DEVELOPMENT

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure 3.5.8 The energy intensity of the economies of the European countries, 2010 Figure 3.5.10 The resource productivity of the European countries and Estonia (GDP/domestic material consumption), 2009 (€/kg) kg oil eq/€ 1000 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 €/kg 0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 Switzerland Romania Ireland Bulgaria Denmark Estonia Great Britain Italy Norway Austria Spain Luxembourg Germany Greece France EU 27 Portugal Latvia Poland Turkey Cyprus Lithuania Slovakia Czech Republic Croatia Portugal Hungary Netherlands Finland Sweden Slovenia Malta Cyprus Belgium Finland Croatia Slovenia Turkey Hungary Lithuania Poland Latvia Greece Austria Ireland Spain EU 27 Sweden Denmark Belgium Germany Italy Slovakia France Czech Republic Great Britain Romania Malta Estonia Bulgaria Luxembourg Netherlands kg oil eq/€ 1000 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 €/kg 0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 Source: Eurostat Source: Eurostat Figure 3.5.9 The EU average and Estonia’s resource productivity, 2000–2009 (at constant 2000 prices) EU 27 Estonia 1,6 1,4 1,2 1,0 0,8 0,6 0,4 0,2 1,6 1,4 1,2 1,0 0,8 0,6 0,4 0,2 €/kg 0 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Source: Eurostat 144 Estonian Human Development Report 2012/2013
productivity, which is defined as the relationship between GDP and domestic material consumption, i.e. the domestically produced, plus imported material, less exported material). Although in the case of this indicator, the quantities of imported and exported material are calculated, this reflects only the direct trade of materials, and not the quantities of materials that have been expended, indirectly, in the course of producing these quantities of materials. (Statistics Estonia 2010) Estonia’s resource productivity declined between 2000 and 2009 (Figure 3.5.9). If, in 2000, €0.42 worth of monetary value was added by consuming 1 kg of material, in 2009, the corresponding amount was only €0.35. At the same time, the average resource productivity in the EU has increased from €1.33 per kg, in 2000, to €1.57 per kg, in 2009. The resource productivity of Estonia’s economy is one of the lowest among the EU Member States (Figure 3.5.10). In order to explain the background of the decline in the resource productivity of Estonia’s economy, data for a longer period of time is needed, but the decline in resource productively may partly be explained by the rapid economic growth and the relatively high resource consumption by the construction sector that accompanied it. By juxtaposing the indicators for the resource productivity and Ecological Footprint of the European countries, it appears that the nations with high resource productivity are also those with a large Ecological Footprint. Therefore, the efficiency of resource productivity related to GDP does not automatically result in the lower consumption of natural resources. Thus, the indicators for resource productivity cannot be viewed separately from society’s impact upon the environment,, and especially not from the need to reduce consumption as a whole. 3.5.7 In conclusion Estonia is a country with a large Ecological Footprint and a very large Carbon Footprint, as well as with low resource productivity and energy efficiency. The last 10 to 15 years do not point to any improvement in these indicators. This is a reminder that, despite its small size, Estonia is a country of large consumption, and one that is ecologically deeply in debt. The main causes for the large footprint are caused by energy consumption based on carbon-intensive oil shale power production; housing and means of transportation that consume large amounts of energy; forest utilisation; and greater consumption of meat and dairy products than the global average, the production of which, with current agricultural methods (artificial fertilizers, fossil fuels, etc.), are very burdensome to ecological resources. Although the overconsumption of natural resources, and the lack of resource efficiency are matters that have been talked about for years, no specific goals or measureable aims have been established at the European Union, or Estonian, level. As far as the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions is concerned, the European Union has established clear goals for 2020 – to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20%, to improve energy efficiency by 20%, and to cover 20% of energy needs using renewable energy (the “20-20-20 strategy”), as compared to the 1990 levels. At the same time, these goals do not include final consumption, or the Carbon Footprint that is calculated on the basis of trading, and the Ecological Footprint as a whole. This may be providing the wrong signal about the country and its environmental impacts, since the environmental impact related to production may occur outside the borders of the particular country or region of the world. In order to reduce Estonia’s Ecological Footprint, the total consumption of fossil fuels and energy must, primarily, be reduced – including housing-related electricity and fuel consumption; the transportation system must become more pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly, and the use of public transportation must be increased, and the growth of motor transport curbed. In energy-intensive societies, the total replacement of fossil fuels with renewable sources of energy may not significantly reduce the Ecological Footprint. If, for instance, instead of fossil fuels, logging, or the development of grasslands occurs, the Ecological Footprint of the forests and croplands is increased, which, at the global level, is already suffering from overconsumption. The reserves of arable land and forests in Estonia, and in the Nordic countries are still quite large, but the sustainable use of these reserves presupposes a sharing of these resources with those regions where there is shortage of forests and croplands. According to the One Planet Network scientists (Kitzes et al., 2008), the reduction of global overconsumption can only occur through more equitable distribution of the utilisation of resources. References 1. EEA. European Environmental Agency Data Viewer. Excerpt from database: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps. 2. Eurostat. Excerpt from database http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu. 3. European Commission (2012). Assessment of resource efficiency indicators and targets. Final report. DG Environment, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/resource_efficiency/pdf/report.pdf. 4. Galli, A., Wiedmann, T., Ercin, E., Knoblauch, D., Ewing, B., Giljum, S. (2012). “Integrating Ecological, Carbon and Water footprint into a “Footprint Family” of Indicators: Definition and Role in Tracking Human Pressure on the Planet,” Ecological Indicators, 16, 100–112. 5. Global Footprint Network (2012). National Footprint Accounts 2011. Excerpt of data concerning Estonia in a letter dated 6.11.2012 from Eli Lazarus. 6. Jüssi, M., Poltimäe, H., Sarv, K., Orru, H. (2010). Säästva transpordi raport 2010. Tallinn: Säästva Arengu Komisjon. 7. Keskkonnaministeerium (2009). Eesti keskkonnaseisundi näitajad 2009. Tallinn: Keskkonnaministeeriumi Info- ja Tehnokeskus. 8. Kitzes, J., Wackernagel, M., Loh, J., Peller, A., Goldfinger, S. and Cheng, D. (2008). “Shrink and Share: Humanity’s Present and Future Ecological Footprint,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences. 363 (1491): 467–475. 9. Norwegian University of Science and Technology (2009). Excerpt from database: http://www.carbonfootprintofnations.com/ 21.12.2012 10. One Planet Economy Network (2011). Excerpt from database: https://www.eureapa.net 11. Statistics Estonia (2010). Eesti statistika kvartalikiri 4/10. Quarterly Bulletin of Statistics Estonia. 12. WWF/World Wide Fund for Nature, Zoological Society of London, Global Footprint Network, European Space Agency (2012). Living Planet Report 2012. Biodiversity, Biocapacity and Better Choices. Estonian Human Development Report 2012/2013 145
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 and 142: 3.5 Environment dimension of well-b
Page 143 and 144: Figure 3.5.1.b Estonia’s position
Page 145: 3.5.4 Energy intensity The energy i
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?