27 March 2014|Ankara Turkey Ecological Footprint and...

Turkey Ecological Footprint and biocapacity trends

27th March 2014|Ankara

Nicole Grunewald, Michel Gressot and Alessandro Galli

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

Revised agenda

Start Time

Duration Activity

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

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

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

Production

Consumption

Imports

Net Trade

Exports

-

50,000,000

100,000,000

150,000,000

200,000,000

250,000,000

Glo

bal

He

ctar

es

Ecological Footprint Throughput

21%

TURKEY ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT VS. BIOCAPACITY: AN OVERVIEW

Biocapacity Debtors Biocapacity Creditors

150% 0-50%

100-150% 50-100%

50-100% 100%-150%

0-50% 150%

74% Other

7% Russia 8% USA

11% Germany

Total Biocapacity Exports 2010

-

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

47% Other

15% Ukraine

24% China

54% Russia

-

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Total Biocapacity Imports 2010

GH

A in

Mill

ion

s

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

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

-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006

gha

pe

r p

ers

on

EFConsPerCap EFProdPerCap BiocapPerCap

TURKEY ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT VS. BIOCAPACITY OVERV TIME

+71%

+36%

-43%

-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006

gha

pe

r p

ers

on

EFConsPerCap BiocapPerCap

TURKEY ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT VS. BIOCAPACITY OVER TIME

-

20,0

40,0

60,0

80,0

100,0

120,0

140,0

160,0

180,0

200,0

EFProduction EFImport EFExport EFConsumption Biocapacity

GH

A M

illio

ns

Built-up Land

Forest Land

Fishing Grounds

Grazing Land

Cropland

Carbon


2.02 gha per person

1.08 gha per person

0.54 gha per person

2.56 gha per person

1.54 gha per person


- 10,0 20,0 30,0 40,0 50,0 60,0 70,0 80,0

EFImport

EFExport

GHA Millions

Footprint Trade Balance

Carbon

Cropland

Grazing Land

Fishing Grounds

Forest Land

Built-up Land

ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT BY HOUSEHOLD CONSUMPTIONS

-

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1,0

gha

pe

r ca

pit

a Built-up Land

Forest Land

Fishing Grounds

Grazing Land

Cropland

Carbon

MOST ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT DEMANDING ECONOMIC SECTORS

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

GH

A in

Mill

ion

s

Carbon

Built-up Land

Fishing Grounds

Forest Land

Grazing Land

Cropland

BIOMASS-FOOTPRINT OF MOST INTENSIVE ECONOMIC SECTORS

0,00

0,50

1,00

1,50

2,00

2,50

3,00

GH

A p

er 1

000

LCU

Built-up Land

Fishing Grounds

Forest Land

Grazing Land

Cropland

CARBON-FOOTPRINT OF MOST INTENSIVE ECONOMIC SECTORS

8

0,00

0,10

0,20

0,30

0,40

0,50

0,60

0,70

0,80

GH

A p

er 1

000

LC

U

Carbon

Cropland 34%

Grazing Land 4%

Forest Land 12%

Fishing Grounds 2%

Built-up Land 2%

Carbon Footprint 46%

Ecological Footprint of Consumption by Land Use Type

ISSUE-SPECIFIC POINT OF VIEW: A FOCUS ON CARBON FOOTPRINT

NOTE: 4 macro-categories are considered: fossil fuel emissions, other sources, electricity, bunker fuels

Production

Consumption

Imports

Net Trade

Exports

-

20.000.000

40.000.000

60.000.000

80.000.000

100.000.000

120.000.000

Glo

bal

Hec

tare

s

Flow of Embodied CO2 Emissions

21%


150% 0-50%

100-150% 50-100%

50-100% 100%-150%

0-50% 150%


35% Other

4% Ukraine

16% China

45% Russia

-

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Carbon Imports 2010

GH

A in

Mill

ion

s

72% Other

9% UK 9% USA

10% Germany

-

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Carbon Exports 2010


32%

15% 15%

5%

29%

Name EFP EFI EFE EFC

[-] [gha] [gha] [gha] [gha]

Fossil Fuel Emissions 67,492,508 41,983,995 27,010,997 82,465,506

Other Sources - - - -

Traded Electricity - 150,239 230,942 -

Bunker Fuel - 3,242,189 - 3,242,189

TOTAL 67,492,508 45,376,423 27,241,939 85,626,992

4%



Fossil Fuel Emissions 67,492,508 41,983,995 27,010,997 82,465,506

Other Sources - - - -

Traded Electricity - 150,239 230,942 -

Bunker Fuel - 3,242,189 - 3,242,189

TOTAL 67,492,508 45,376,423 27,241,939 85,626,992


ISSUE-SPECIFIC POINT OF VIEW: A FOCUS ON CROPLAND

NOTE: 3 macro-categories are considered: crop products, animal feeds (including aquaculture) and food aids

33%

Production

Consumption

Imports

Net Trade

Exports

-

10.000.000

20.000.000

30.000.000

40.000.000

50.000.000

60.000.000

70.000.000

80.000.000

Glo

bal

Hec

tare

s

Resource Throughput

12%


150% 0-50%

100-150% 50-100%

50-100% 100%-150%

0-50% 150%


61% Other

10% Russia

12% USA

17% Ukraine

-

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Cropland Imports 2010

GH

A in

Mill

ion

s

69% Other

8% Italy 10% Russia

12% Germany

-

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Cropland Exports 2010




Crop Products

56,560,778

16,553,210

9,160,216

63,953,772

Cropland in Livestock

-

478,836

66,784

412,052

Cropland in Fish

-

5,153

9,743

(4,590)

Food Aid

-

-

-

-

TOTAL

56,560,778

17,037,200

9,236,744

64,361,234


0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1

1,2

1,4

1,6

1,8

2

Yie

ld F

acto

r

Cropland Yield Factor

1961

2009

ISSUE-SPECIFIC POINT OF VIEW: A FOCUS ON FOREST LAND

Production

Consumption

Imports Net Trade

Exports

-

5.000.000

10.000.000

15.000.000

20.000.000

25.000.000

30.000.000

Glo

bal

Hec

tare

s

Resource Throughput

43%




Timber Products

10,876,186

11,182,115

1,785,155

20,273,147

Wood Fuel

1,846,166

91,141

5

1,937,302

TOTAL

12,722,352

11,273,256

1,785,159

22,210,449


150% 0-50%

100-150% 50-100%

50-100% 100%-150%

0-50% 150%


62% Other

7% China

12% Ukraine

18% Russia

-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Forest Land Imports 2010

GH

A in

Mill

ion

s

72% Other

7% USA 7% Iran

14% Germany

-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Forest Land Exports 2010

Q&A

Next Steps

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

Policy development: actions and policies drafted and proposed (targets set)

Implementation: political tools used to ensure

policies are implemented

Monitoring: tools used to monitor the effectiveness of policies

POLICY CYCLE

Ecological Footprint

EF

EF

OTHER INDICATORS

OTHER INDICATORS

OTHER INDICATORS

Ecological Footprint

development HDI Su

sta

ina

ble

(fi

ts o

n o

ne

pla

net)

ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT: INTEGRATED POINT OF VIEW

ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT: INTEGRATED POINT OF VIEW

Thank you

For more information please visit:

http://www.footprintnetwork.org/med

[email protected] [email protected]

[email protected]

http://www.footprintnetwork.org/med

mailto:[email protected]



27 March 2014|Ankara Turkey Ecological Footprint and...

Documents

Transcript of 27 March 2014|Ankara Turkey Ecological Footprint and...