1/22

A more accurate value of ecological footprint for small farms in Brazil

Feni AgostinhoEnrique Ortega

State University of Campinas, Brazil

Raul SicheNational 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

2/22

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.

3/22

Nitrogen from

atmosphere

Plantation

Local resources

Products

Forest reserve

Albedo

Water and mineral

resources from soil

CO2

Local and global climate change

Materials and

services

Sun, Rain and Wind

Local processing

Residues

Products

$High quantity of environmental

services

Low quantity of negative

externalities

Local laborRegional

biodiversity

Co-products of the ecological farming model

4/22

Regional biodiversity

Plantation

Products

Forest reserve

Albedo

Nitrogen from

atmosphere

Water and mineral

resources from soil

CO2

Local and global climate change

Materials and services

Sun, Rain and Wind

Residues

Products

$Low quantity of environmental

services

High quantity of negative

externalities

Co-products of the agro-chemical model

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

Conventional Ecological

Top soil loss 83.0 83.0

Nutrient losses due to erosion 13.6 13.6

CO2 emission 7.8 -

CH4 and NOx emission 52.5 -

Effluent treatment 39.7 -

Intoxication and deaths by pesticides 0.2 -

Rural exodus 50.0 -

Total: 246.8 96.6

6/22Source: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

Ecosystems services

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.

8/22

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

9/22

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 CO2 absorbers (49 kg C/ha/yr; IPCC, 2004)

Only forest areas are accounted (950 kg C/ha/yr)

Agrochemicals accounted as Emergy Not considered

10/22

Biome Biome service value

(USD/ha/yr)

Duas Cachoeiras farm

Santa Helena farm

Três Lagos farm

ha USD/yr ha USD/yr ha USD/yr

Lake 8457 0.16 1353.12 0.18 1522.26 0.44 3721.08

Forest 1745 7.79 13593.55 4.59 8009.55 1.98 3455.10

Grass/Rangeland

158 12.49 1973.42 1.43 225.94 18.36 2900.88

Cropland 38 7.54 286.52 7.50 285.00 4.16 158.08

Total (USD/yr): 17206.61 10042.75 10235.14

Total farm area (ha) 29.70 15.50 25.20

Total (USD/ha/yr): 579.35 647.92 406.15

11/22

Results

Land use Duas Cachoeiras farm (29.7ha)

Santa Helena farm (15.5ha)

Três Lagos farm (25.2ha)

Forest 7.79ha 4.59ha 1.98ha

Lake 0.16ha 0.18ha 0.44ha

Crop 7.54ha 7.50ha 4.16ha

Meadow 3.96ha - -

Pasture 8.53ha 1.43ha 18.36ha

Construction 1.72ha 1.84ha 0.29ha

Negative Ext. 96 USD/ha/yr 247 USD/ha/yr 247 USD/ha/yr

Positive Ext. 579 USD/ha/yr 647 USD/ha/yr 406 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%)

12/22

Results

Duas Cachoeiras farm[nha]

Santa Helena farm[nha]

Três Lagos farm[nha]

1. Traditional method (with the use of NPP for EQFs calculation)

Biocapacity 56.22 27.30 42.18

Ecological footprint 17.38 17.99 21.50

Ecologic balance 38.84 9.30 20.69

2. Enhanced method (considering negative and positive externalities)

Biocapacity 73.63 37.46 52.54

Ecological footprint 18.66 25.74 28.94

Ecologic balance 54.97 11.72 23.61

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.

13/22

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)

Biocapacity 56.22 27.30 42.18

Ecological footprint 17.38 17.99 21.50

Ecologic balance 38.84 9.30 20.69

2. Enhanced method (considering negative and positive externalities)

Biocapacity 73.63 37.46 52.54

Ecological footprint 18.66 25.74 28.94

Ecologic balance 54.97 11.72 23.61

(+17.41)

(+1.28)

(+16.13)

(+10.16)

(+7.75)

(+2.41)

(+10.36)

(+7.44)

(+2.92)

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)

Biocapacity 56.22 27.30 42.18

Ecological footprint 17.38 17.99 21.50

Ecologic balance 38.84 9.30 20.69

2. Enhanced method (considering negative and positive externalities)

Biocapacity 73.63 37.46 52.54

Ecological footprint 18.66 25.74 28.94

Ecologic balance 54.97 11.72 23.61

15/22

Results

BC/EF = biocapacity/footprint

Farm BC (nha) EF (nha) BC/EF

Duas Cachoeiras 73.6 18.6 3.9

Santa Helena 37.4 25.7 1.4

Três Lagos 52.5 28.9 1.8

•The ecological farm produces almost 4 times its footprint;

•The conventional chemical farm produces only 1.6 times its own footprint.

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.

17/22

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 farmUSD/ha/year

Chemical farmUSD/ha/year

Soybean sales 500 650

Corn and Wheat sales 600 800

Environmental services

400 0

Sales 1100 1450

Integral benefits 1500 1450

Production costs 400 800

Externalities 0 360

Ideological pressures 0 240

Total costs 400 800

Economic profit 700 650

Net integral benefit 1100 50

Recommendation

18/22

Source:Ortega, 2007c

Ecological farmUSD/ha/year

Chemical farmUSD/ha/year

Soybean sales 500 650

Corn and Wheat sales 600 800

Environmental services

400 0

Sales 1100 1450

Integral benefits 1500 1450

Production costs 400 800

Negative externalities 0 360

Ideological pressures 0 240

Total costs 400 1400

Economic profit 700 650

Integral or due profit 1100 50

Assumptions for future studies

Income depends on size and not on productivityEcological 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

19/22Soybean production in Central Brazil

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

21/22

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to CAPES (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior)

and to CNPq (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico) for their financial support.

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] =

23/22

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

24/22

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 CO2 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.

25/22

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.