Apresenta

1
Universidade Estadual de Campinas
Laboratório de Engenharia Ecológica e Informática
Aplicada, Campinas, SP, Brasil.
ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT BASED ON EMERGY (EEF)
PERU AS CASE STUDY
Raúl Siche, Enrique Ortega
Feni Agostinho
International Ecological Footprint Conference 8
10 May 2007
2
Introduction
In recent years, interesting contributions
appeared to measure the world population demand
on nature, particularly the Ecological Footprint
(EF) and Emergy Assessment (EMA). These two
scientific approaches are rather different, but
they aim to solve the same basic problem to
estimate the gap between production (based on
natural resources) and human consumption. Our
hypothesis is that it is possible to combine both
methods as Zhao and coworkers (2005) did a few
years ago using Chinas regions as study case.
Thus, in this study the impact of Peruvian
society consumption on the environment was
analyzed using the Ecological Footprint based on
Emergy (EEF).
3
Introduction
Zhao et al. (2005) proposed a combination of
EF-GAEZ and EMA, but they didnt care of the
problems detected in both methodologies.
4
EEF Method
Four changes were introduced in the present wok
to improve the proposal of Zhao et al. (2005)

• In the method proposed (EEF) it was assumed that
  biocapacity is the sum of external energy
  received by biosphere (R direct) and the internal
  flows produced by biodiversity (R indirect) .
  Biocapacity is calculated as a function of all
  renewable resources available, considering Sun
  radiation, Earth deep heat, Moon gravity and
  biological stocks energy.

5
EEF Method
Four changes were introduced in the present wok
to improve the proposal of Zhao et al. (2005)

• The total area of the evaluated system was
  considered, including productive land (cropland,
  forest, pasture, ocean, etc) and non-productive
  land (desert, ice covered land, etc). Instead,
  the EF-GAEZ method considers only a fraction
  (2/3) of the total area as productive land

6
EEF Method

• A percentage of biocapacity area (14.2) to
  cover other species needs was included. It
  corresponds to the size of territories in Peru
  protected for biodiversity preservation (INRENA,
  2006). It could be more, for instance 25 or 50
  (additional research is necessary)
• Two important categories concerning natural
  resources use were included top soil loss and
  water consumption. These categories arent
  accounted by EF-GAEZ but are very important to
  obtain more accurate results.

7
EEF Method
Biocapacity is a function of the Renewable
Resources
8
EEF Method
Footprint is a function of resource consumption
9
Results for Peru (2004 data)
Biocapacity calculation using EEF methodology
Note (i) Item Quantity (ii) (J) Transformity (seJ/J) (i) Total emergy (seJ) Emergy per capita (seJ/ people )(iii) Biocapacity (gha/person) (iii)
Renewable resources Renewable resources Renewable resources
1 Solar 7.26E21 1 7.26E21 0.027E16 0.86
2 Gravitation 2.39E18 73 700 1.16E23 0.647E16 20.84
3 Geological 9.68E18 12 000 1.76E23 0.427E16 13.75
4 Biological 2.79E20 1000 2.79E23 1.020E16 33.07
Total of renewable resources Total of renewable resources Total of renewable resources 68.52
Other species (14.2) (iv) Other species (14.2) (iv) Other species (14.2) (iv) Other species (14.2) (iv) 9.73
Total Biocapacity Total Biocapacity Total Biocapacity Total Biocapacity 58.79
10
Results for Peru (2004 data)
Footprint calculation using EEF methodology
Item Item Human demand data (J) Transformity a (seJ/J) Total emergy (seJ) Emergy per person (seJ/person) Footprint (gha/person)
1. Agriculture 1. Agriculture 8.99E22 3.30E15 10.6401
1.1. Food 1.1. Food 2.44E17 336 000 8.21E22 3.02E15 9.7194
1.2. Soil loss 1.2. Soil loss 6.26E16 124 320 7.78E21 2.86E14 0.9207
2. Cattle production 2. Cattle production 7.91E15 3 360 000 2.66E22 9.77E14 3.1461
3. Fishing 3. Fishing 2.44E15 3 360 000 8.19E21 3.01E14 0.9697
4. Wood and firewood 4. Wood and firewood 8.36E16 22 100 1.85E21 6.79E13 0.2187
5. Energy resources 5. Energy resources 5. Energy resources 3.04E22 1.12E15 3.5926
5.1. Coal 5.1. Coal 2.23E16 66 900 1.49E21 5.48E13 0.1766
5.2. Petroleum 5.2. Petroleum 2.96E17 89 000 2.63E22 9.68E14 3.1181
5.3. Natural gas 5.3. Natural gas 4.28E16 58 800 2.52E21 9.25E13 0.2979
6. Hydroelectricity 6. Hydroelectricity 6.51E16 111 000 7.23E21 2.65E14 0.8553
7. Water b 7. Water b 8.30E15 1 118 880 9.29E21 3.41E14 1.0991
Total Footprint 1.56E23 5.74E15 20.53
11
Results
58.79
20.53
Ecologic balance for Peru in 2004, using EEF
12
Results
Load capacity factor (BC/F) obtained with
different methodologies
13
Conclusions

1. The ecologic balance results obtained with
   Ecological Footprint Based on Emergy (EEF) for
   Peru show a value lower than that of EF-GAEZ and
   EF-NPP. The capacity factor (BC/F) of Peru (using
   EEF with 2004 data) was calculated as being 2.87.
   This means that the territory of Peru has the
   capacity to support almost three times its
   population considering the lifestyle of its
   population in that year.

14
Conclusions

• EEF has limitations that demand future studies.
  For instance the present impossibility to
  compare the categories as it is common in EF-GAEZ
  and EF-NPP. Another limitation is that the
  transformity values need to consider the total
  impact of production on ecosystems and its
  variation throughout time.

15
Conclusions

• On the other hand, because there is available
  global data on renewable resources production and
  consumption, EEF is easy to carry out.

16
References
INRENA Instituto Nacional de Recursos
Naturales. 2006. Sistema Nacional de Áreas
Naturales Protegidas por el Estado. Lima, Perú.
Available in http//www.inrena.gob.pe/index_inici
o.htm
Odum, H.T., 1996. Environmental Accounting,
Emergy and Decision Making. J. Wiley, NY.
Monfreda, C., Wackernagel, M., Deumling, D. 2004.
Establishing national natural capital accounts
based on detailed ecological footprint and
biological capacity accounts. Land Use Policy 21,
231 246.
Wackernagel, M., Schulz, N., Deumling, D.,
Callejas, A., Jenkins, M., Kapos, V., Monfreda,
C., Loh, J., Myers, N., Norgaard, R. e Randers,
J. 2002. Tracking the ecological overshoot of the
human economy. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol.
99 (14) 9266-9271.
Zhao, S. Li, Z. Li, W. 2005. A modified method
of ecological footprint calculation and its
application. Ecol. Model. 185, 6575
17
Thanks for your attention
ortega_at_fea.unicamp.br http//www.unicamp.br/fea/or
tega Siche.J.R_at_gmail.com