Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

1/18 EMERGY NET PRIMARY PRODUCTION (ENPP) AS A BASIS FOR THE CALCULATION OF ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT – STUDY CASE: PERU International Footprint Conference:

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "1/18 EMERGY NET PRIMARY PRODUCTION (ENPP) AS A BASIS FOR THE CALCULATION OF ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT – STUDY CASE: PERU International Footprint Conference:"— Presentation transcript:

1 1/18 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 Siche National University of Trujillo, Peru Feni Agostinho & Enrique Ortega State University of Campinas, Brazil

2 2/19 Introduction Society urgently needs good scientific tools to understand the biosphere mechanisms and get conscious of the Earth’s biophysical limits. 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. In this context, the Ecological Footprint (EF) and Emergy Analysis (EMA) appear as important tools, but both need to be improved.

3 3/19 1. 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

4 4/19 2. 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

5 5/19 4. 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

6 6/19 1. 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

7 7/19 2. 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

8 8/19 1. EQF values were calculated using the Emergy Net Primary Production (ENPP) or NPP in emergy units (seJ/m 2 /ano) through the use of Transformity (seJ/g) and the BIOMASS 1.0 software (Siche et al., 2006); 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. Proposed method: EF-ENPP

9 9/19 Biomass v1.0 software

10 10/19 2. The total area of the evaluated system including open ocean and areas of low productivity (desert, tundra, zones covered with ice) was considered; Proposed method: EF-ENPP 3. The consumption of the fresh water in the domestic consumption was included as collected, treated and transported water;

11 11/19 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; Proposed method: EF-ENPP 5. The carbon sequester rate with the data published for the IPCC (2004) was updated.

12 12/19 Results New Equivalence Factors (EQF) 1.6486E+10...126.67 Marine Total 0.8410 1.3864E+109,0001,540,448102.22Open ocean 2.0293 3.3455E+109,0003,717,168246.67Fishes 2.3552E+10...868.89 Terrestrial Total 1.5035 3.5410E+103,253.5410,883,600722.22Built land 1.4162 3.3354E+109,960.003,348,800222.22Continental & glacial water 0.2526 0.5950E+10150.5739,515,8402,622.22Wetland 0.8639 2.0346E+109,960.002,042,768135.56Low productivity 0.8058 1.8978E+10855.4122,185,8001,472.22Forest 1.4183 3.3405E+101,995.0616,744,0001,111.11Pasture land 1.9661 4.6306E+103,253.5414,232,400944.44Cropland EQF (gha/ha) ENPP (seJ/m 2 /yr) Tr NPP (seJ/J) NPP ENERGY (J/m 2 /yr) NPP MASS (g/m 2 /yr) Zones Ln(Tr NPP ) = 28,703 - 3.0093 Ln(NPP MASS )

13 13/19 Yield Factors (YF) and Global Average Productivity (GAP) -2.7310 0.8410 Open ocean t/ha0.05412.7310 2.0293 Fishing areas 1.6090 1.5035Built land t C/m 3 water 0.000181.0000 1.4162Continental & glacial water 1.0000 0.2526Wetland -0.2444 0.8639Low productivity m 3 /ha5.6887 0.38250.8058Forest t/ha0.5172 0.24441.4183Pasture land t/ha4.7525 1.60901.9661Cropland Productivity (global average values) Yield Factor Equivalence factor (gha/ha) Biome Results for Peru (2004 data)

14 14/19 Biocapacity Calculation BiomeArea (ha) Total Biocapacity (gha/person) Biocapacity for others species (-14.2%) Net Biocapacity (gha/person) Cropland2,728,4810.31710.04500.2721 Pasture36,180,0000.46080.06540.3953 Forest68,742,0000.77840.11050.6678 Low productivity zones10,311,8030.08000.01140.0686 Wetland6,458,5000.05990.00850.0514 Continental and glacier water2,904,2740.51940.07370.4456 Built land1,196,5420.10630.01510.0912 Fishing zones8,720,0001.77540.25211.5233 Open ocean56,430,0004.76130.67614.0852 CO 2 absorption zones189,570,7846.9646 Biocapacity 15.82321.2579 14.5652 Results for Peru (2004 data)

15 15/19 Footprint Calculation 6.5734 Footprint 4.9194ton7,450,480CO2 emissions 0.1477m3m3 3,360,000,000Fresh water 0.1063ha1,196,542Built land 0.8027ton582,492Fish products 0.0380m3m3 7,300,000 Fuel wood 0.0502m3m3 9,653,916 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)

16 16/19 Peru Ecological balance for categories, in gha/person Results for Peru (2004 data)

17 17/19 Comparison of BC/F relation for the analyzed methods Results for Peru (2004 data)

18 18/19 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

19 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

20 20/19 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

21 21/19 Raúl Siche (siche.j.r@gmail.com)siche.j.r@gmail.com Enrique Ortega (ortega@fea.unicamp.br)ortega@fea.unicamp.br Feni Agostinho (feni@fea.unicamp.br)feni@fea.unicamp.br Thank you very much!

22 22/19 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 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

23 23/19 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 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


Download ppt "1/18 EMERGY NET PRIMARY PRODUCTION (ENPP) AS A BASIS FOR THE CALCULATION OF ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT – STUDY CASE: PERU International Footprint Conference:"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google