DEVELOPMENT

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