– AFCS is the average forest carbon sequestration, expressed in t C ha
À1 year
À1 ;
– 0.27 t C (t CO 2 )
À1 represents the share of C within the CO 2 molecule, and is
used to convert tonnes of carbon into tonnes of CO 2 ;
– NFP (Net Forest Production) is the total annual production of biomass in
forests, expressed in tonnes of carbon per year (t C year
À1 ). Depending on the
system boundaries under study, NFP can be defined as Gross Primary Production (GPP), Net Primary Production (NPP), Net Ecosystem Production
(NEP) and Net Biome Production (NBP); and
– AF represents the total forested area on the Earth, expressed in hectares (ha).
1.3.2 Data Sources
The National Footprint Accounts are produced by the Global Footprint Network
each year using the most recent data from the United Nations, as for example
FAOSTAT and COMTRADE databases, reports available from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and data from the International Energy
Agency (IEA). The most recent data for this study were available for 2016, and these
have been used to determine the 2020 Edition of the National Footprint Accounts
deployed in this brief. Importantly, details of the methodology, including software
and protocols, are included in the working guidebook available from the Global
Footprint Network (Lin et al. 2019). Data sources for the National Footprint
Accounts are also conveyed in detail by Lin et al. (2019 – see their Appendix B,
pp 67–71). There are several tables containing this information for the six components, livestock trade calculations, plus biocapacity. Because data sources have a
significant impact on data quality, this will be considered next.
1.4 Quality Analysis
A critical approach adopted in this research forms the foundation of this section.
Here, criticisms are addressed based on literature reviews that identify problems with
the methods and data presented in this brief. These criticisms are rendered and
summarised categorically as major themes. These themes include a focus on aggregation, spatial scale, and data quality. They draw from both issues stemming from
the National Footprint Accounts as well as the Footprint Calculator. Besides
presenting the criticisms, this section also conveys some recommendations for
overcoming the shortcomings of the Ecological Footprint and biocapacity accounting based on a synthesis of the available literature, with added commentary by the
author. One of the critical recommendations is for the incorporation of existing
quality scores to help inform the margin of error in the National Footprint Accounts
that would then affect the Footprint Calculator.
10
1 Introduction
À1 year
À1 ;
– 0.27 t C (t CO 2 )
À1 represents the share of C within the CO 2 molecule, and is
used to convert tonnes of carbon into tonnes of CO 2 ;
– NFP (Net Forest Production) is the total annual production of biomass in
forests, expressed in tonnes of carbon per year (t C year
À1 ). Depending on the
system boundaries under study, NFP can be defined as Gross Primary Production (GPP), Net Primary Production (NPP), Net Ecosystem Production
(NEP) and Net Biome Production (NBP); and
– AF represents the total forested area on the Earth, expressed in hectares (ha).
1.3.2 Data Sources
The National Footprint Accounts are produced by the Global Footprint Network
each year using the most recent data from the United Nations, as for example
FAOSTAT and COMTRADE databases, reports available from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and data from the International Energy
Agency (IEA). The most recent data for this study were available for 2016, and these
have been used to determine the 2020 Edition of the National Footprint Accounts
deployed in this brief. Importantly, details of the methodology, including software
and protocols, are included in the working guidebook available from the Global
Footprint Network (Lin et al. 2019). Data sources for the National Footprint
Accounts are also conveyed in detail by Lin et al. (2019 – see their Appendix B,
pp 67–71). There are several tables containing this information for the six components, livestock trade calculations, plus biocapacity. Because data sources have a
significant impact on data quality, this will be considered next.
1.4 Quality Analysis
A critical approach adopted in this research forms the foundation of this section.
Here, criticisms are addressed based on literature reviews that identify problems with
the methods and data presented in this brief. These criticisms are rendered and
summarised categorically as major themes. These themes include a focus on aggregation, spatial scale, and data quality. They draw from both issues stemming from
the National Footprint Accounts as well as the Footprint Calculator. Besides
presenting the criticisms, this section also conveys some recommendations for
overcoming the shortcomings of the Ecological Footprint and biocapacity accounting based on a synthesis of the available literature, with added commentary by the
author. One of the critical recommendations is for the incorporation of existing
quality scores to help inform the margin of error in the National Footprint Accounts
that would then affect the Footprint Calculator.
10
1 Introduction