1. 1/22 A more accurate value of ecological footprint for small farms in Brazil Feni Agostinho Enrique Ortega State University of Campinas, Brazil Raul Siche National University of Trujillo, Peru 000 51 International Footprint Conference : New Developments In Ecological Footprinting Methodology, Policy And Practice 8-10 May 2007, City Hall, Cardiff, UK

2. 2/22 Introduction 1.Agriculture is essential to human life maintenance, but besides food and fibers it produces externalities: 2.The objective of this work is to insert externalities in the calculation of footprint and biocapacity. In this first attempt we only studied small farms. a.Positive externalities or environmental services: water percolation; maintenance of biodiversity (native vegetation areas); climate regulation; soil erosion control; local labor. b.Negative externalities: water and soil contamination by chemicals; decrease of water percolation and increase of soil loss; greenhouse gases emission (global warming); biodiversity loss; human exodus.

3. 3/22 Co-products of the ecological farming model

4. 4/22 Co-products of the agro-chemical model

5. 5/22 Negative externalities Negative externalities for UK agriculture (Pretty et al., 2005): (a) 360 USD/ha/year for conventional agriculture; (b) 80 USD/ha/year for organic agriculture. Negative externalities of Brazilian soybean farming (Ortega et al., 2005) USD/ha/year ConventionalEcological Top soil loss83.0 Nutrient losses due to erosion13.6 CO2 emission7.8- CH4 and NOx emission52.5- Effluent treatment39.7- Intoxication and deaths by pesticides0.2- Rural exodus50.0- Total:246.896.6

6. 6/22 Source: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Ecosystems services

7. 7/22 Ecosystems services A key work on positive externalities was published by Costanza et al. (1997), who estimated the value of environmental services for the entire planet as USD 33 trillion per year. Biomes existing in the farms studied Value of ecosystems services in USD/ha/year (Costanza et al., 1997) Lakes/Rivers 8457 Tropical forest 1745 Grass/Rangelands 158 Cropland 38 Biomes considered in Costanza’s work were: (a) Terrestrial: Forest, Grass/Rangeland, Wetland, Lakers/Rivers, Desert, Tundra, Ice/Rock, Cropland, Urban; (b) Marine: Open ocean, Coastal.

8. 8/22 Study cases: small family farms Two models of production were compared: ecological model and conventional or chemical model. Three farms were studied: (a) Duas Cachoeiras farm – ecological model (29.7ha); (b) Santa Helena farm – conventional model (15.5ha); (c) Três Lagos farm – conventional model (25.2ha). Brazil São Paulo state

9. 9/22 New assumptions in ecological footprint assessment Changes made in the present paper Traditional Ecological Footprint Equivalence factors (EQF) were calculated with NPP as suggested by Venetoulis & Talberth (2005) The EQFs are based on Earth’s potential to supply resources for humanity (agricultural suitability index) Externalities accounted as Emergy (Odum, 1996) Not considered Built areas in farms doesn’t have gardens and parks, only roofs and roads Urban areas have biocapacity due to gardens and parks All green areas were considered as CO 2 absorbers (49 kg C/ha/yr; IPCC, 2004) Only forest areas are accounted (950 kg C/ha/yr) Agrochemicals accounted as EmergyNot considered

10. 10/22 BiomeBiome service value (USD/ha/yr) Duas Cachoeiras farm Santa Helena farm Três Lagos farm haUSD/yrhaUSD/yrhaUSD/yr Lake84570.161353.120.181522.260.443721.08 Forest17457.7913593.554.598009.551.983455.10 Grass /Rangeland 15812.491973.421.43225.9418.362900.88 Cropland387.54286.527.50285.004.16158.08 Total (USD/yr):17206.6110042.7510235.14 Total farm area (ha)29.7015.5025.20 Total (USD/ha/yr):579.35647.92406.15

11. 11/22 Results Land useDuas Cachoeiras farm (29.7ha) Santa Helena farm (15.5ha) Três Lagos farm (25.2ha) Forest7.79ha4.59ha1.98ha Lake0.16ha0.18ha0.44ha Crop7.54ha7.50ha4.16ha Meadow3.96ha-- Pasture8.53ha1.43ha18.36ha Construction1.72ha1.84ha0.29ha Negative Ext.96 USD/ha/yr247 USD/ha/yr Positive Ext.579 USD/ha/yr647 USD/ha/yr406 USD/ha/yr (26.2%) (0.6%) (25.4%) (13.3%) (28.7%) (5.8%) (29.5%) (1.2%) (48.3%) (9.2%) (11.8%) (7.8%) (1.7%) (16.6%) (72.8%) (1.1%)

12. 12/22 Results Duas Cachoeiras farm [nha] Santa Helena farm [nha] Três Lagos farm [nha] 1. Traditional method (with the use of NPP for EQFs calculation) Biocapacity56.2227.3042.18 Ecological footprint17.3817.9921.50 Ecologic balance38.849.3020.69 2. Enhanced method (considering negative and positive externalities) Biocapacity73.6337.4652.54 Ecological footprint18.6625.7428.94 Ecologic balance54.9711.7223.61 The unit “national hectares” was used instead of “global hectares” because we used national data to calculate the yield factor and the Brazilian emergy density to account the negative externalities and the environmental services.

13. 13/22 Results  There is a positive balance for all systems using the two methodologies; it increases in the case of the ecological farm. Results in nha (national hectares) Duas Cachoeiras farm Santa Helena farm Três Lagos farm 1. Traditional method (with use of NPP for EQF’s calculation) Biocapacity56.2227.3042.18 Ecological footprint17.3817.9921.50 Ecologic balance38.849.3020.69 2. Enhanced method (considering negative and positive externalities) Biocapacity73.6337.4652.54 Ecological footprint18.6625.7428.94 Ecologic balance54.9711.7223.61 (+17.41) (+1.28) (+16.13) (+10.16) (+7.75) (+2.41) (+10.36) (+7.44) (+2.92)

14. 14/22 Results Agroecological farm: best performance in biocapacity, footprint and ecologic balance using the two methodologies when compared with the other farms studied. Results in nha (national hectares) Duas Cachoeiras farm Santa Helena farm Três Lagos farm 1. Traditional method (with use of NPP for EQF’s calculation) Biocapacity56.2227.3042.18 Ecological footprint17.3817.9921.50 Ecologic balance38.849.3020.69 2. Enhanced method (considering negative and positive externalities) Biocapacity73.6337.4652.54 Ecological footprint18.6625.7428.94 Ecologic balance54.9711.7223.61

15. 15/22 Results BC/EF = biocapacity/footprint FarmBC (nha)EF (nha)BC/EF Duas Cachoeiras73.618.63.9 Santa Helena37.425.71.4 Três Lagos52.528.91.8 The ecological farm produces almost 4 times its footprint; The conventional chemical farm produces only 1.6 times its own footprint.

16. 16/22 Conclusions 1.Agroecology improves the farm sustainability by increasing biocapacity and reducing ecological footprint. Consequently the ecological farm studied here is doubtlessly an example to be followed; 2.Negative externalities and ecosystem services proved to be important factors in EF calculations. Thus, it is extremely necessary to carry on further studies about their calculation; 3.The three systems studied are small family farms and are not representative of Brazilian agricultural business. The farmers sold products in local markets and preserve native forest; therefore they keep some biodiversity. Profit is small and it is used to maintain the system under production. These facts explain why the indicators observed are so similar.

17. 17/22 It is urgent to evaluate the big chemical farms in Brazil (soybean, sugar- cane, orange, coffee and cattle) using Ecological Footprint and considering negative externalities and ecosystem services. Source: Ortega, 2007c Ecological farm USD/ha/year Chemical farm USD/ha/year Soybean sales500650 Corn and Wheat sales600800 Environmental services4000 Sales11001450 Integral benefits15001450 Production costs400800 Externalities0360 Ideological pressures0240 Total costs400800 Economic profit700650 Net integral benefit110050 Recommendation

18. 18/22 Source: Ortega, 2007c Ecological farm USD/ha/year Chemical farm USD/ha/year Soybean sales500650 Corn and Wheat sales600800 Environmental services4000 Sales11001450 Integral benefits15001450 Production costs400800 Negative externalities0360 Ideological pressures0240 Total costs4001400 Economic profit700650 Integral or due profit110050 Assumptions for future studies Income depends on size and not on productivity Ecological farmer = 1100 USD/ha/year x 20 ha = 22 000 USD/year Chemical farmer = 50 USD/ha/year x 2000 ha =100 000 USD/year Difference is bigger because externalities are not paid Chemical farmer= 650 USD/ha/year x 2000 ha =1 300 000 USD/year

19. 19/22 Soybean production in Central Brazil

20. 20/22 Biodiversity destroyed Hydrologic damages Rural exodus Poisonous substances Hunger and poverty Gas for greenhouse Effect Cheap meat, milk, eggs for Europeans + Unfair prices for local ecological farmers High footprint in foreign countries

21. 21/22 Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to CAPES (Coordena ç ão de Aperfei ç oamento de Pessoal de N í vel Superior) and to CNPq (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cient í fico e Tecnol ó gico) for their financial support.

22. 22/22 Externalities FP and BC calculation Positive externalities (ecosystem services): Negative externalities: Chemical model externalities = 246.8 USD/ha/yr (Ortega et al.,2005) Ecological model externalities = 96.6 USD/ha/yr (Estimated); Area = area with crop production or pasture; Biome value = data from Costanza et al. (1997); Brazilian emdollar = 3.30E+12 seJ/USD (Ortega, 2007b); Biome area = biome area present in the farm; Brazilian emergy density = 3.26E+15 seJ/ha/yr (Ortega, 2007b). Externality value[USD/ha/yr] * Brazilian emdollar [seJ/USD] *Area[ha] Brazilian emergy density [seJ/ha/year] Footprint[nha] =

23. 23/22 Chemicals footprint (Zhao et al., 2005) Transformities of chemical inputs: Fertilizer = 4.78E+13 seJ/kg ( Brandt-Williams, 2002); Pesticide = 2.49E+13 seJ/kg (Brown and Arding, 1991); Vaccine = 3.30E+12 seJ/USD (Ortega, 2007b); Brazilian emergy density = 3.26E+15 seJ/ha/yr (Ortega, 2007b). Chemical input [kg or USD/yr] * Transformity [seJ/kg or USD] Brazilian emergy density[seJ/ha/yr] Footprint [nha] = Footprint = [seJ/year] / [seJ/ha/year] = ha

24. 24/22 References Costanza R, D’Arge R, De Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill RV, Paruelo J, Raskin RG, Sutton P, van den Belt M. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature. 387: 253-260. IPCC. 2004. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2004. Inter-annual and decadal variability of atmospheric CO 2 concentrations. In: The Special Report on Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry. Available in: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/land_use/020.htm. Date of access: 16/12/2006. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Available in: http://www.maweb.org/en/index.aspx. Date of access: 10/02/2007. Odum HT. 1996. Environmental Accounting, Emergy and Decision Making. J. Wiley, NY.

25. 25/22 References Ortega E. 2007c. What is INFO? The role of information in agriculture. Proceedings of IV Emergy Conference, University of Florida, Gainesville, USA. In press. Ortega E, Cavalett O, Bonifácio R, Watanabe M. 2005. Brazilian Soybean Production: emergy analysis with an expanded scope. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 25: 323-334. Pretty JN, Ball AS, Lang T, Morison JIL. 2005. Farm costs and food miles: An assessment of the full cost of the UK weekly food basket. Food Policy. 30: 1 – 19. Venetoulis J, Talberth J. 2005. Ecological footprint of Nations (2005 Update): sustainability indicators program. Redefining Progress. Available in: www.redefiningprogress.org Date of access: 11/11/2006.