DEVELOPMENT

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure 3.5.2 Estonia’s Ecological Footprint per capita, 1992–2008 (global hectares per capita) Carbon Built-up area Fishing ground Forest Grazing land Cropland 7.5 7.5 7.0 7.0 6.5 6.5 6.0 6.0 5.5 5.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.2 2.5 2.2 1.5 1.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 0 0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Source: Global Footprint Network 2012 The Ecological Footprint combines six indicators related to people’s consumption of renewable natural resources and their regeneration: food and fibres produced from plants (cropland), food and products produced from animals (grazing land), fish (fishing ground), lumber and other forest products (forest), land that accumulates and stores fossil carbon dioxide (carbon sink) and land under buildings and structures (built-up land). The strength of the Ecological Footprint as an indicator is considered to be the fact that it is possible to use it to show whether humanity (or a country, city, household) is within the regeneration limits of the ecosystem. With the help of the Ecological Footprint, the impact of various consumption habits on the Earth’s ecosystem can be clearly explained. The Ecological Footprint methodology is based on the belief that the regeneration capability of the Earth will be the limiting factor for human activity, if humanity’s overconsumption continues. On the other hand, the Ecological Footprint methodology is also limited, because it does not show economic relationships, or the consumption of non-renewable natural resources. However, it is probably not possible to use only one complex indicator to describe all of the environmental impacts, so that various indicators must be analysed (Galli et al. 2012). 3.5.2 Estonia’s position in the rankings of the Ecological Footprint Index The Ecological Footprint of the European countries, including Estonia, is three to five times greater than that of the developing countries. Although the consumption of natural resources in Europe has not grown in the last 20 years, the import of natural resources and products from other parts of the world has increased significantly, which means that Europe has partly “exported” its environmental impact (Galli et al, 2012). The majority of Eastern European countries live within the regeneration capability of their region, but on the global level, this rate of consumption is not sustainable (Kitzes et al., 2008). Based on a report concerning the Ecological Footprint of 150 countries in the world, which is based on 2008 data (Global Footprint Network 2012), Estonia is in 26 th place, starting from the country with the largest Footprint, and exceeds the global sustainability level 2.5 times. If we compare the Ecological Footprints with the country’s economic levels, generally, a larger gross domestic product (GDP) is accompanied by a larger Ecological Footprint. When we compare the Ecological Footprint and GDP in the European Union Member States, Estonia stands out for its large Ecological Footprint despite its smaller GDP (Figure 3.5.1 a, b). 140 Estonian Human Development Report 2012/2013
Figure 3.5.1.b Estonia’s position compared to the countries with the ten largest and ten smallest Ecological Footprints. Built-up area Carbon Fishing ground Forest Grazing land Cropland Table 3.5.1 The Ecological Footprint of Estonia, the reference states and the 10 countries of the world with the biggest and smallest Footprint in 2008 (global hectares, per capita) Hectare per capita Occupied Palestine East Timor Afghanistan Haiti Eritrea Bangladesh Rwanda Pakistan Congo Nepal World average World Estonia Ireland Netherlands Canada Australia Belgium USA Denmark United Arab Emirates Kuwait Qatar 0 2 4 6 8 10 Riik Occupied Palestine Cropland Grazing land Forest Fishing ground Carbon Built-up land Total Ecological Footprint 0,33 0,05 0,00 0,00 0,09 0,00 0,46 Timor-Leste 0,24 0,07 0,05 0,02 0,05 0,04 0,47 Afghanistan 0,24 0,20 0,06 0,00 0,01 0,02 0,54 Haiti 0,29 0,06 0,10 0,02 0,09 0,03 0,60 Eritrea 0,16 0,23 0,20 0,01 0,03 0,03 0,66 Bangladesh 0,33 0,01 0,08 0,02 0,15 0,07 0,66 Rwanda 0,40 0,06 0,15 0,01 0,05 0,04 0,71 Pakistan 0,35 0,01 0,09 0,01 0,24 0,05 0,75 Democratic Republic of Congo 0,15 0,02 0,50 0,01 0,03 0,05 0,76 Nepal 0,36 0,05 0,20 0,00 0,07 0,09 0,76 Earth’s biocapacity 0,57 0,23 0,76 0,16 ... 0,06 1,78 Costa Rica 0,37 0,24 0,81 0,05 0,93 0,11 2,52 World 0,59 0,21 0,26 0,10 1,47 0,06 2,70 Chile 0,55 0,33 0,91 0,62 0,73 0,09 3,24 Hungary 1,29 0,03 0,44 0,01 1,63 0,18 3,59 Israel 0,86 0,36 0,33 0,01 2,33 0,06 3,96 New Zealand 0,72 0,00 1,21 0,75 1,56 0,06 4,31 South Korea 0,73 0,18 0,23 0,47 2,93 0,07 4,62 Slovakia 1,07 0,25 0,86 0,02 2,28 0,18 4,66 Hectare per capita 0 2 4 6 8 10 Source: Global Footprint Network 2012 Estonia 0,83 0,07 1,60 0,15 1,93 0,15 4,73 Switzerland 0,76 0,28 0,55 0,06 3,26 0,10 5,01 Uruguay 0,84 2,98 0,37 0,11 0,67 0,11 5,08 Slovenia 0,94 0,25 0,61 0,04 3,22 0,15 5,21 Figure 3.5.3 Division of Estonia’s Ecological Footprint by consumption sector, 2004. Czech Republic 1,17 0,19 0,83 0,02 2,89 0,17 5,27 Austria 1,08 0,22 0,62 0,03 3,05 0,28 5,29 Singapore 0,52 0,92 0,31 0,15 4,20 0,02 6,12 Other 6% Construction 6% Services 4% Housing 23% Finland 1,11 0,19 0,40 0,27 4,15 0,10 6,21 Ireland 1,26 0,47 0,53 0,04 3,75 0,16 6,22 Netherlands 1,30 1,09 0,54 0,10 3,14 0,16 6,34 Canada 1,49 0,42 0,74 0,10 3,63 0,05 6,43 Australia 1,61 1,11 1,16 0,10 2,68 0,03 6,68 Goods 14% Food 33% Transport 11% Belgium 1,82 0,95 0,47 0,17 3,26 0,45 7,11 USA 1,09 0,19 0,86 0,09 4,87 0,07 7,19 Denmark 2,77 0,70 1,21 0,78 2,54 0,26 8,25 United Arab Emirates 0,77 1,06 0,37 0,25 5,97 0,03 8,44 Kuwait 0,80 0,64 0,23 0,29 7,70 0,07 9,72 Qatar 0,91 1,12 0,17 0,46 8,91 0,11 11,68 “Other“ – Public sector, national defence, education and healthcare Source: One Planet Economy Network 2011 *Data not available Source: Global Footprint Network 2012 Estonian Human Development Report 2012/2013 141
Page 1:
ESTONIAN HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2
Page 4 and 5:
Table of Contents 1 Human Capital /
Page 6 and 7:
Dear Reader Since the moment when E
Page 9 and 10:
1Human Capital Estonian Human Devel
Page 11 and 12:
the HDI’s content has also been h
Page 13 and 14:
Figure 1.1.1 The human development
Page 15 and 16:
Figure 1.1.7 The income sub-index:
Page 17 and 18:
The results of the Princeton Projec
Page 19 and 20:
the hypothetical generation. The to
Page 21 and 22:
Figure 1.2.3 Life expectancy. Eston
Page 23 and 24:
Table 1.2.2 also presents the most
Page 25 and 26:
The new trends that are appearing i
Page 27 and 28:
Figure 1.2.8 Components of populati
Page 29 and 30:
New features were introduced into E
Page 31 and 32:
Initiation of Voluntary Birth Contr
Page 33 and 34:
Table 1.3.1 Best-known educational
Page 35 and 36:
(OECD 2012b). Therefore a certain r
Page 37 and 38:
The reciprocal dependence of the pr
Page 39 and 40:
Figure 1.3.8 Percentage of students
Page 41 and 42:
Table 1.3.4 The quality of educatio
Page 43 and 44:
1.4 Health Raul-Allan Kiivet Change
Page 45 and 46:
Table 1.4.1 Usage of prescription m
Page 47 and 48:
allude to the fact that approximate
Page 49 and 50:
promote healthy lifestyles among th
Page 51 and 52:
Figure 1.5.1 The World Values Surve
Page 53 and 54:
Table 1.5.2 Estonia’s participati
Page 55 and 56:
Figure 1.5.3 The percentage of the
Page 57 and 58:
Figure 1.5.5 Percentage of the Esto
Page 59 and 60:
The fact that Estonia’s position
Page 61 and 62:
Summary Mati Heidmets The global vi
Page 63 and 64:
2People and Society Estonian Human
Page 65 and 66:
Table 2.1.1 Structure of the Bertel
Page 67 and 68:
tioning market economies (15 states
Page 69 and 70:
2.2 Freedom and democracy Martin M
Page 71 and 72:
Table 2.2.1 Democracy indicators Po
Page 73 and 74:
Figure 2.2.2 The distribution of th
Page 75 and 76:
would be something that none of the
Page 77 and 78:
political participation are general
Page 79 and 80:
strongest, while a very small perce
Page 81 and 82:
is concerned, Estonia is one of the
Page 83 and 84:
Figure 2.4.2 Average circulation of
Page 85 and 86:
2.5 Corruption Jüri Saar In accord
Page 87 and 88:
Lithuania, 61%; and in Russia, 69%.
Page 89 and 90:
2.6.2 Intentional homicides in Esto
Page 91 and 92: crime. And thirdly, there was a wis
Page 93 and 94: References 1. Ahven, A. & Tabur, L.
Page 95 and 96: states included in the EU Kids Onli
Page 97 and 98: 2.8 Public assessments of the state
Page 99 and 100: Figure 2.8.4 Changes releated to tr
Page 101 and 102: of the state’s development are en
Page 103 and 104: Table 2.9.1 The positions of Estoni
Page 105 and 106: 3. IEP (2011). Structures of Peace.
Page 107 and 108: 3Welfare and the Quality of Life Es
Page 109 and 110: choices made, not what people say t
Page 111 and 112: Figure 3.1.5 Public social spending
Page 113 and 114: tion agreed upon the social contrac
Page 115 and 116: References 1. Aidukaite, J. (2006).
Page 117 and 118: hand, to the “inequality of acces
Page 119 and 120: and explanations of the extent of i
Page 121 and 122: 5- much more than I deserve. Some d
Page 123 and 124: people in Estonia consider the inco
Page 125 and 126: Table 3.3.1 Experienced Well-Being
Page 127 and 128: at about 70%. In Latvia and Lithuan
Page 129 and 130: sign. It seems that the usual view
Page 131 and 132: 3.4 Quality of life Anu Toots 3.4.1
Page 133 and 134: a uniform composite indicator has n
Page 135 and 136: 3.4.6 The components of life qualit
Page 137 and 138: Figure 3.4.4c Perceived quality of
Page 139 and 140: Figure 3.4.5 Changes in the depriva
Page 141: 3.5 Environment dimension of well-b
Page 145 and 146: 3.5.4 Energy intensity The energy i
Page 147 and 148: productivity, which is defined as t
Page 149 and 150: perceive themselves as worse off th
Page 151 and 152: 4The Economy Estonian Human Develop
Page 153 and 154: vide a valuable connection for maki
Page 155 and 156: Figure 4.1.3 Components of economic
Page 157 and 158: ule of law, the sub-indicators for
Page 159 and 160: References 1. Acemoglu, D.; Robinso
Page 161 and 162: Development Report employs generali
Page 163 and 164: and pasture land, and this was capi
Page 165 and 166: Basing the total and net savings re
Page 167 and 168: 4.3 Labour market Reelika Leetmaa,
Page 169 and 170: The problems include the very limit
Page 171 and 172: • Expenditures for active labour
Page 173 and 174: who lose their jobs. These ensure i
Page 175 and 176: 4.4 Productivity and the economic s
Page 177 and 178: labour costs at the company level r
Page 179 and 180: Table 4.4.4 Comparison of the produ
Page 181 and 182: Figure 4.4.1 Annual average increas
Page 183 and 184: 4.5 Innovation Erik Terk, Katrin M
Page 185 and 186: Table 4.5.2 Comparison of innovatio
Page 187 and 188: Table 4.5.4 Comparison of the indic
Page 189 and 190: in order to make the R&D potential
Page 191 and 192: It is characteristic of the South K
Page 193 and 194:
mechanisms for increasing their sta
Page 195 and 196:
Globalisation and Policy Patterns 5
Page 197 and 198:
When Estonia regained its independe
Page 199 and 200:
5.2 The impacts of globalisation an
Page 201 and 202:
Table 5.2.2 Support of the differen
Page 203 and 204:
5.3 Development policies Erik Terk,
Page 205 and 206:
• C -the “Estonia-centred” su
Page 207 and 208:
Figure 5.4.1 Support for the possib
Page 209:
Summary Erik Terk Estonia is part o
Page 212 and 213:
ehavioural patterns. Therefore, it
Page 214 and 215:
EDR 2012/2013 authors Clemens Buche
Page 216 and 217:
EDR 2012/2013 authors Alari Purju i
Page 218:
Editor-in-Chief: Mati Heidmets Prod
show all

DEVELOPMENT

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?