EMERGY SYNTHESIS 3: Theory and Applications of the Emergy Methodology

Transcription

1 EMERGY SYNTHESIS 3: Theory and Applications of the Emergy Methodology Proceedings from the Third Biennial Emergy Conference, Gainesville, Florida Edited by Mark T. Brown University of Florida Gainesville, Florida Managing Editor Eliana Bardi University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida Associate Editors Daniel E. Campbell US EPA Narragansett, Rhode Island Vito Comar State University of Mato Grosso do Sul Dourados, Brazil Shu-Li Haung National Taipei University Taipei, Taiwan Torbjorn Rydberg Centre for Sustainable Agriculture Uppsala, Sweden David Tilley University of Maryland College Park, Maryland Sergio Ulgiati University of Siena Siena, Italy November 2005 The Center for Environmental Policy Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences University of Florida Gainesville, FL ii

2 39 Jau s National Park, Central Brazilian Amazon Emergy and Socio-Environmental Assessment of Resident Riverine Population ABSTRACT Vito Comar Jau s National Park, in the Central Brazilian Amazon, is the largest Brazilian National Park, with an area of 22,720 km 2. Established in 1986, it was designed to protect all the Jau River Basin, draining on the Rio Negro River, an emissary of the Amazon. The main objective was to understand the dynamics of the relationship between the resident human population and its natural resource use, to produce a management plan and clear guidelines for the park s policies. At the time of the assessment, in 1992, the park housed around 300 families, settled along the main rivers. The emergy evaluation consisted of a flow diagram based on the main human activities within the park, followed by emergy tables to calculate main emergy indices to better define settlers relations to environmental resources. Field observations, local interviews and state government records complemented survey statistics. Results showed that settlers eat mainly fish and game for protein and complement their diet with manioc flour, locally grown grains and fruits. Tending crops and making manioc flour are the greatest emergy investments for the community, 21.7E17 sej/yr; compared to 1.4 E17 sej/yr of produced flour, most of which they consumed. They combine this activity with: 1) extracting forest products, 10.0 E17 sej/yr invested for a total collected of 7.0 E17 sej/yr, which are mostly sold; 2) collecting fruits from forests or planted orchards, with almost no effort to 0.24 E17 sej/yr produced; 3) fishing, 2.0 E17 sej/yr in effort for 14.7 E17 sej/yr; 4) hunting, also 2.0 E17 sej/yr invested, for 27.2 E17 sej/yr. As there was evidence showing impact of illegal hunting and fishing, the greatest challenge was maintaining these communities within the park area, which legally should not support any human production or extraction activity. Ways had to be found to change hunters and collectors into effective park rangers, to protect the park from poachers and to be engaged as park guides. It was clear by the assessment that, even for this small population, there was a progressive drain on natural resources and a loss of the park s natural characteristics. INTRODUCTION Jau s National Park, in the Central Brazilian Amazon, is the largest Brazilian National Park, with an area of 22,720 km 2 (a rectangle of approximately 300 by 100 km, Figure 1 a and b). Established in 1986, it was designed to protect all the Jau River Basin, draining on the Rio Negro River, and for that reason it spread between the Paunini and the Unini Rivers limiting the park to the North. Both are also emissaries of the Rio Negro. The Carabinani River limits the park on its Southern side. At the time of the assessment, in 1992, the park housed around 300 families, settled along the Jau, Paunini, Unini and Carabinani rivers. The assessment initiative came from the Vitoria Amazonica Foundation, which had already carried out a demographic in survey the previous year,

3 Figure 1. Location of Jaú s National Park in relation to the State of Amazonas, Brazil and the Rio Negro, Central Amazon. The Foundation s main objective was to understand the dynamics of the relationship between the resident human population and its natural resource use, to be able to produce a management plan and clear guidelines for public policies for the park. A main question was how to maintain residents within park boundaries when there was evidence showing impact of illegal hunting and fishing. This clearly violates principles of the use of a national park and represented the greatest challenge in balancing human development with sound management practices. METHODS The emergy evaluation started with the drawing of a flow diagram (Figure 2) based on the main human activities within the park. These flows were then quantified by using emergy tables (Tables 1 and 2), which incorporated field data based on site observations, survey statistics, local interviews, and state government records. Flow quantities were then written into the flow diagram. Emergy indices, derived from the emergy tables, assisted in evaluating the relationship between settlers and their natural resource base, accounting for the exchanges in natural, or free energy inflows and human-related efforts and inputs. Figure 2 shows the three main producing sub-systems: a) forests, from whence locals obtained vines and non-wood extractive products; b) settlers grown manioc fields; c) orchards dispersed within the forest. Hunting and fishing were also very important activities for the local population, although, being a National Park, it was difficult to obtain information on them and much of it had to be inferred. Goods (mainly sugar, coffee, some foodstuff, batteries, remedies, gunpowder and ammunition, etc.) had to be bought from riverboats monthly visits. These boats also left with locally extracted or produced goods (a variety of natural vines, latex-rubber, manioc flour, etc.)

4 0.70 GOODS Forest Biomass 2.00 FISHING 22.7 $ 12,378 GOODS NATURAL ENERGY SOURCES 42,600 Forest Regional & PARK Local SETTLERS Emerging Institutions CROPS HUNTING Mandioc Crops $ 113,510 MARKETS Fruits and Orchards FRUITS 0.24 JAU NATIONAL PARK Flows in E17 sej/yr Figure 2. Jaú s National Park emergy flow diagram, showing the three production systems: 1) forest, 2) manioc crops and 3) fruits and orchards, on which park dwellers depend for their livelihood; fishing and hunting activities, that can be viewed as consumer functions in relation to the supporting production systems; and the park settlers themselves, with their stock of goods, replenished by buying outside goods and services, exchanged for their products. RESULTS Vines and non-wood extractive products accounted for 7E17 sej/yr and the received yearly income was US$ 113,414, representing an income of US$ 378 per family per year. With this money, the settlers bought US$ 12,378 worth of goods per year. Settlers ate mainly fish and game for protein and complemented their diet with manioc flour, locally grown grains and fruits. We could not find evidence on how the extra money, corresponding to a monthly family income of around $ 28, was spent. Tending crops and making manioc flour were the greatest emergy investments for the community, E17 sej/yr; compared to 1.38 E17 sej/yr of produced flour, most of which they consumed, whilst some was sold. They combined this activity with extracting forest products, E17 sej/yr invested for a production of 7.00 E17 sej/yr, which were mostly sold, collecting fruits in the forests or planted orchards, almost no effort to 0.24 E17 sej/yr produced, and fishing, 2.00 E17 sej/yr in effort for E17 sej/yr and hunting, also 2.00 E17 sej/yr invested, for E17 sej/yr, as summarized in the table 3. Fishing and hunting were very lucrative on an energy and emergy balance, as just 2.00 E17 sej/yr of fishing or hunting efforts resulted in large gains. Normally, fishing should be more -499-

5 Table 1. Emergy evaluation of Jau's National Park, Transformity Solar Note Item Values Units (sej/unit) Emergy sej/yr Renewable Resources ( I ) 1 Sunlight 1.07E+20 J E+20 2 Rain, chemical 2.84E+17 J 1.5E E+21 Total Renewable 4.26E+21 Indigenous Production ( NO ) 3 Fishing 1.14E+12 J 2.0E E+18 4 Hunting 1.36E+12 J 2.0E E+18 5 Fruit orchards 6.12E+11 J 4.0E E+16 6 Manioc plantations 1.45E+10 J 9.5E E+15 Total Indigenous (in J) 3.12E E+18 Imports Bought ( G ) 7 Sugar 2.14E+03 $ 6.1E E+16 8 Biscuits 6.46E+02 $ 6.1E E+15 9 Coffee 1.27E+03 $ 6.1E E Lead shot 8.35E+02 $ 6.1E E Diesel oil 1.73E+02 $ 6.1E E Gun shots 5.18E+02 $ 6.1E E Milk 1.04E+03 $ 6.1E E Cooking oil 5.87E+02 $ 6.1E E Batteries 1.91E+03 $ 6.1E E Gunpowder 2.83E+02 $ 6.1E E Soap 3.66E+02 $ 6.1E E Salt 5.10E+02 $ 6.1E E Clothing 1.60E+03 $ 6.1E E Drugs for ailments 5.00E+02 $ 6.1E E+15 Total Imports Bought (in US$) 12, E+16 Applied Manpower ( N1 ) 21 Forest extraction activities 2.51E+11 J 4.32E E Manioc production 5.02E+11 J 4.32E E Fishing and hunting 9.55E+10 J 4.32E E+17 Total Applied Manpower (in J) E E+18 Direct Exports ( Y ) 24 Rubber (tapped) 6.14E+04 $ 6.1E E Sorva (plant) 2.76E+04 $ 6.1E E Titica vine 1.49E+04 $ 6.1E E Brazil nut 5.75E+03 $ 6.1E E Copaiba oil 3.86E+03 $ 6.1E E+16 Total Exports Sold (in US$) 113, E+17 Notes to Table 1: 1 Sunlight: (22720 km 2 )(E6 m/km 2 )(0.80)(140 kcal/cm 2 /yr) (1E4 cm 2 /m 2 )(4186 J/kcal) = 1.07E+20 J/yr 2 Rain. chemical potential: (22720 km 2 )(1E6 m/km 2 )(2.5 m/yr) -500-

6 (5 J/G)(1E6 g/m3)= 2.84E+17 J/yr 3 Fishing: (2.34 E8 g)(0.2 DW)(5.8 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal)= 1.14E+12 J/yr 4 Hunting: (2.32 E8 g)(0.2 DW)(7 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal)= 1.36E+12 J/yr 5 Fruits (1.17 E8 g)(0.25 DW)(5 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal)= 6.12E+11 J/yr 6 Manioc crops: (2.88E8 g)(0.3 DW)(4 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal)= 1.45E+10 J/yr 7-20 Price of acquired goods in US$. 21 Manpower - Extractive activities: (4 months/yr)(30 days/month)(200 people) (2500 kcal/day)(4186 J/kcal)= 2.51E+11 J/yr 22 Manpower - Manioc: (4 months/yr)(30 days/month)(400 people) (2500 kcal/day)(4186 J/kcal)= 5.02E+11 J/yr 23 Manpower - Fishing and hunting: (3/24 day)(365 days)(200 people) (2500 kcal/day)(4186 J/kcal)= 9.55E+10 J/yr 24 Rubber (tapped). in US$ 6.14E+04 J/yr 25 Sorva. in US$ 2.76E+04 $/yr 26 Titica vine. in US$ 1.49E+04 $/yr 27 Brazil nut. in US$ 5.75E+03 $/yr 28 Copaiba oil. in US$ 3.86E+03 $/yr Obs.: Transformities for renewable resources are taken from Environmental Accounting - Emergy and Environmental Decision Making (Odum, 1996); transformity for fishing and hunting taken from Odum, H.T., F.C. Wang, I.F. Alexander, M. Gilliland. M.A. Miller, and J. Sendzimir Energy Analysis of Environmental Value. Center for Wetlands, University of Florida, Gainesville. 97 pp. (CFW-78-17); the emergy/money ratio of 6.1E12 sej/$ was calculated by the author in a Brazil s national evaluation on 1985 census data; transformities for Applied Manpower were calculated on the basis of human expended effort. advantageous than hunting, but data was probably underestimated, because of settlers fear of being punished by government authorities if the correct information had been given to researchers. One of the most important findings that the assessment pointed to was the net advantage the world outside the park was receiving from the settlers products, exactly 10 times more, from an exported 7.00 E17 sej/yr, to a meager 0.70 E17 sej/yr in products bought. The other insight was the impact of even a relatively small human population and its very low density on local fauna (54% of all production) - even without considering illegal selling of animals, figures for which could not be obtained - and the urgent need for a program of environmental education that would enable authorities to convert traditional hunters into park husbandmen and caretakers. The emergy indices were consistent with a very small human population within a large natural area of dense and diversified tropical forest. A low Net Emergy Yield Ratio (Table 2) of 0.18 suggests that for a certain yield, the invested human input was relatively high, resulting in a poor performance. An extremely low Emergy Investment Ratio (Table 2) of , reflects the high natural resource contribution versus a relatively small human input. This argument is reinforced by the Fraction of local renewable emergy used (Table 2) of 99.79% to overall emergy inputs. The same can be said of the Fraction of purchased emergy used to all emergy inputs (Table 2) of %. The Emergy Use per Person, of 3.71E18 sej/person/yr, is high, due to the large territory occupied by a very small population. CONCLUSION Settlers activities tended to concentrate where there was less effort for greater monetary returns, such as in hunting and fishing and illegal selling of fish and game outside the park area. Thus, even a small human population represented a great threat to biodiversity and natural conservation practices. This drain of natural products couldn t be shown by the survey and consequently by the -501-

7 Table 2. Summary of emergy indexes in Jau's National Park, Letter Item Quantity Units Y/F Net Emergy Yield Ratio F/I Emergy Investment Ratio R Renewable emergy inflow 4.26E+21 sej/yr NO Non-renewable emergy storage 5.02E+18 sej/yr G Flow of imported emergy 7.53E+16 sej/yr I+NO+G Total emergy inflow 4.27E+21 sej/yr U Total Emergy use (NO+NI+I+G) 4.27E+21 sej/yr F Total exported emergy 6.90E+17 sej/yr (N0+N1+R)/U Fraction of emergy used from home sources sej/yr G - Y Imports minus exports -7.65E+17 % Y/G Ratio exports/imports 9.17 sej/yr R/ U Fraction of local renewable emergy used G / U Fraction of purchased emergy used % (R + NO) / U Fraction of free emergy used % U/ (area) Fraction of emergy use per area 1.88E+11 sej/m 2 U/ (Population) Emergy use per person 3.71E+18 sej/person/yr Fuels/Population Dollars paid for imports 9.15E+11 sej/person/yr Table 3. Emergy investment in productive or extractive activities. emergy evaluation, although it pointed out the vast differences in labor efforts between demanding manioc production and extractive activities on one side, and hunting and fishing on the other. Jaú s National Park s management plan should consider measures to turn local dwellers into park defenders and guides through a program of environmental education that would enable authorities to convert traditional hunters into park husbandmen and caretakers. The other aspect which the emergy evaluation was able to point out was the net advantage the world outside the park was receiving from the settlers products, a 10 to 1 ratio. This is analogous to what happens to donor countries of the poor world, which sell primary products and receive almost no value in return, whilst degrading their natural resource base and worsening their social condition. BIBLIOGRAPHY Investment in Activity E17 Sej/yr Odum, H.T Environmental Accounting - Emergy and Environmental Decision Making. John Wiley & Sons. New York. 263 pp. Odum, H.T. And E. Odum The Prosperous Way Down. Odum, H.T., F.C. Wang, I.F. Alexander, M. Gilliland. M.A. Miller, and J. Sendzimir Energy Analysis Of Environmental Value. Center for Wetlands, UF, Gainesville, FL. 97pp Total Activity % Production in E17 Sej/yr Total Production % Activity Manioc production Forest products extraction Orchards fruit picking negligible Fishing Hunting