Functions (economic, social ecological) Deforestation(history, methods global trends) Development strategy Land Degradation problem(case study of China) Ecological restoration 3. Fishery depletion Hong Kong peoples consumption of coral fish Import of carrying capacity 4. Loss of species Reasons(natural anthropogenic) -Implications (TRF as an example of endemism) 5. Accumulation of greenhouse gases Causes(natural anthropogenic Effects Living Planet Index (LPI) 1. A measure of the natural wealth of the Earths forests, freshwater ecosystems, and oceans coasts 2. The index fell by 33% during the period 1970-1999( Figure 1) 3. The LPI is the average of 3 indices which monitor the changes over time in tions of animal species in fores in Freshwater 4. In all three ecosystem types, the most severe declines were in the southern or tropical regions of the world ch of the loss of biodiversity in northern temperate ecosystems occurred prior to 1970, especially from the early 19theentur wards. hence not recorded in the LPl 1. A conservative estimate of human pressure on ecosystem Footprint (EF) roductive area required to produce the food wood people consume, to give room for infrastructure, and to absorb CO emitted from the burning of fossil fuel, which is the primary cause of climate change 2. It is expressed in"area units "& each unit corresponds to l hectare of biologically productive space with"world average productivity 3. It is the sum of all areas(at home and faraway) from which a person/country/ region depends on the supply of resources and the absorption 4. EF changes in proportion to Average consumption per person e The resouree intensity of the technology used Limitations of Ecological Footprint l Insufficient data on some uses of biosphere 2. Assume that the technologies of resouree exploitation are the same 3. Conservative estimate which distorts the size of some countries'footprints, although this will not affect the global result 4. The EF of the worlds population from 1961-1997 5. The EF of the world by regions in 1996 is shown in below. The size of each box is proportional to the footprint of each region; while the height of each box is proportional to the region's average ef per person and the width is proportional to the on of the regio 6. The ef per person by country in 1996 7. The ecological footprint ecological deficit of continents selected countries in 1996 is shown in the following table. The negative values suggest an ecological deficit for the continent or country concerned. Consequently, they need to import their missing ecological capacity (carrying capacity) or deplete their local natural capital stocks. Continents or countries with footprints smaller than their existing biological capacity are living within their respective ecological means. However, the ng capacity is used for producing export goods rather than keeping it Wealthiest 25% of the world uses 75% of the world,s resources 22 – Functions (economic, social & ecological) – Deforestation (history, methods & global trends) – Development strategy 2.. Soil erosion and contamination – Mechanisms – Land Degradation problem (case study of China) – Ecological restoration 3.. Fishery depletion – Hong Kong people’s consumption of coral fish – Import of carrying capacity 4.. Loss of species – Reasons(natural & anthropogenic) – Implications (TRF as an example of endemism) 5.. Accumulation of greenhouse gases – Causes (natural & anthropogenic) – Effects Living Planet Index (LPI) 1.. A measure of the natural wealth of the Earth’s forests, freshwater ecosystems, and oceans & coasts 2.. The index fell by 33% during the period 1970 - 1999 (Figure 1) 3.. The LPI is the average of 3 indices which monitor the changes over time in:: • Populations of animal species in forest • in Freshwater & • in Marine ecosystems 4.. In all three ecosystem types, the most severe declines were in the southern or tropical regions of the world 5.. Much of the loss of biodiversity in northern temperate ecosystems occurred prior to 1970, especially from the early 19 th century onwards, hence not recorded in the LPI Ecological Footprint (EF) 1.. A conservative estimate of human pressure on ecosystems – the biologically productive area required to produce the food & wood people consume, to give room for infrastructure, and to absorb CO2 emitted from the burning of fossil fuel, which is the primary cause of climate change 2.. It is expressed in “area units” & each unit corresponds to 1 hectare of biologically productive space with “world average productivity” 3.. It is the sum of all areas (at home and faraway) from which a person/country/ region depends on the supply of resources and the absorption of wastes 4.. EF changes in proportion to • Global population size • Average consumption per person & • The resource intensity of the technology used Limitations of Ecological Footprint 1.. Insufficient data on some uses of biosphere 2.. Assume that the technologies of resource exploitation are the same 3.. Conservative estimate which distortsthe size of some countries’ footprints, although this will not affect the global result 4.. The EF of the world’s population from 1961-1997 5.. The EF of the world by regions in 1996 is shown in below.. The size of each box is proportional to the footprint of each region; while the height of each box is proportional to the region’s average EF per person and the width is proportional to the population of the region.. 6.. The EF per person by country in 1996 7.. The ecological footprint & ecological deficit of continents & selected countries in 1996 is shown in the following table.. The negative values suggest an ecological deficit for the continent or country concerned.. Consequently, they need to import their missing ecological capacity (carrying capacity) or deplete their local natural capital stocks.. Continents or countries with footprints smaller than their existing biological capacity are living within their respective ecological means.. However, the remaining capacity is used for producing export goods rather than keeping it as a reserve The Global Trend • Wealthiest 25% of the world uses 75% of the world’s resources