Universidade Estadual de Campinas

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 China’s 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 didn’t 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 aren’t accounted by EF-GAEZ but are very important to obtain more accurate results.

7. Renewable resources solar geothermalor geological gravitational biological natural capital Emergy(i) (seJ) BC(i) (gha) = [global emergy density (seJ/gha)] Emergy(i)(seJ) = Exergy(i)(J) x Transformity(i)(seJ/J) EEF Method Biocapacity is a function of the Renewable Resources

8. Human consumption categories agricultural (food and soil loss) Non-renewable energy resources Wood and firewood pasture(cattle) fishing Water for human use Hydroelectricity Emergy(i) (seJ) Footprint(i) (gha) = [global emergy density (seJ/gha)] EEF Method Footprint is a function of resource consumption

9. Results for Peru (2004 data) Biocapacitycalculation using EEF methodology

10. Results for Peru (2004 data) Footprint calculation using EEF methodology

11. Results 58.79 20.53 Ecologic balance for Peru in 2004, using EEF

12. BC/F = 2.9 5 4 EF-NPP 3 Biocapacity / Footprint EF-GAEZ 2 EEF 1 EMA 0 EF-NPP: Ecological Footprint based on NPP EF-GAEZ: Standard Ecological Footprint EEF: Emergy Ecological Footprint EMA: Emergy Assessment Results Load capacity factor (BC/F) obtained with different methodologies

13. Conclusions 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_inicio.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, 65–75

17. Thanks for your attention ortega@fea.unicamp.br http://www.unicamp.br/fea/ortega Siche.J.R@gmail.com