Towards the identification and calculation of characterization factors for land use in western Argentina

Transcription

1 Expert Workshop on Definition of Best Indicators for Biodiversity and Soil Quality for Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) June 2006 Towards the identification and calculation of characterization factors for land use in western Argentina Arena, A.P., Civit, B. Universidad Tecnológica Nacional Facultad Regional Mendoza Laboratorio de Ambiente Humano y Vivienda INCIHUSA (CONICET) 2006, International Year of Deserts and Desertification,

2 DESERTIFICATION The land degradation in arid, semiarid and sub-humid dry regions resulting from different factors, such as climatic variations and human activities (UNCCD, 1995:7). Argentina: : Two thirds of its territory presents desertification symptoms at different degrees. Mendoza: The artificial oasis represents 2-4% 2 of the provincial area, and concentrates 98,5% of the population, while 98 % of the province are lands without irrigation. The proximate causes identified are: diminution of water volume in rivers due to increasing extraction upstream in the oasis, expansion of agricultural frontier (vineyards), felling of trees from natural forests (Prosopis( spp, early XX century), cattle raising beyond the load capacity of fields (overpasturing)) (Abraham 2004).

3 IDENTIFICATION OF INDICATORS However, evidence from empirical case studies shows that desertification is determined by different combinations of proximate causes and underlying driving forces which include coupled socioeconomic and biophysical factors. Even though there is consensus in the need of account on indicators and benchmarks, from the methodological point of view the problem arises since there are different realities to compare, and no global set of indicators could reveal the complexity of human environment systems inherent to dryland change (GEIST et al 2004). For the case of Mendoza, based on an interdisciplinary conception, a first method was structured and applied (Abraham 2004)

4 Methodology for the definition of Indicators 1) Inventory of factors and desertification processes for environmental unit (ecosystems). Basic information about the physical (abiotic potential), biological and socio-economical aspects (anthropic use) is acquired (remote sensing, information from the field) and mapped, organized in a GIS. 2) This information is translated into indicators for obtaining: the fragility degree of the ecosystem for desertification (summing up all the indicators for the physic-biological support, like salinity and alkalinity of soil, water and wind erosion, soil depth and texture, vegetal cover and stratification, aridity index, soil freezing). the degree of anthropogenic pressure which is acting over those ecosystems (summing up all the indicators which are related with the resources demand from social groups, like population density, animal load, use of wood as fuel, poverty index ). 3) The relationship between the fragility and the anthropogenic pressure for ecosystem gives the Risk of desertification of each ecosystem, which shows the state and the main indicators leading the process, being natural or anthropogenic. Map

5 Program to Combat Desertification and Drought Mitigation in South America Participants: Argentina, Bolivia, Brasil,, Chile, Ecuador, Perú Framework: the same suggested by the European Environmental Agency: Drivers-Pressure Pressure-State-Impacts-Responses,, also used in the MEDRAP, DISMED, DESERTLINK, an others programs. The different desertification set of indicators proposed by each country are being consolidated. Currently (aggregated list): 28 State Indicators 13 Pressure Indicators 20 Response Indicators 66 Impact indicators All of them include abiotic (soil, water, climate), biophysical (flora, fauna), socio-economical (use of land, population, poverty), and institutional and organizational aspects (N of institutions, existence of laws, programs related with land degradation).

6 Problems to be solved (some of them ) Even though there have being progresses in the definition of indicators for measuring the state and risk of desertification, there is no currently a consensus on a set of suitable indicators. The discussion about it is still in progress. The list of indicators is very extensive and must be revised according to relevant criteria as SMART (Specific,( Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-bound (Schomaker( Schomaker,, 1997) It assumes a fairly detailed knowledge of local aspects It requires data on the previous history of land conversion There is a paucity of knowledge on many of these elements. The aim of the indicators developed within the UNCCD framework (e.g. Production of Proposals for regional planning, establishing zones for possible uses and restrictions) is different from that of LCA. Their list of indicators must be adapted for LCA purposes.

7 REFERENCES Abraham, E. (2004) Experiencia Argentina vinculada con la obtención n y evaluación n de indicadores de desertificación. La utilización n de indicadores socio-econ económicos en el estudio y la lucha contra la desertificación: acuerdos, discrepancias y problemas conceptuales subyacentes. Torres, L., Montaña, a, E., Abraham, E., Torres, E., Pastor, G. Urbina, S. In press ub Revista Estudios Interdisciplinarios de América Latina y el Caribe,, Vol. 16, No. 2 (2005) Institute of Latin American History and Culture, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv. Mathilde Snel and Alexandra Bot Some suggested indicators for Land Degradation Assessment of Drylands.. LADA project. GEIST, H., LAMBIN, E. Dynamic Causal Patterns of Desertification. BioScience September 2004 / Vol. 54 No. 9 ROIG, F. et al., Documento de base para la elaboración del Plan Nacional de Acción de Lucha contra la Desertificación.. Mendoza, 78p

8 Desertification in South America

9 Risk of desertification in Mendoza

10 Methodology 5) This methodology gives a picture of the situation. In order to be able to have an evolution of the process, a baseline must be obtained, which is determined using data from historic reports, archeological reports, and reports from different disciplines (dendrocronology, historic climatology, etnobothanics, geomorfology, etnohistory, palinology, etc). By comparison of historic reports (documental sources, travelers notebooks) with the environmental ones, it s possible to assess the changes between the current situation and the one of our base ecosystem. The indicators have been developed by working with local stakeholders and taking into account their different perceptions of desertification, land use type and decision-making processes. The methodology is innovative in that it allows both bottom-up and topdown flows of information. This is fundamental to the success of selecting the most effective land management practices to mitigate land degradation, and provides indicators for the identification of desertification risk, as well as for management methods and techniques.

11 Indicators State Indicators (aridity index, standard index of precipitation, surface & underground water availability, index of hydric poverty, water quality, n n of wells per area unit, % of furrows, % of dunes, slope grade, electrical conductivity degree, alkalinity, sodicity,, organic matter content, flora and fauna species at extinction risk, degradation state of vegetation, dominant species, flora and fauna stratification, % of surface under different ownership forms, producers distribution by amount of area, urban and rural population density, % of women as family heads, functional analphabetism rate, basic services presence, health care access, infantile mortality rate, credit access, N N of state owned institutions and research centers aimed at dry land recovery, N of NGO s s aimed at dry land recovery) Pressure Indicators (Rain water impact, wind speed, water supply/demand ratio, % of bare soil or surface albedo, hydric erosion degree, eolic erosion degree, % of vegetal cover, fire risk, % of change in vegetal cover, animal load, % of wood as fuel, % of change in use of land, advance of agricultural frontier)

12 Indicators Response Indicators (N of water studies institutions, National/local existence of normative related with water, N N of soil studies institutions, National/local existence of normative related with soils, National/local existence of normative related with flora y fauna, N N of flora and fauna studies institutions, % of recovered dry land, % of existent and projected protected areas, existence of National/provincial ovincial laws related with land degradation, N N of organizations and programs on dryland issues, N N of institutions and projects associated with the funding of the National action plan (PAN), provincial development plans and programs on desertification, ion, amount of provincial, national and international funds aimed at financing the PAN projects, N N of universities and research institutions working on desertification tion issues, % of population under desertification projects, N N of active organizations, types of base organizations, scholar curricula including environmental issues, % of women leaders.) Impact indicators (migration net ratio, most frequent illness, analphabetism rate, % of economically active population, % of population under poverty line, % of population under indigence line)