11/18/18

EMERGY NET PRIMARY PRODUCTION (ENPP) AS A BASIS FOR THE CALCULATION OF

ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT – STUDY CASE: PERU

International Footprint Conference: New Developments In Ecological Footprinting Methodology, Policy And Practice

8-10 May 2007, City Hall, Cardiff, UK

Raul SicheNational University of Trujillo, Peru

Feni Agostinho&

Enrique OrtegaState University of Campinas, Brazil

22/19/19

Introduction

Society urgently needs good scientific tools to Society urgently needs good scientific tools to understand the biosphere mechanisms and get understand the biosphere mechanisms and get conscious of the Earth’s biophysical limits.conscious of the Earth’s biophysical limits.

In this context, the In this context, the Ecological FootprintEcological Footprint (EF) and (EF) and Emergy AnalysisEmergy Analysis (EMA) appear as important tools, but (EMA) appear as important tools, but both need to be improved. both need to be improved.

33/19/19

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;

The most used EF method is called EF-GAEZ.

EF-GAEZ problems

44/19/19

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);

EF-GAEZ problems

55/19/19

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)

EF-GAEZ problems

66/19/19

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;

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:

EMA problems

77/19/19

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.

EMA problems

88/19/19

1.1. EQF valuesEQF values were calculated using the Emergy were calculated using the Emergy Net Primary ProductionNet Primary Production (E (ENPPNPP) or NPP in ) or NPP in emergy units (seJ/memergy units (seJ/m22/ano) through the use of /ano) through the use of Transformity (seJ/g) and the BIOMASS 1.0 Transformity (seJ/g) and the BIOMASS 1.0 software (Siche et al., 2006);software (Siche et al., 2006);

An alternative to improve the precision of the final An alternative to improve the precision of the final indicators obtained with EF-GAEZ is proposed, indicators obtained with EF-GAEZ is proposed, redefining its equivalence factors (EQF). redefining its equivalence factors (EQF). For this EMA (Odum, 1996) and the main For this EMA (Odum, 1996) and the main suggestions of Venetoulis and Talberth (2007) were suggestions of Venetoulis and Talberth (2007) were used.used.

Proposed method: EF-ENPP

99/19/19

Biomass v1.0 software

1010/19/19

2.2. The The total areatotal area of the evaluated system of the evaluated system including open ocean and areas of low including open ocean and areas of low productivity (desert, tundra, zones covered productivity (desert, tundra, zones covered with ice) was considered;with ice) was considered;

Proposed method: EF-ENPP

3.3. The consumption of the The consumption of the fresh waterfresh water in the in the domestic consumption was included as domestic consumption was included as collected, treated and transported water;collected, treated and transported water;

1111/19/19

4.4. The biocapacity for the necessities of The biocapacity for the necessities of other other speciesspecies was considered (14.2%). This was considered (14.2%). This percentage was chosen because it corresponds percentage was chosen because it corresponds to the proportion of the Peruvian territory to the proportion of the Peruvian territory protected by law for the preservation of protected by law for the preservation of biodiversity (INRENA, 2006). In future studies biodiversity (INRENA, 2006). In future studies this ratio should be studied to discover the more this ratio should be studied to discover the more appropriate number for each regionappropriate number for each region;;

Proposed method: EF-ENPP

5.5. The The carbon sequestercarbon sequester rate with the data rate with the data published for the IPCC (2004) waspublished for the IPCC (2004) was updated updated..

1212/19/19

Results

New Equivalence Factors (EQF)

1.6486E+10...126.67 Marine Total

0.84101.3864E+109,0001,540,448102.22Open ocean

2.02933.3455E+109,0003,717,168246.67Fishes

2.3552E+10...868.89 Terrestrial Total

1.50353.5410E+103,253.5410,883,600722.22Built land

1.41623.3354E+109,960.003,348,800222.22Continental & glacial water

0.25260.5950E+10150.5739,515,8402,622.22Wetland

0.86392.0346E+109,960.002,042,768135.56Low productivity

0.80581.8978E+10855.4122,185,8001,472.22Forest

1.41833.3405E+101,995.0616,744,0001,111.11Pasture land

1.96614.6306E+103,253.5414,232,400944.44Cropland

EQF(gha/ha)

ENPP (seJ/m2/yr)

TrNPP

(seJ/J)NPPENERGY

(J/m2/yr)

NPPMASS (g/m2/yr)

Zones

)//(

)//(2

2

anomseJENPP

anomseJENPP

GLOBAL

BIOMA

Ln(TrNPP) = 28,703 - 3.0093 Ln(NPPMASS)

1313/19/19

Yield Factors (YF) and Global Average Productivity (GAP)

-2.73100.8410Open ocean

t/ha0.05412.73102.0293Fishing areas

1.60901.60901.5035Built land

t C/m3water 0.000181.00001.4162Continental & glacial water

1.00000.2526Wetland

-0.24440.8639Low productivity

m3/ha5.68870.38250.8058Forest

t/ha0.51720.24441.4183Pasture land

t/ha4.75251.6090 1.9661Cropland

Productivity(global average values)

Yield FactorEquivalence

factor (gha/ha)

Biome

Results for Peru (2004 data)

1414/19/19

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

Open ocean 56,430,000 4.7613 0.6761 4.0852

CO2 absorption zones 189,570,784 6.9646   6.9646

Biocapacity   15.8232 1.2579 14.5652

Results for Peru (2004 data)

1515/19/19

Footprint Calculation

6.5734 Footprint

4.9194ton7,450,480CO2 emissions

0.1477m33,360,000,000Fresh water

0.1063ha 1,196,542Built land

0.8027ton582,492Fish products

0.0380m37,300,000 Fuel wood

0.0502m39,653,916 Wood, paper, etc.

0.0882  Forest

0.2317ton2,300,000Grazing products

0.2773ton18,244,700Agricultural products

Footprint (gha/person)

UnitAmount Category

Results for Peru (2004 data)

1616/19/19

Peru Ecological balance for categories, in gha/person

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

Cro

p a

rea

s

Ecologic balanceBiocapacityFootprint

Pa

stu

re a

reas

Fo

rest

Wa

ter

Urb

an

are

as

Fis

h a

rea

s

Results for Peru (2004 data)

1717/19/19

Comparison of BC/F relation for the analyzed methods

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

EF-NPP EF-GAEZ EF-ENPP EMA

Results for Peru (2004 data)

1818/19/19

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.

Conclusions-I

1919/19/19

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.

Conclusions -II

2020/19/19

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.

Conclusions -III

2121/19/19

Raúl Siche (siche.j.r@gmail.com)

Enrique Ortega (ortega@fea.unicamp.br)

Feni Agostinho (feni@fea.unicamp.br)

Thank you very much!

2222/19/19

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. Inter-annual 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.

References

2323/19/19

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.

References