Chapter 4 Asia's Growth Pattern: Weak or Strong Sustainability?
4.3 Sustainable development path in UMI countries
All the UMI countries selected for this study are enriched with supply of natural resources. However, the increasing trend of the per capita ecological footprint is an issue of real concern in all the UMI countries.
Figure 4.3a Trends of ANS, per capita EF, per capita BC in China
Figure 4.3b Components of per capita ecological footprint in China
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 Adjusted net saving
Per captita EF and BC
EF per capita (gha) BC per capita (gha) ANS (% of GNI)
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2009
carbon cropland grazing_land forest_land fishing_ground built_up_land
China is rich in biocapacity. It was the 2nd environmentally rich country with 9.9%
of the total global biocapacity in 2008 (WWF, 2012). In 1970, each Chinese had almost 1 gha of supply of nature; in 2010 also, a Chinese could enjoy 0.98 gha of biocapacity. So, biocapacity per capita in China is not declining much. But the main concern in this country is its continuously increasing EF per capita trend. In 1970, China had an ecological reserve (supply>demand). But in 1972, per capita EF crossed the per capita BC and China met overshoot. Since then per capita EF of China has increased almost 125% (1972-2010), even more than many industrialized countries. Analysing the fluctuations in the consumption footprints of various land-use data from 1970 to 2010 (Figure 4.3b), it is seen that the cropland had the largest share to the total footprint till 1992, as consumption has been more for agriculture-based production than for others. China has been known as an agricultural economy having a huge population to feed (Gao and Tian, 2016). But from 1993 onwards, carbon uptake land has increased and become the largest share of the total per capita ecological footprint suppressing the cropland footprint. There is almost a 7.7 times increase in carbon footprint from 1970 to 2010. This was caused mainly by an increase in energy-intensive consumption due to socio-economic changes (Gao and Tian, 2016).
During the same period, there is a tremendous increase in the ANS of this country.
In 1970, ANS was 1.06 (% of GNI); in 2010 it has become almost 36% despite a decline during 1995-2000 due to the Asian crisis. This means that China‘s growing environmental impact has been driven by the depletion of natural capital and accumulation of per capita ecological footprint.
Figure 4.4a Trends of ANS, per capita EF, per capita BC in Malaysia
Figure 4.4b Components of per capita ecological footprint in Malaysia
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 Adjusted net savings
Per capita EF and BC
EF per capita (gha) BC per capita (gha) ANS (% of GNI)
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
1976 1980 1985 1990 1996 2000 2005 2009
carbon cropland grazing_land forest_land fishing_ground built_up_land
Till 1990 Malaysia was a lower middle-income country. After that, it has become an UMI country. Average Malaysian EF was 4.03 gha in 1970, lower than its per capita BC of 4.85 gha. But in 2010 Malaysia‘s per capita EF has stretched to 4.86 gha. There is almost a 20.7% increase in per capita EF against a 46% decrease in its per capita BC during this period. Overshoot happened in Malaysia in 1992.
This was mainly because of an upswing in the carbon footprint (Figure 4.4b) fuelled by energy consumption from 1993. Trade openness leads to material comfort and hence increased the consumption of energy (Shahbaz et al., 2013;
Shahbaz et al., 2015). This has been resulted in a deficit in BC of 2.25 gha. ANS has increased by 1.8% between1970 and 2010, and GDP increased by four times (Figure 4.4a). Between 2000 and 2005, Malaysia‘s ANS declined, as the country was hit hard by the East Asian crises, it recovered soon after that.
Figure 4.5a Trends of ANS, per capita EF, per capita BC in Thailand
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 Adjusted net savings
Per capita EF and BC
EF per capita (gha) BC per capita (gha) ANS (% of GNI)
Figure 4.5b Components of per capita ecological footprint in Thailand
Thailand (Figure 4.5a) had very high savings per capita, resulted in increasing ANS, during the period from 1970 to 1995. However, this variable started to decline after 1995 and continued on a downward trend until 2000. As mentioned earlier this was the time of the East Asian crisis and most of the East Asian countries suffered from that crisis. Thailand recovered soon from this crisis (Pansuwan, 2009-2010). Since 2005, both adjusted net savings and the ecological footprint per capita have shown increasing trends. Per capita biocapacity is decreasing in Thailand and the country met overshoot in the year 1986 (i.e.
demand has crossed supply). Since then there is a 0.3% reduction in its per capita supply of natural capital. But per capita EF has risen by 99% during this period (1986-2010). These trends imply that per capita consumption of natural capital is the main driver to the environmental impact of Thailand. Major increase has been in the carbon footprint component (Figure 4.5b). This was mainly because of the country‘s growing importance in the manufacturing sector, especially between 1986 and 1996 when the sector attained an annual average growth rate of around 13% (Pansuwan, 2009-2010). During the same period, its share to total export also
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2009
carbon cropland grazing_land forest_land fishing_ground built_up_land
increased. More emphasis was given in manufacturing of clothing, footwear, leather products, furniture, toys, jewels and gems, and electronics which are heavy emitters of carbon-di-oxide and other particulates.
GDP per capita in all these three upper middle-income countries-China, Thailand, and Malaysia -is very high. An extremely skewed consumption per capita, in most of these UMI countries, with a handful of people having access to most of the resources, has played a significant role in increasing the ecological footprint of these nations (Marcotullio, 2001; Galli et al., 2012). As ANS is positive (>0) and is in increasing trend in all these three UMI countries and since all the three countries have already met overshoot, these countries are following weak sustainability path.
All these three countries are rich in natural resources/biocapacity (supply). In spite being rich in biocapacity, these countries have overshot their demand for nature (China - 1971, Thailand -1988, Malaysia - 1992) and the gap between BC and EF since the overshoot is widening, making them resource deficit countries. The main concern in these countries is its continuously increasing trend of EF per capita (see Figure 4.3a, 4.4a, 4.5a) and an increasing share of carbon footprint (see Figure 4.3b, 4.4b, 4.5b). The share of other components of EF – cropland, grazing land, forestland fishery ground – is gradually declining which also indicates that these economies are moving away from agriculture to industry and service sector.
For example, in 2008, nearly 40% of China‘s total Ecological Footprint was accounted for by long-term investments in infrastructure (WWF, 2012).