Turkey Ecological Footprint and biocapacity trends

Transcription

1 27 th March 2014 Ankara Turkey Ecological Footprint and biocapacity trends Nicole Grunewald, Michel Gressot and Alessandro Galli

2 OBJECTIVES Aims of this section are: Present Ecological Footprint and biocapacity results for Turkey Collect your feedbacks Discuss the potential usefulness of the Ecological Footprint for supporting and informing government activities and strategies in Turkey

3 Revised agenda Start Duration Activity Time 09:30 15 Recap from Day 1 09:45 30 Ecological Footprint of Turkey Part 1 10:15 30 Q&A 10:45 15 Break 11:00 20 Ecological Footprint of Turkey Part 2 11:20 30 Q&A 11:50 40 Wrap-up and Next Steps

4 CONTEXT: EXISTING STRATEGIES IN TURKEY RATIONALE: Review of Ministerial Strategies and Plan Goals, Means and expected Outcome of each Strategy How is the Footprint data useful in those Strategies? Ministerial Strategic Plans Ministry of Energy & Natural Resources Ministry of Food, Agriculture & Livestock Overall Tenth Development Plan Socioeconomic Goals Industrial Development Goals Infrastructure Investments Export Strategy 2023 Competitiveness

5 REVIEW OUTCOMES Strategies Key Common Objectives: Import energy dependence to be reduced Increase volume of exports (e.g., energy gateway) Jobs and know-how should be created Increase value added, quality (and production efficiency) of local products and product diversification Urbanization through industrialization Intensification of agricultural production & security of supply Improve economic and social conditions for the poor

6

7 Global Hectares Ecological Footprint Throughput 250,000, ,000, ,000,000 Imports Net Trade 21% Exports 100,000,000 50,000,000 Production Consumption -

8 GHA in Millions TURKEY ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT VS. BIOCAPACITY: AN OVERVIEW % Russia % China 40 15% Ukraine % Other 20 11% Germany 8% USA 7% Russia % Other - Total Biocapacity Imports Total Biocapacity Exports 2010 Biocapacity Debtors Biocapacity Creditors 150% 0-50% % % % 100%-150% 0-50% 150%

9 Russia, Ukraine and China Ukraine, USA and Russia Russia, China, and Ukraine

10 Germany, Iran and USA Germany, Russia and Italy Germany, USA and UK

11 gha per person TURKEY ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT VS. BIOCAPACITY OVERV TIME 3.0 EFConsPerCap EFProdPerCap BiocapPerCap % +36% -43%

12 gha per person TURKEY ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT VS. BIOCAPACITY OVER TIME EFConsPerCap BiocapPerCap

13 GHA Millions TURKEY ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT VS. BIOCAPACITY: AN OVERVIEW 200,0 180,0 160,0 140,0 120,0 100,0 80,0 60,0 Built-up Land Forest Land Fishing Grounds Grazing Land Cropland Carbon 40,0 20,0 - EFProduction EFImport EFExport EFConsumption Biocapacity 2.02 gha 1.08 gha 0.54 gha 2.56 gha 1.54 gha per person per person per person per person per person

14 TURKEY ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT VS. BIOCAPACITY: AN OVERVIEW Footprint Trade Balance EFExport EFImport Carbon Cropland Grazing Land Fishing Grounds Forest Land Built-up Land - 10,0 20,0 30,0 40,0 50,0 60,0 70,0 80,0 GHA Millions

15 gha per capita ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT BY HOUSEHOLD CONSUMPTIONS 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 Built-up Land Forest Land Fishing Grounds 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 - Grazing Land Cropland Carbon

16 GHA in Millions MOST ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT DEMANDING ECONOMIC SECTORS Carbon Built-up Land Fishing Grounds Forest Land Grazing Land Cropland

17 GHA per 1000 LCU BIOMASS-FOOTPRINT OF MOST INTENSIVE ECONOMIC SECTORS 3,00 2,50 2,00 1,50 1,00 0,50 0,00 Built-up Land Fishing Grounds Forest Land Grazing Land Cropland

18 GHA per 1000 LCU CARBON-FOOTPRINT OF MOST INTENSIVE ECONOMIC SECTORS 0,80 8 0,70 0,60 0,50 0,40 0,30 0,20 Carbon 0,10 0,00

19 Q&A

20 Ecological Footprint of Consumption by Land Use Type Carbon Footprint 46% Cropland 34% Built-up Land 2% Forest Land 12% Fishing Grounds 2% Grazing Land 4%

21 Global Hectares ISSUE-SPECIFIC POINT OF VIEW: A FOCUS ON CARBON FOOTPRINT Flow of Embodied CO2 Emissions Exports Imports Net Trade 21% Production Consumption NOTE: 4 macro-categories are considered: fossil fuel emissions, other sources, electricity, bunker fuels

22 GHA in Millions ISSUE-SPECIFIC POINT OF VIEW: A FOCUS ON CARBON FOOTPRINT % Russia % China % Ukraine % Other % Germany 9% USA 9% UK 72% Other - Carbon Imports Carbon Exports 2010 Biocapacity Debtors Biocapacity Creditors 150% 0-50% % % % 100%-150% 0-50% 150%

23 ISSUE-SPECIFIC POINT OF VIEW: A FOCUS ON CARBON FOOTPRINT Name EF P EF I EF E EF C [-] [gha] [gha] [gha] [gha] Fossil Fuel Emissions 67,492,508 41,983,995 27,010,997 82,465,506 Other Sources Traded Electricity - 150, ,942 - Bunker Fuel - 3,242,189-3,242,189 TOTAL 67,492,508 45,376,423 27,241,939 85,626,992 32% 29% 15% 15% 5% 4%

24 ISSUE-SPECIFIC POINT OF VIEW: A FOCUS ON CARBON FOOTPRINT Name EF P EF I EF E EF C [-] [gha] [gha] [gha] [gha] Fossil Fuel Emissions 67,492,508 41,983,995 27,010,997 82,465,506 Other Sources Traded Electricity - 150, ,942 - Bunker Fuel - 3,242,189-3,242,189 TOTAL 67,492,508 45,376,423 27,241,939 85,626,992

25 ISSUE-SPECIFIC POINT OF VIEW: A FOCUS ON CARBON FOOTPRINT Name EF P EF I EF E EF C [-] [gha] [gha] [gha] [gha] Fossil Fuel Emissions 67,492,508 41,983,995 27,010,997 82,465,506 Other Sources Traded Electricity - 150, ,942 - Bunker Fuel - 3,242,189-3,242,189 TOTAL 67,492,508 45,376,423 27,241,939 85,626,992

26 Global Hectares ISSUE-SPECIFIC POINT OF VIEW: A FOCUS ON CROPLAND Resource Throughput Imports Net Trade 12% 33% Exports Production Consumption NOTE: 3 macro-categories are considered: crop products, animal feeds (including aquaculture) and food aids

27 GHA in Millions ISSUE-SPECIFIC POINT OF VIEW: A FOCUS ON CROPLAND % Ukraine % USA % Russia % Other % Germany 10% Russia 8% Italy % Other - Cropland Imports Cropland Exports 2010 Biocapacity Debtors Biocapacity Creditors 150% 0-50% % % % 100%-150% 0-50% 150%

28 ISSUE-SPECIFIC POINT OF VIEW: A FOCUS ON CROPLAND Name EF P EF I EF E EF C [-] [gha] [gha] [gha] [gha] Crop Products 56,560,778 16,553,210 9,160,216 63,953,772 Cropland in Livestock - 478,836 66, ,052 Cropland in Fish - 5,153 9,743 (4,590) Food Aid TOTAL 56,560,778 17,037,200 9,236,744 64,361,234

29 Yield Factor ISSUE-SPECIFIC POINT OF VIEW: A FOCUS ON CROPLAND 2 1,8 1,6 1,4 1,2 1 Cropland Yield Factor 0,8 0, ,4 0,2 0

30 Global Hectares ISSUE-SPECIFIC POINT OF VIEW: A FOCUS ON FOREST LAND Resource Throughput Exports Imports Net Trade 43% Consumption Production -

31 ISSUE-SPECIFIC POINT OF VIEW: A FOCUS ON FOREST LAND Name EF P EF I EF E EF C [-] [gha] [gha] [gha] [gha] Timber Products 10,876,186 11,182,115 1,785,155 20,273,147 Wood Fuel 1,846,166 91, ,937,302 TOTAL 12,722,352 11,273,256 1,785,159 22,210,449

32 GHA in Millions ISSUE-SPECIFIC POINT OF VIEW: A FOCUS ON FOREST LAND % Russia % Ukraine 7% China % Other % Germany 7% Iran 7% USA % Other - Forest Land Imports Forest Land Exports 2010 Biocapacity Debtors Biocapacity Creditors 150% 0-50% % % % 100%-150% 0-50% 150%

33 Q&A Next Steps

34 POLICY CYCLE Early warning: initial information are given to generate political will and guide policy action Headline and Issue framing: causes of the problems and potential solution identified EF Ecological Footprint OTHER INDICATORS Policy development: actions and policies drafted and proposed (targets set) EF OTHER INDICATORS Implementation: political tools used to ensure policies are implemented OTHER INDICATORS Monitoring: tools used to monitor the effectiveness of policies Ecological Footprint

35 Sustainable (fits on one planet) ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT: INTEGRATED POINT OF VIEW development HDI

36 ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT: INTEGRATED POINT OF VIEW

37 Thank you For more information please visit: