Schalk, here is what the source you point to says about that:
Biocapacity varies each year with ecosystem management, agricultural practices (such as fertilizer use and irrigation), ecosystem degradation, and weather, and population size. Footprint varies with consumption and production efficiency.
That implies a lot of variability from year to year: kind of a squishy metric.
Looking at other countries rated on that site, D.R. Congo, Brazil, and Russia have much greater biocapacity than their supposed "ecological footprint." The Netherlands, Israel, and Singapore are quite the reverse. Hardly surprising: Big, sprawling, poor countries don't exceed their indigenous carrying capacity, while small, compact, prosperous ones do.
A simple, and quixotic solution then to that standard of inequity would be for the big, poor countries to annex the small prosperous ones -- or vice versa. That is not going to happen. But in fact, trade accomplishes the same result: carrying capacity gets shared.
But that is sort of beside the point. Appeals to equity are not going to lead to political resolution, because different countries, cultures, people, etc. have differing notions of what is equitable. And there usually is a bias that their own sense of equity, aligned with their self-interest, is right while others are wrong. Arguing about equity is more of a symptom of gridlock than a solution.
An encouraging aspect of the description of biocapacity above is that it implies much opportunity for innovation. And innovation, again, rather than political negotiation is how effective solutions are are most likely to be created.