The aim of this factsheet is to give an overview of the Ecological Footprint and biocapacity within each country to give both some facts and figures and to help to explain why the results and country rankings in the LPR 2012 may be different from LPR 2010.

Ethiopia

Trends in the Ecological Footprint and biocapacity in 2010 and 2012

Comparing LPR 2010 and LPR 2012

LPR 2010 LPR 2012Ecological Footprint per person 1.10 1.13Ecological Footprint ranking 124 122Biocapacity per person 0.66 0.65Biocapacity ranking 118 120

0.0

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

1.5

20001990198019701960

Glo

bal h

ecta

res

per c

apita

Why are there differences in LPR 2010 compared to LPR 2012?

Per capita gha Percentage change ExplanationTotal Ecological Footprint: 1.13 3%Carbon: 0.04 -21% Source data revision;Source data change;Grassland: 0.13 -3%Cropland: 0.41 12% Source data change;Fishing grounds: 0.00 39902% Source data revision;Source data change;Forests: 0.50 0%Built-up land: 0.06 3%

*

Per capita gha Percentage change ExplanationTotal biocapacity: 0.65 -2%Grassland: 0.13 1Cropland: 0.36 -3%Fishing grounds: 0.05 -1%Forests: 0.05 -3%Built-up land: 0.06 3%

If everyone in the world consumed like Ethiopiathen the Ecological Footprint would be 0.64 Planets.

Ecological Footprint 2012 Ecological Footprint 2010Biocapacity 2012 Biocapacity 2010

2008

*

* All countries carbon Footprint decreased 27 percent due to a revision in oceanic carbon sequestration