‘measuring stick’ for consumption and, thereby, performs a vital function in the
accounts. This chapter addresses biocapacity as entailing production and, therefore,
as a resource base for humanity. It is what sets it apart from other performance
indicators in that it provides a baseline for comparison (Fang et al. 2015), from
where performance and sustainability can be assessed and monitored.
For there to be resource appropriation, there first needs to be resources. Without
biocapacity for comparison, it is difficult to gauge the status of the Ecological
Footprint. For this reason, it is unrealistic to separate these two sides (EF and BC)
of the accounts. Nevertheless, the ambition of this chapter is to consider biocapacity
on its own in order to gain an understanding of it that is independent of its
counterpart, the Ecological Footprint. Natural resources provide a basis for
biocapacity as part of natural capital. Nature also provides ecosystem services that
are often overlooked, but are a vital part of our natural inheritance and resource base.
This chapter focuses on biocapacity, but with the caveat that the Ecological
Footprint is always hoovering in the background (as the two are inseparable and
will only be isolated here for the purpose of scrutiny). The chapter begins by
examining biocapacity from the perspective of carrying capacity, which is really
addressing the environmental boundaries to consumption at the planetary level. It
then adopts another angle by framing biocapacity through the lens of production –
such as net primary production (NPP) – before considering the two sides of the
Ecological Footprint and biocapacity when deliberating ‘ecological overshoot’ and
our current status of global ecological deficit.
3.1 Biocapacity as ‘Carrying Capacity’
How much natural capital is available at the planetary level or nationally operates as
an upper limit to supply human demand. This defines the notion of ‘carrying
capacity’ that is normally expressed at the global scale. It is what the Earth can
sustain in terms of either human population (life) or the need for natural resources to
supply food, energy, and so on, necessary for human activities.
It is not certain what the Earth’s maximum capacity for the human population is,
although it is expected that the world’s population could reach as many as 12.7
billion people by 2100 (with 95% certainty, United Nations 2019a, p 5 – see Fig. 1).
According to the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs
Population Dynamics (United Nations 2019a), it is projected that by 2030 the
world’s total population could reach 8.6 billion people (projected from data shown
in Fig. 3.1 based on United Nations 2019b). However, the population growth rate
has been diminishing (it is currently 1.1% per year, as in Fig. 3.2 based on United
Nations 2019b), so this could be closer to 8.5 billion.
If we use Earth’s existing biocapacity to indicate our current state of carrying
capacity, it is possible that the Ecological Footprint and biocapacity accounting
methodology can contribute to assessment and planning to prevent exceeding
Earth’s carrying capacity – in other words, living within Earth’s planetary
42
3 Biocapacity Accounting
accounts. This chapter addresses biocapacity as entailing production and, therefore,
as a resource base for humanity. It is what sets it apart from other performance
indicators in that it provides a baseline for comparison (Fang et al. 2015), from
where performance and sustainability can be assessed and monitored.
For there to be resource appropriation, there first needs to be resources. Without
biocapacity for comparison, it is difficult to gauge the status of the Ecological
Footprint. For this reason, it is unrealistic to separate these two sides (EF and BC)
of the accounts. Nevertheless, the ambition of this chapter is to consider biocapacity
on its own in order to gain an understanding of it that is independent of its
counterpart, the Ecological Footprint. Natural resources provide a basis for
biocapacity as part of natural capital. Nature also provides ecosystem services that
are often overlooked, but are a vital part of our natural inheritance and resource base.
This chapter focuses on biocapacity, but with the caveat that the Ecological
Footprint is always hoovering in the background (as the two are inseparable and
will only be isolated here for the purpose of scrutiny). The chapter begins by
examining biocapacity from the perspective of carrying capacity, which is really
addressing the environmental boundaries to consumption at the planetary level. It
then adopts another angle by framing biocapacity through the lens of production –
such as net primary production (NPP) – before considering the two sides of the
Ecological Footprint and biocapacity when deliberating ‘ecological overshoot’ and
our current status of global ecological deficit.
3.1 Biocapacity as ‘Carrying Capacity’
How much natural capital is available at the planetary level or nationally operates as
an upper limit to supply human demand. This defines the notion of ‘carrying
capacity’ that is normally expressed at the global scale. It is what the Earth can
sustain in terms of either human population (life) or the need for natural resources to
supply food, energy, and so on, necessary for human activities.
It is not certain what the Earth’s maximum capacity for the human population is,
although it is expected that the world’s population could reach as many as 12.7
billion people by 2100 (with 95% certainty, United Nations 2019a, p 5 – see Fig. 1).
According to the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs
Population Dynamics (United Nations 2019a), it is projected that by 2030 the
world’s total population could reach 8.6 billion people (projected from data shown
in Fig. 3.1 based on United Nations 2019b). However, the population growth rate
has been diminishing (it is currently 1.1% per year, as in Fig. 3.2 based on United
Nations 2019b), so this could be closer to 8.5 billion.
If we use Earth’s existing biocapacity to indicate our current state of carrying
capacity, it is possible that the Ecological Footprint and biocapacity accounting
methodology can contribute to assessment and planning to prevent exceeding
Earth’s carrying capacity – in other words, living within Earth’s planetary
42
3 Biocapacity Accounting