Transcript Universidad Estadual de Campinas

EMERGY NET PRIMARY PRODUCTION (ENPP)
AS A BASIS FOR THE CALCULATION OF
ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT
– STUDY CASE: PERU
Raul Siche
National University of Trujillo, Peru
Feni Agostinho
&
Enrique Ortega
State University of Campinas, Brazil
International Footprint Conference: New Developments In Ecological
Footprinting Methodology, Policy And Practice
8-10 May 2007, City Hall, Cardiff, UK
1/18
Introduction

Society urgently needs good scientific tools to
understand the biosphere mechanisms and get
conscious of the Earth’s biophysical limits.

In this context, the Ecological Footprint (EF)
and Emergy Analysis (EMA) appear as
important tools, but both need to be improved.
2/19
EF-GAEZ problems
The most used EF method is called EF-GAEZ.
1.
EF-GAEZ does not consider the nature’s work in
the production of natural and human resources.
Its Equivalence Factors (EQFs) should include
this work, but they are based on the potential of
the land to supply resources to humans and
until now they haven’t consider the quality and
quantity of energy used to generate resources;
3/19
EF-GAEZ problems
2.
As EF-GAEZ method does not include the
contribution of important natural ecosystems (as
open ocean, 2/3 of the planet) in the biocapacity
calculation (Venetoulis and Talberth, 2007).
Thus, it underestimates the ecosystems work
with important specific functions in the global
and local cycles;
3.
It does not include fresh water, an element that
greatly influences sustainability, in the footprint
accounting (Chambers et al., 2000);
4/19
EF-GAEZ problems
4.
It does not include species other than the human
in the calculation of biocapacity (Chambers et al.,
2000);
5.
It accounts the forests as the only area that
absorbs carbon emissions, although the carbon
cycle includes areas of agriculture, pasture,
ocean, etc. (Venetoulis and Talberth, 2007)
5/19
EMA problems
Emergy Analysis (EMA) is a tool more robust than
the EF; therefore it can easily account other flows
that influence the sustainability (as wastes, top soil
loss, deforestation, etc.). Even so, as shown below,
EMA presents serious deficiencies:
1.
In country assessments the EMA researchers
forget to consider the ecosystem services
related with the biodiversity ability to add
resources or to cope with waste or emission
recycling;
6/19
EMA problems
2.
EMA hasn’t clearly decided which its sustainability
indicator is: Renewability (REN) (Brown and
Ulgiati, 2004) or Emergy Sustainability Index
(EmSI) (Ulgiati and Brown, 1998);
3.
EMA does not possess a procedure or
standards to define what is sustainable or not.
What is the minimum value of REN or EmSI for
a system to be considered sustainable?
4.
EMA lacks full information on the calculation
procedure of the transformities.
7/19
Proposed method: EF-ENPP
An alternative to improve the precision of the final
indicators obtained with EF-GAEZ is proposed,
redefining its equivalence factors (EQF).
For this EMA (Odum, 1996) and the main
suggestions of Venetoulis and Talberth (2007) were
used.
1.
EQF values were calculated using the Emergy
Net Primary Production (ENPP) or NPP in
emergy units (seJ/m2/ano) through the use of
Transformity (seJ/g) and the BIOMASS 1.0
software (Siche et al., 2006);
8/19
Biomass v1.0 software
9/19
Proposed method: EF-ENPP
2.
The total area of the evaluated system
including open ocean and areas of low
productivity (desert, tundra, zones covered
with ice) was considered;
3.
The consumption of the fresh water in the
domestic consumption was included as
collected, treated and transported water;
10/19
Proposed method: EF-ENPP
4.
The biocapacity for the necessities of other
species was considered (14.2%). This
percentage was chosen because it corresponds
to the proportion of the Peruvian territory
protected by law for the preservation of
biodiversity (INRENA, 2006). In future studies
this ratio should be studied to discover the more
appropriate number for each region;
5.
The carbon sequester rate with the data
published for the IPCC (2004) was updated.
11/19
Ln(TrNPP) = 28,703 - 3.0093 Ln(NPPMASS)
Results
ENPPBIOMA (seJ / m 2 / ano)
ENPPGLOBAL (seJ / m 2 / ano)
New Equivalence Factors (EQF)
TrNPP
(seJ/J)
944.44
14,232,400
3,253.54
4.6306E+10
1.9661
Pasture land
1,111.11
16,744,000
1,995.06
3.3405E+10
1.4183
Forest
1,472.22
22,185,800
855.41
1.8978E+10
0.8058
135.56
2,042,768
9,960.00
2.0346E+10
0.8639
2,622.22
39,515,840
150.57
0.5950E+10
0.2526
Continental & glacial water
222.22
3,348,800
9,960.00
3.3354E+10
1.4162
Built land
722.22
10,883,600
3,253.54
3.5410E+10
1.5035
(g/m2/yr)
Cropland
Low productivity
Wetland
Terrestrial Total
NPPENERGY
868.89
ENPP
(seJ/m2/yr)
EQF
(J/m2/yr)
NPPMASS
Zones
(gha/ha)
2.3552E+10...
Fishes
246.67
3,717,168
9,000
3.3455E+10
2.0293
Open ocean
102.22
1,540,448
9,000
1.3864E+10
0.8410
Marine Total
126.67
1.6486E+10...
12/19
Results for Peru (2004 data)
Yield Factors (YF) and Global Average Productivity (GAP)
Equivalence
factor
(gha/ha)
Yield Factor
Cropland
1.9661
1.6090
4.7525
t/ha
Pasture land
1.4183
0.2444
0.5172
t/ha
Forest
0.8058
0.3825
5.6887
m3/ha
Low productivity
0.8639
0.2444
-
Wetland
0.2526
1.0000
Continental & glacial water
1.4162
Built land
Biome
Productivity
(global average values)
1.0000
0.00018
1.5035
1.6090
1.6090
Fishing areas
2.0293
2.7310
0.0541
Open ocean
0.8410
2.7310
-
t C/m3water
t/ha
13/19
Results for Peru (2004 data)
Biocapacity Calculation
Biome
Area (ha)
Total
Biocapacity
(gha/person)
Biocapacity
for others
species
(-14.2%)
Net Biocapacity
(gha/person)
Cropland
2,728,481
0.3171
0.0450
0.2721
Pasture
36,180,000
0.4608
0.0654
0.3953
Forest
68,742,000
0.7784
0.1105
0.6678
Low productivity zones
10,311,803
0.0800
0.0114
0.0686
Wetland
6,458,500
0.0599
0.0085
0.0514
Continental and glacier water
2,904,274
0.5194
0.0737
0.4456
Built land
1,196,542
0.1063
0.0151
0.0912
Fishing zones
8,720,000
1.7754
0.2521
1.5233
56,430,000
4.7613
0.6761
4.0852
189,570,784
6.9646
Open ocean
CO2 absorption zones
Biocapacity
15.8232
6.9646
1.2579
14.5652
14/19
Results for Peru (2004 data)
Footprint Calculation
Category
Agricultural products
Grazing products
Amount Unit
Footprint
(gha/person)
18,244,700 ton
0.2773
2,300,000 ton
0.2317
Forest
0.0882
Wood, paper, etc.
9,653,916 m3
0.0502
Fuel wood
7,300,000 m3
0.0380
Fish products
582,492 ton
0.8027
1,196,542 ha
0.1063
3,360,000,000 m3
0.1477
7,450,480 ton
4.9194
Built land
Fresh water
CO2 emissions
Footprint
6.5734
15/19
Results for Peru (2004 data)
Peru Ecological balance for categories, in gha/person
1.6
Fish areas
1.4
1.2
Urban areas
0.2
Water
0.4
Forest
0.6
Crop areas
0.8
Pasture areas
1.0
0.0
-0.2
Footprint
Biocapacity
Ecologic balance
16/19
Results for Peru (2004 data)
Comparison of BC/F relation for the analyzed methods
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
EF-NPP EF-GAEZ EF-ENPP
EMA
17/19
Conclusions-I
1. The main quality of the EF-NPP approach is
that it accounts for nature’s work in the NPP
flows used in the equivalence factors
calculation and it uses easily available data
and software tools, lacking only improvement
in the calculation of aquatic systems NPP
transformities.
18/19
Conclusions -II
2. According to EF-ENPP approach using 2004
data, Peru can support 2.22 times its population,
considering current lifestyle. The EF-ENPP
shows for Peru a lower ecological balance than
that obtained with EF-GAEZ.
As EF-ENPP is probably a more robust tool
hence Peru’s environmental performance may
not be as good as previous EF publications
indicate.
19/19
Conclusions -III
3. Finally, we believe that the ENPP approach
could improve the Ecological Footprint method,
but it will be necessary to account for other flows
in order to better interpret the human impact on
nature.
EF should consider the loss of environmental
services and the negative externalities.
20/19
Thank you very much!
Raúl Siche ([email protected])
Enrique Ortega ([email protected])
Feni Agostinho ([email protected])
21/19
References
Brown, M., Ulgiati, S. 2004. Emergy Analysis and Environmental
Accounting. Encyclopedia of Energy, 2:329-353.
Chambers, N., Simmons, C., Wackernagel, M. 2000. Sharing
Nature’s Interest: Ecological Footprint as an Indicator of
Sustainability. Earthscan, London.
INRENA – Instituto Nacional de Recursos Naturales. 2006.
Sistema Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas por el
Estado. Lima, Peru. Available in:
http://www.inrena.gob.pe/index_inicio.htm
IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2004. Interannual and decadal variability of atmospheric CO2
concentrations. In Special Report on Land Use, Land-Use
Change, and Forestry. Available em:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/land_use/020.htm.
22/19
References
Odum, H.T., 1996. Environmental Accounting, Emergy and
Decision Making. J. Wiley, NY.
Siche, J.R., Agostinho, F.D.R., Ortega, E. 2006. Method to
Estimate biomass production in natural ecosystems. In S.
Ulgiati (Editor) Proceedings of V Biennial International
Workshop Advances in Energy Studies. Porto Venere,12-16
Sept. 2006, Italy.
http://www.unicamp.br/fea/ortega/NPP/BIOMASSv02.xls
Ulgiati, S., Brown, M.T. 1998. Monitoring patterns of sustainability
in natural and man-made ecosystems. Ecological Modelling
108, 23-26.
Venetoulis, J., Talberth, J. 2007. Refining the Ecological footprint.
Environment Development and Sustainability DOI
10.1007/s10668-006-9074-z.
23/19