Presentation on theme: "APPLICATION OF THE LYFE CYCLE ANALYSIS AS AN AGRI- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TOOL FOR THE SUSTAINABLE LAND USE Cs. Juhász - J. Tamás – I. Pechmann - P."— Presentation transcript:
APPLICATION OF THE LYFE CYCLE ANALYSIS AS AN AGRI- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TOOL FOR THE SUSTAINABLE LAND USE Cs. Juhász - J. Tamás – I. Pechmann - P. Burai University of Debrecen, Department of Water and Environmental Management
What is LCA? Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a technique for assessing the potential environmental aspects associated with a product (or service), by: compiling an inventory of relevant inputs and outputs, evaluating the potential environmental impacts associated with those inputs and outputs, interpreting the results of the inventory and impact phases in relation to the objectives of the study.
LIFE CYCLE (MSZ ISO 14040, 1997) successive and associative stages of the impact system of a product, from the purchase of the raw material or the origin of the natural resource to the recycling or elimination. LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT (MSZ ISO 14040, 1997) collection and evaluation of input, output and potential environmental impacts belonging to the impact system of a product during its full life cycle.
assignation of the goals and frame of analysis assignation of the goals and frame of analysis analysis of inventory evaluation of effects Iterpretation Iterpretation Direct application: - Designing - Strategy planning - Elaboration of environmental policy - Marketing - Other STEPS IN THE LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT STEPS IN THE LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT
Interpretation (ISO 14043) Goal and Scope Definition (ISO 14040) Inventory Analysis (ISO 14041) Impact Assessment (ISO 14042) Life-Cycle Assessment Framework
Agro-eco indicators are useful tools in agricultural Life Cycle Assessment.
Selection of indicators EU Concreted Action Project on Environmental Indicators for Sustainable Agriculture (ELISA)
THE DPSIR MODEL 1998-99. ELISA project – Environmental Indicators for Sustainable Agriculture D-driving force P-pressure I - impact R-responseS - state DPSIR - model
The objectives 1. suggest a set of indicators for land use assessment, and 2. test the suggested approach in case studies of field crop production
Coordinates: E 27 26 N 47 54 N 47 54 STUDY AREA (TEDEJ Inc.)
Indicator framework for assessing land use intensity IssuesIndicators Habitat coherence of cultivated land Spatial complexity Habitat quality Habitat connectivity Natural character of land use Natural coherence Biodiversity Natural land managementLand use intensity
The calculated value of the selected indicators referring to the investigated area Issue IndicatorComponentsValues Sources of baseline data HABITAT COHERENCE Spatial com- plexity 1. boundaries between patches Proportion of length of each units to the sum length dirt road: 31,07% canal: 11,64% reed: 6,39% grassland: 23,38% alley: 21,52% forest: 3,68% salt affected spots:2,63% RS (Airborne image, LANDSAT, DAIS) vegetation maps field register book 2. number of boundary types 3. landscape heterogeneity Shannon-index- 0,86 4. proportion of cropped to uncropped land Arable land: 92,61% Natural, semi-natural habitats: 7,36% 5. length of linear habitat features in the landscape length Arable land: 77,2 km Alley : 15,26% Grass field: 8,59% Reed: 14,62% RS (Airborne image, LANDSAT, DAIS)
Issue IndicatorComponentsValues Sources of baseline data Habitat quality 1. extent of habitats associated with agricultural land management extension of semi-natural habitats Arable land: 91,61% Natural, semi-natural habitats: 7,36% according to the database of National Monitoring System for Biodiversity 2. extend of natural habitats as part of agricultural land Extension of protected areas Total area: 1850ha Ex lege areas: 40ha – 2,20% Habitat connectivity 1. linkage between valuable natural/semi-natural habitat type Presence of natural corridors Its length Its quality There is no linkage observed RS (CORINE, LANDSAT) 2. linkage between valuable natural/semi-natural habitat type special focus on NATURA 2000 sites There were not such area found NATURA 2000 sites 3. habitat diversityShannon-index0,59RS The calculated value of the selected indicators referring to the investigated area
NATURAL CHARACTER Natural coherence 1. adequateness of land use according to bio-physical conditions Cultivated salt affected areas Total area: 286,55ha Non cultivated area: 117,24ha Database of CORINE Cultivated areas with high surplus water risk Total area: 456,25ha Non cultivated area: 117,24ha 2. proportion of semi-natural habitats types of arable unit (AU) Share of areas5,14% Database of CORINE 3. proportion of natural habitat types of AU Share of areas2,22% Database of CORINE 4. linkage between related landscape elements Presence of habitat connectivity Does not existAirborne images 5. share of characteristic habitat type Proportion of their extension to AU Salt affected grasslands: 2,1% Semi-natural oak forest: 1,9% RS
The calculated value of the selected indicators referring to the investigated area Issue IndicatorComponentsValues Sources of baseline data Biodiversity 1. openness versus closeness Share of land use types Arable land: 91,61% Grassland: 1,9 % Forest : 2,1% RS 2. total number of species associated with agricultural land use/AU Shannon index Maize: 1,06 Sugar beat: 1,04 Winter wheat: 0,56 Alfalfa : 1,39 RS 3. habitat biodiversity Shannon-index0,59RS 4. land use diversity Number and extension of types Arable land: 91,6% Grassland : 1,9% Forest : 2,1% Occupied areas: 3% Canals : 0,4 % Dirt road: 1% RS 5. open water surfaces Proportion of its extension to arable land sum: 14,48 ha – 0,8%RS 6. relief heterogeneity Shannon index0,29 Topographical maps
CONCLUSIONS The selected indicators can fulfil the role of a suitable assessment tool within the frame of LCA for evaluating the environmental efficiency of agricultural land use. The farm management data and the own established geographical information system can provide a good data source for assessing and calculating the recommended indicators. By assessing the results of the evaluation the investigated cropping system can be considered as an intensive one with less regards to the bio- and geo-physical characters of the land it uses. The above presented indicator system can provide a good basis for comparing different (for instance ecological, extensive or conventional) cropping system according to the quality and quantity of land use.