning of the world’s economies. For example, forests help purify air and water, reduce soil erosion, regulate climate and recycle nutrients.

Ecosystem services are the benefits provided by ecosystems that contribute to making human life both possible and worth living. Examples of ecosystem services include products such as food and water, regulation of floods, soil erosion and disease outbreaks, and non-material benefits such as recreational and spiritual benefits in natural areas. The term ‘services’ is usually used to encompass the tangible and intangible benefits that humans obtain from ecosystems, which are sometimes separated into ‘goods’ and ‘services’.

The use of the term “natural capital” is developed from “capital” used in economics and human financial systems. It is a means of drawing human and environmental systems closer together and to encourage more integration in thinking and practice. Some have said that ecosystem services thinking is a means of placing a monetary value on “the environment”, although the mechanisms are currently imperfect and incomplete.

Explanations

 Ecosystems

In terms of “Nature”, an ecosystem is a biological community of interacting organisms and their physical environment; for example, “the marine ecosystem of the northern Gulf had suffered irreparable damage”. In broader, “non-natural” terms, an ecosystem is a complex network or interconnected system; for example, “Silicon Valley’s entrepreneurial ecosystem”.

Ecosystem services

Ecosystem services are the conditions and processes through which natural ecosystems, and the species that make them up, sustain and fulfill human life. They maintain biodiversity and the production of ecosystem goods.

Natural capital

Natural capital can be defined as the world’s stocks of natural assets or environmental resources which include geology, soil, air, water and all living things. It is from this natural capital that humans derive a wide range of services, often called ecosystem services, which make human life possible.

Built capital

Built Capital is defined as any pre-existing or planned formation that is constructed or retrofitted to suit community needs. (In other words, it is any human-made environment.)

Human capital

Human capital is the stock of knowledge, habits, social and personality attributes, including creativity, embodied in the ability to perform labour so as to produce economic value.

Social capital

Social capital broadly refers to those factors of effectively functioning social groups that include such things as interpersonal relationships, a shared sense of identity, a shared understanding, shared norms, shared values, trust, cooperation, and reciprocity.

Sustainability

Sustainability means that a process or state can be maintained at a certain level for as long as is wanted.

Sustainable development

Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

The concept of ecosystem services considers the usefulness of nature for human society. The economic importance of nature was described and analysed in the 18th century, but the term, ecosystem services, was only introduced in 1981 through the work of ecologists such as Paul Erlich and HE Daly. In the latter part of the 20^th Century, the observation of significant and extended damage to ecosystems caused by human impacts began to highlight the ‘real’ role of ecosystem services, resulting in more study and focus.

Be aware that ecosystems have different functioning levels (See figure 1) and for the sake of clear explanation, this article focuses on high level discussion. The figure demonstrates the different functioning levels that occur in typical ecosystems.

Figure 1: levels of organisation in an ecosystem

Source: eSchooltoday

Ecosystem Capital

Figure 2 (developed by Costanza et. al.) below illustrates the interrelationships between the different types of capital in the environment. Built Capital represents the built environment (human and non-human), Human Capital represents the knowledge, habits, social and personality attributes, including creativity, embodied in the ability to perform labour and Social capital represents the factors of effectively functioning social groups that include such things as interpersonal relationships, a shared sense of identity, a shared understanding, shared norms, shared values, trust, cooperation, and reciprocity, all of which are contained within Natural Capital. The interaction of some or all of these different forms of capital contributes towards the goal of sustainable human well-being and is enhanced by ecosystem services.

Figure 2 – Interrelationships between different types of Natural Capital

Ecosystem Services Classification  

Ecosystem services have been classified in various ways, including:

• ‘Functional groupings’, such as regulation (controls e.g. climate), carrier (e.g. pollination and seed transport), habitat, production (e.g. food), and information services
• ‘Organisational groupings’, such as services associated with certain species that regulate external inputs into a system, and those related to the organisation of biological entities
• ‘Descriptive groupings’, such as renewable resource goods, non-renewable resource goods, physical structure services, biotic services, biogeochemical services, information services, and social and cultural services.

Functional Grouping

The most widely adopted classification is the ‘functional grouping’ where ecosystem services are divided into four categories.  Some overlap occurs between categories but the four main groupings include:

• Provisioning services which are the products that are obtained from ecosystems, such as: genetic resources, food, water, fuel, bio-chemicals, fibre, natural medicines, pharmaceuticals, and building materials.
• Regulating services which are the benefits obtained from the regulation of ecosystem processes. These include: climate regulation, water regulation and purification, air quality maintenance, erosion control, waste treatment, regulation of human diseases, biological control, pollination, and protection from extreme weather and climatic events.
• Cultural services which are nonphysical benefits that humans obtain from ecosystems through spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation, and aesthetic experiences.  These services are connected to human behaviour and values, as well as institutions and patterns of political, social and economic organisation.  Cultural services include: cultural diversity, spiritual and religious values, knowledge systems, educational values, inspiration, aesthetic values, social relations, sense of place, cultural heritage values, and tourism.

Spaceship Earth

It is important to recognise that humans are integral elements of global ecosystems and that dynamic interactions take place between them and other parts of ecosystems. The ever changing human condition drives ecosystem change directly and indirectly, thereby bringing about changes in human well-being. Concurrently, economic, cultural and social factors, independent from ecosystems, influence the human condition, and natural forces shape ecosystems.

Ecosystem services influence human well-being, which is assumed to possess multiple constituents, including: basic materials to support a good quality of life, such as secure and adequate livelihoods, ample food, shelter, clothing, and access to goods; health, including well-being, a healthy physical environment, such as clean air and water; good social relations, which includes social cohesion, mutual respect, the means to assist others and provide for children; security, including secure access to resources, personal safety, and protection against natural and human induced disasters; and freedom of choice and action, which are the opportunities that enable individuals to achieve what they value doing and being.

The earth is not an “infinite resource” and it is important to recognise that polluting or damaging our “Spaceship” or not respecting its needs and limitations could have significant impacts upon its ability to sustain our lives in the future. As the earth’s human population continues to grow exponentially, future problems affecting the survival of human beings can be expected as various ecosystems services begin to break down, fail and become less sustainable.

Ecosystem Disservices

Ecosystem management, in some cases, may lead to possible ecosystem disservices.  Examples of disservices can include: increased prevalence of allergens; promoting invasive species; hosting pathogens or pests; inhibiting human mobility or safety; bringing about cultural and psychological effects that negatively impact human well-being; or increasing the necessity for using natural resources (i.e. water) or chemicals (i.e. pesticides and fertilisers).

Supporting Services

Supporting services are those which are necessary for the production of all other ecosystem services.  They differ from other services as their impacts on humans are indirect, or occur over a long time period.  Some services, such as erosion control, can be categorised as a supporting and regulating service (depending on the time scale and immediacy of their impact on humans).  Examples of supporting services include: production of atmospheric oxygen (through photosynthesis), primary production, soil formation and retention, nutrient cycling, water cycling and provisioning of habitat.

Direct and Indirect Services

Some ecosystem services involve the direct provision of material and non-material goods to people and depend on the presence of particular species of plants and animals, for example, food, timber, and medicines. Other ecosystem services arise directly or indirectly from the functioning of ecosystem processes. For example, the service of formation of soils and soil fertility that sustains crop and livestock production depends on the ecosystem processes of decomposition and nutrient cycling by soil micro-organisms.

Stricter Focus

Some scientists have advocated a stricter definition of ecosystem services as only the components of nature that are directly enjoyed, consumed, or used in order to maintain or enhance human well-being. Such an approach can be useful when it comes to ecosystem service accounting and economic valuation. This is because some ecosystem services (e.g. food provision) can be quantified in units that are easily comprehensible by policy makers and the general public. Other services, for example, those that support and regulate the production levels of crops and other harvested goods, are more difficult to quantify. If a definition based on accounting is applied too strictly there is a risk that ecosystem service assessment could be biased toward services that are easily quantifiable, but with inadequate consideration of the most critical ones for human well-being.

Debate and Publications

The concept of ecosystem services has prompted an increasing number of academic publications, international research projects, and policy studies. It is a subject of intense debate in the global scientific community, from the natural to social science domains. It is also used, developed, and customised in policy debates and considered, if in a still somewhat sceptical and apprehensive way, in the “practice” domain—by nature management agencies, farmers, foresters, and the corporate world. This process of bridging evident gaps between ecology and economics, and between nature conservation and economic development, has also been noted in the political arena, including in the United Nations and the European Union.

Areas of Discussion

The concept appears in four major discussions:

• Academic: the ecological versus the economic dimensions of the goods and services that flow from ecosystems to the human economy; the challenge of integrating concepts and models across this paradigmatic divide;
• Social: the risks versus benefits of bringing the utilitarian argument into political debates about nature conservation (Are ecosystem services good or bad for biodiversity and vice versa?);
• Policy and planning: how to value the benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services (Will this improve decision-making on topics ranging from poverty alleviation via subsidies to farmers to planning of grey with green infrastructure to combining economic growth with nature conservation?); and
• Practice: Can revenue come from smart management and sustainable use of ecosystems? Are there markets to be discovered and can businesses be created? How do taxes figure in an ecosystem-based economy? The outcomes of these discussions will both help to shape policy and planning of economies at global, national, and regional scales and contribute to the long-term survival and well-being of humanity.

Final Thoughts

“Ecosystems services” is a concept which may help to bridge the gap between the traditional economists (“Air soil and water are “free” goods which must be freely accessible to all.”) and multi-disciplinary decision makers (“There’s no such thing as a “free” lunch.”). After 20 years, the concept is still being hotly debated at many levels. It has perhaps resulted in the beginnings of consensus that there is need for a new economic paradigm which puts “Nature” at its core. It certainly is beginning to walk hand-in-hand with the “People, Planet and Prosperity” themes that emerged from the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) held in Johannesburg in 2002 and the subsequent UN Sustainable Development goals. There is no doubt that current economic systems and thinking needs to be changed to cope with the 21^st century issues that need to be faced.

Note

This article is designed to provide basic explanations and stimulate thought rather than going into excessive detail. Other authors have written tomes on ecosystem or nature services and there are many academic articles of different viewpoints on this subject. For the sake of brevity, this author has applied his view on certain elements of the topic for which he takes full responsibility.

References

Braat, L.C., Mar 2016. Framing Concepts in Environmental Science, Policy, Governance, and Law, Management and Planning, Sustainability and Solutions, Online Publication.

Brundtland Commission, 1987. “Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development”. United Nations.

Daly, G.C., 1997. Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press.

Costanza, R., de Groot R., Braat L., Kubiszewski I., Fioramonti L., Sutton P., Farber S., and Grasso M., 2017. Twenty Years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go? Ecosystems Services, 28, 1-16.

De Groot, R.S., Wilson, M.A. & Boumans, R.M.J., 2002. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics, 41, 393–408.

Norberg, J., 1999. Linking Nature’s services to ecosystems: some general ecological concepts. Ecological Economics, 29, 183–202.

Moberg, F and Folke, C., 1999. Ecological goods and services of coral reef ecosystems. Ecological Economics, 29, 215–233.

Tyler Miller, G & Spoolman, S.E., 2018. “Living in the Environment”. 19th Edition, Cengage Learning.