1. 1 A proposal to REVIEW the EMERGY METHODOLOGY in order to make possible a PROPER ASSESSMENT of sustainable rural systems Laboratory of Ecological Engineering, Food Engineering School, State University of Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brazil Enrique Ortega, Fabio Takahashi, José Maria Gusman, Luis Alberto Ambrosio Support:

2. 2 PROBLEM In the Northern Hemisphere, the agriculture was transformed into a very simple system due to the intensive use of industrial chemicals and machinery in substitution of biological processes and local labor. Because of that, the emergy assessment of rural systems lost its inherent complexity. For the correct assessment of ecological farming the excluded factors must be considered. PROPOSAL

3. 3 INTRODUCTION The research at the Laboratory of Ecological Engineering deals with the emergy diagnosis of Food Production and Consumption Systems and the design of new models for rural systems. At the beginning of activities in 1994, the emergy methodology was applied to conventional chemical farming systems. In 1998, the research focus shifted to soybean farming, the most important agricultural system in Brazil. Soybean is produced in many types of farms, some of them are ecological farms.

4. 4 During the data collection it was discovered that: In family managed ecological farms, an important objective was the maintenance of local labor; The native vegetation is preserved because it supplies materials and services to the peasant’s family; Regional feedback inputs can be renewable or partly renewable; Ecological farms produce environmental services. Chemical farms produce deleterious externalities.

5. 5 It was concluded that there were two main soybean production models, both with two variants: (a) Biological model - agro-ecological farming - organic farming (b) Chemical model - inputs intensive farming - biotechnological farming It was necessary to work with farm typology, a novelty in emergy analysis. In this presentation the farming models studied will be described.

6. 6 The emergy methodology needs to be actualized, it demands always to be improved! The suggestion of considering the inputs specific renewability was presented at the 4 th International Workshop Advances in Energy Studies, in 2002. In the 4 th Emergy Conference, which took place in 2006, it was presented the idea that information is the key input for Brazilian soybean system and a form to calculate it. In this meeting, the main contribution is that farm diagnosis should consider impact absorption area using concepts of ecological footprint method and global warming mitigation.

7. 7 The first reference to agriculture emergy analysis was a chapter of the book Energy in Agriculture (Odum, 1984). After that, in Emergy Folio #4, Brandt-Williams & Odum (2002) presented a very similar systems diagram. METHODOLOGY HISTORY Figure 1 shows the diagram used for the emergy analysis of the Agriculture of Florida.

8. 8 Figure 2. A systems diagram with 11 inputs and 1 product was applied to 22 crops (Emergy Folio 4. Agriculture of Florida)

9. 9 In 1997, Brandt-Williams and Odum wrote a paper to explain the procedure to make the emergy assessment of agriculture. This work became a chapter of the book Ecological Engineering and Sustainable Agriculture that was published in Portuguese on the internet. The following diagrams belong to this book. http://www.fea.unicamp.br/docentes/ortega/livro/index.htm www.fea.unicamp.br/docentes/ortega/livro/C03-SherryOdum.pdf

10. 10 Figure 1a. Energy flows diagram of an Agriculture system.

11. 11 Figure 1b. Nomenclature of aggregated flows.

12. 12 Figure 1c. Soil as non-renewable resource.

13. 13 Figure 1d. Resumed diagram showing aggregated flows of inputs and one output.

14. 14 These two approaches didn’t consider: The environmental services provided by farm’s preserved forest and wetlands; Biologically fixed nitrogen and soil minerals mobilized by micro-biota; That part of production destined to local population; Recycling; The possibility of co-products, as for example, second crops; Waste, emissions, rural exodus, toxic substances, deaths by intoxication, biodiversity loss, human culture degradation and other outputs.

15. 15 Ortega et al. (2002a, 2002b), concerned with the distortion between reality and emergy indices, proposed the use of input’s renewability for emergy flows calculation and also new indices. This perspective is described in the next figures. The feedback could have a renewable part (F R ) and non-renewable part (F N ): F = F R + F N = (M R + S R ) + (M N + S N ) M R =  M iR =  (Ren i ) (M i ) M N =  M iN =  (1-Ren i ) (M i ) M = M R + M N Each Material and Service has its own renewability: S = S R + S N

16. 16 Figure 3a. A broad vision of agricultural systems. Biological model: Agro-ecological farming.

17. 17 Figure 3b. A broad vision of agriculture systems. Transition to chemical farming.

18. 18 Figure 3c. A broad vision of agriculture systems. Chemical model: inputs intensive farming.

19. 19 Figure 3d. Aggregated flows diagram. F = F R + F N

20. 20 Figure 4. A new diagram proposed to study agricultural systems (Ortega et al., 2002a, 2002b) Our first idea for a General Model (It includes biological & chemical systems).

21. 21 Figure 5. Proposal of a more complete systems diagram measuring INFO, GW, WT and LR (Ortega, 2006). Info WT LR GW

22. 22 Figure 6. An even more complete systems diagram for an agricultural system.

23. 23 Step by step building-up of the complex diagram

24. 24

25. 25 OUR SUGGESTIONS (a)To use the renewability of each input in the Emergy Flows and Emergy Indices calculations; (b)To consider as additional renewable inputs those flows that are produced by biodiversity, such as soil minerals obtained by deep roots and micro- biota and chemicals produced by symbiotic biota;

26. 26 The real productivity without the consideration of top soil erosion and fossil fuel use as positive fact (instead of EYR = (R/F) + (N/F) +1 use R/F instead of ESI =EYR/ELR use B/C=R/N); (c) To develop indicators that measure: Renewable and non-renewable capital; Internal flows (local consumption, material recycling, internal services); Human labor quality; Environmental services loss; Negative externalities;

27. 27 (d) To consider Natural Capital, Environmental services, Infra-structure, Financial and Social Resources, Emissions and Waste as new items in the Inputs-Output balance. (e) To consider the value of Information as input, stock and output; (f) To discuss the contradiction of using Transformity Tr = (R+N+F)/E as indicator of viability, because low productivity (E) and high erosion farms (N) could have the biggest values! (g) To consider impact absorption area.

28. 28 Ex Figure 7. First part of a proposal for a generic diagram.

29. 29 The second part of the generic diagram: impact absorption area

30. 30 The complete system diagram The impact production must fit the impact absorption capacity

31. 31 The complete system can be represented in a compact form. It can be seen as a fractal.

32. 32 Interconnected fractals The question is that until today the production-consumption systems have not been planned correctly!

33. 33 All the human systems have been built without impact absorption area!

34. 34 Overshoot possibility!There is an area deficit! (Agostinho et al., 2008) It is up to 6 to 13 times bigger than the crop area! What is the size of the impact absorption area in agriculture? Brazilian watershed (Siche et al., 2007) (Ulgiati et al., 2001) Other countries (Brown et al., 2002)

35. 35 The farm productivity should be compared in a proper basis: as a whole system, including complementary area. The agro-ecological farm already includes its impact absorption area as preserved natural area that also produces environmental services. The chemical farm should include the complementary area needed to absorb environmental impact and to produce the environmental services that are lost due to its full conversion to crop land. Productivity = -------------------------------------------------------- Production (kg/year) Crop area + Impact absorption area (ha)

36. 36 An example of whole system comparison: Corn production in an agro-ecological farm: Corn production in a chemical farm: Productivity = ----------------------------------------------- = --------------- 2000 kg/year Crop area (1 ha) + absorption area (1 ha) 1000 kg/year ha Productivity = ----------------------------------------------- = --------------- 6000 kg/year Crop area (1 ha) + absorption area (11 ha) 500 kg/year ha This concept helps to explain the so called “Scale Economy” that really works in the opposite sense!

37. 37 Table 1. Classification of Emergy flows Inputs and servicesDescription I: Nature contributionR + N R = R 1 + R 2 +R 3 Renewable resources from nature Rain; Materials and Services from preserved areas; Nutrients from soil minerals and air. N: Nature non-renewable inputsSoil and diversity loss (including people). F: Economy FeedbackF = M + S M: MaterialsM = M R + M N M R : Renewable MaterialsRenewable materials from natural origin. M N : Non-renewable MaterialsMinerals, Chemicals, Steel, Fuel, etc. S: Services (total)S = S R + S N + S A S R : Labor Services (partially renewable)Labor (family, local and external): S R = S RF + S RL + S RE S N : Other Services (non-renewable)Taxes, money costs, insurance, etc. S A : Additional Services (non-renewable)Externalities: effluents, medical and job costs, Y: Total EmergyY = I + F

38. 38 Table 2a. Proposals for Emergy Indices Modified Emergy IndicesFormulaConcept Renewability*R* = (R + M R + S R ) / YRenewable/Total Environmental Loading ratio*ELR* = (N+M N +S N ) / (R+M R +S R )Non-renewable/renewable New Emergy IndicesFormulaConcept Labor Services RatioLSR = S R / SLabor/Services Labor Empower RatioLER = S R / YLabor/Empower Family farmingLWR = S RF / (S RL +S NE )Family labor/Others Externalities Empower RatioExER = S A / YExternalities/Empower Cycling ratioCR = C / FCycling / Feedback

39. 39 Table 2b. Proposals for Emergy Indices New Emergy IndicesFormulaConcept Natural Capital/EconomyNC / (IE + F N )Natural Capital / Feedback Renewable mobilizationBenefit =R/FRenewable/Feedback Non-renewable mobilizationCost =N/FNonrenewable / Feedback Systemic Benefit/CostBC=R/NRenewables /Non-renewables External resources dependenceED= F/RFeedback/Renewables Natural Capital rateCN / TimeNatural capital change with time Anthropic rate(IE + F N ) / TimeHuman assets change with time

40. 40 RESULTS & DISCUSSION Agro-forestry (10 years) Conventional extensive low productivity

41. 41 The End of Oil Actual and Projected Oil Production Increasing: N/F, ELR, EIR, Tr, EER Increasing: %Ren, R/F Decreasing: %Ren, R/F Decreasing: N/F, ELR, EIR,Tr, EER CO 2 Reduction Actual and Projected CO 2 Production Individualism, capitalism competition & exclusion Community solutions Support a social & ecological perspective for

42. 42 CONCLUSIONS OR RECOMMENDATIONS 1.If the suggestions proposed here are pertinent, then it is necessary to organize a group to discuss these issues in deep; 2.Give this group a reasonable time (4-6 months) to discuss on the best procedures for this kind of emergy calculation; 3.Disseminate the preliminary results among the emergy researchers to obtain feedback; 4. Write a new folio on Agriculture (General Scope)

43. 43 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Adriana Pires for egg production system research Teldes Albuquerque for Agro-forestry systems research Mileine Zanghetin for helping in preparation of PowerPoint presentation Feni Agostinho for discussion and graph preparation of forested area needed to absorb the impact of non-renewable feedback from economy

44. 44

45. 45

46. 46

47. 47

48. 48

49. 49