Course simron singh hanpp_july2010

1

ADVANCED COURSE ON THE ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONFLICTS AND JUSTICE Summer School, 05.07.2010

Human Appropriation of Net Primary Production (HANPP) and social conflicts

Veronika Gaube, Simron J. Singh,

Institute of Social Ecology, Klagenfurt University

In collaboration with:

H. Haberl, K.-H. Erb, F. Krausmann, S. Gingrich, C. Plutzar


Overview

• HANPP: what, why and how?

– The integrated land system

– Measuring impacts of land use

• Data and methods

• Global HANPP 2000 – some results

• Conclusions: Q&A

2


Land – a socioecological system

Socioeconomicsystem

Terrestrialecosystem

Purposive alteration – „colonization“

Flow of resources (biomass) and services


HANPP: measuring impacts of land use

HANPP measures

changes in yearly

biomass flows in

ecosystems resulting

from land use

Society

Resources gained

Work / energy invested

Natural ecosystem

Colonized systemChange inducedthrough

colonization

3


An integrated socio-ecological perspective on global biomass flows: The HANPP approach

Potential vegetation

NPP0

Productivity of potential vegetation

(hypothetical vegetationassumed to prevail in theabsence of land use; e.g., forests, grasslands, savannahs, deserts, shrubs, etc.

Actual vegetation

NPPact

Productivity of actualvegetation

(including croplands, grasslands, built-up area, etc.

NPP remaining afterharvest

NPPt

Energy remaining in the ecosystem afterharvest

Productivity change

(∆NPPLC)Harvest (NPPh)

Human approriation of NPP

(HANPP)

• Indicator of land-use intensity• ‚Pressure‘ indicator, useful to analyze

drivers of land use


Human Appropriation of NetPrimary Production (Definition)

Ac

tua

lV

eg

eta

tio

n

Po

ten

tial

Veg

eta

tio

n

NPP

gC/m²/yr

Harv

es

t

NPPh

∆∆∆∆NPPLC

HANPP

NPPt

4

ADVANCED COURSE ON THE ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONFLICTS AND JUSTICE Summer School, 05.07.2010Annabella Musel| CEECEC Vienna Workshop | 23 Feb 09 | 7

Units

HANPP is expressed as:

� Material flows (biomass flows):basic unit = kg dry matter per year [kgDM/yr]

� Substance (carbon) flows:basic unit = kg carbon per year [kgC/yr]

� Energy flows:basic unit = Joule per year [J/yr]


The MEFA framework: Accounting for(impacts of) resource use

Dimensions of resource use Impacts

Materials Depletion of stocks

Emissions, wastes

Energy Risk (nuclear)

Climate change

Land Biodiversity

Landscape change

5


Impacts of HANPP

• Changes patterns and processes in ecosystems, including biodiversity

• Alters stocks and flows of carbon in

ecosystems

• Affects biogeochemical cycles (water, nitrogen, etc.)

• Reduces the amount of trophic (=food)

energy available for all other species

than humans and their livestock

• May affect resilience and ecosystemservices such as self-regulating

capacity, buffering capacity, etc.

Potential vegetation

Actual vegetation

NPP remaining afterharvest


Human Appropriation of NetPrimary Production

• A measure for the reduction of trophic (=food) energy available for all

other species than humans and their livestock

• Indicator for land use intensity

• HANPP can be directly related to socio-economic activities, thus

allowing preventive measures to lower human pressures on

ecosystems

• Empirical basis: Systematic and consistent data integration: land use

data, land cover data, data on socioeconomic metabolism

6


HANPP methods: Calculation approach forassessing global HANPP

• NPP0 (potential vegetation): LPJ-DGVM results (vegetation model)

• NPPh (harvest):

– Statistics on the national and subnational level

– Based on the international standard methodology for material and energy

flow accounting (MEFA).

– Flows not covered or underestimated by international statistics (e.g. biomass

grazed by livestock) assessed on basis of demand-driven modelling

approaches and regional estimates.

• NPPact (actual, after land use change):

– Mixed approaches, combining statistics and modelling approaches

– Conservative approach: in the absence of data, NPPact = NPP0


Data integration: the land use model

NPP0: LPJ-DGVM

Non-used areas

Irrigation Degradation

NPPact

Erb et al., 2007 J Land Use Sci., 2:

191-224

7


Summary of HANPP methods

NPPh

NPPact

NPP0

MFA Methods, basedon data fromagricultural and forestry statistics

HANPP component Data, methods Required expertise

Agricultural and forestry statistics

GIS (e.g., CORINE land cover)

Ecosystem modelingbased on climate and soil data; reconstructions of potential vegetation

Usual statisticalmethods

Statistical methodscombined with GIS expertise

Ecosystem modeling

GIS expertise


Mappingglobal

HANPP2000

(a) Land-use induced changes in productivity (∆∆∆∆NPPLC)

(b) Aggregate HANPP (∆∆∆∆NPPLC plus harvest)

Haberl et al., 2007.

Proc. Natl. Acad.

Sci., USA 104,

12942-12947.

8


Global HANPP 2000 – processes

∆∆∆∆NPPLC%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

NPP0 NPPact

[Pg

C/y

r]

HANPP%

9,6% ∆NPPLC

22,4% HANPP

dNPPlc

43%

Useful

harvest

39%

Backflows

to nature

10%

Human-

induced

fires

8%

∆∆∆∆NPPLC

Breakdown ofHANPP


Global HANPP: towards an understandingof proximate and ultimate causes

Activities causing global HANPP

Cropping

51%

Grazing

22%

Forestry

10%

Infra-

structure

9%

Human-

induced

fires

8%

9


Analysis of global HANPP patterns 2000

HANPP per person

0

1

2

3

4

5

Industrial core Transition

countries

Developing

countries

Global

average

[t C

/cap

/yr] HANPP per unit of GDP

0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1

Industrial core Transition

countries

Developing

countries

Global

average

[kg

C/U

S$]


Global HANPP 2000: A summary

• Global HANPP amounts to 24% (aboveground 29%)

• Agriculture is the most important driver:

– Cropping and grazing contribute three quarters to global

HANPP.

– Feeding of livestock consumes almost two thirds of the total

amount of biomass used by humanity

• Considerable regional variation of HANPP, mainly

depending on

– Consumption level (per capita HANPP in industrialized

countries is about twice that of developing countries)

– Population density

– Agricultural yields

10


Geographical patterns of global HANPP[1]: HANPP per unit area and year

Krausmann et al., 2009 J. Land Use Sci., 4: 15-34.


Population density

11


Geographical patterns of global HANPP[2]: HANPP per capita and year



Future challenges

• Future biomass demand will surge:

– population growth (8-9 bill. 2050),

– surges in animal fractions in diet (strongly correlated with income),

– bioenergy strategies

• Supply side: Options/potentials for sustainable biomass utilization are

limited

– Land use expansion to areas with currently small HANPP (where? Amazon,

boreal regions? What about biodiversity endangerment?)

– Intensification of production (yield increases e.g. in agriculture)

– Gains in land-use efficiency: fostering the use of „backflows to nature“,

reducing fires, or productivity losses

– � all strategies may come at high socio-ecological costs: requires integrated

perspectives

12


Conclusions

• HANPP work is policy relevant

– For example, HANPP suggests to proceed with caution with respect

to the promotion of biomass for energy provision (cascade utilization

instead of maximization of harvest)

• HANPP is directly linked to MFA-related methods

• HANPP calculations are devoid of any arbitrary weighting

methods/factors

• HANPP is a mature, robust, spatially explicit indicator of impacts

of resource use, in particular on ecosystems and biodiversity

– It can be calculated with reasonable effort and reasonable accuracy

– Comparable across space and time, in particular across countries

and over decadal to centennial time series

ADVANCED COURSE ON THE ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONFLICTS AND JUSTICE Summer School, 05.07.2010CEECEC Vienna Workshop| 27 Feb|

24

HANPP as a socio-political tool within EE

1. Measure of pressure humans exert on environmentMeasure of changes in yearly biomass flows in ecosystems resulting from land use +

harvest

2. HANPP as an indicator for ecosystem servicesLoss of BiodiversityCarbon storage

13


25

HANPP as a socio-political tool within EE

3. Can be used to show resource distribution and

unequal exchange (Embodied HANPP)

Who appropriates HANPP flows most and at what cost?

Who controls them? In which form?

Who controls the land in terms of biomass production

(quantity)?

4. Measure of land-use intensity

How is land controlled in terms of quality?

Input of fertilizer, irrigation … > degradation

Who controls and regulates the quality of land


26

HANPP related indicators

� Money per unit of HANPP

Who earns this i.e. benefits from HANPP?

> Export of biomass and biomass goods

Who pays for HANPP? Valuation

E.g. degradation > loss of subsistence

� Embodied HANPP in products

related to lifestyle e.g. HANPP/product

Amount of consumption, what is consumed

> Unequal share of HANPP

� HANPP/area

Pressure on ecosystem

14


India


Brazil

15


United Kingdom


Saudi Arabia

16


Thank you for your attentation!

For further questions please contact also:

[email protected]


HANPP and Biodiversity

17


HANPP and biodiversity: The species-energy hypothesis

• Hypothesis: The number of species is positively related to the flow of energy in an ecosystem.

⇒⇒⇒⇒ If humans reduce energy flow(e.g., through HANPP), thenspecies richness will decline.

• Notes– Can explain species diversity

gradient from equator to poles.

– Not undisputed. Competing(complementary) hypothesesexist (e.g., intermediatedisturbance hypothesis).

HANPP

Brown, J.H. (1981) Am. Zool. 21, 877-888.

Gaston, K.L. (2000) Nature 405, 220-227.

Hutchinson, G.E. (1959) Am. Nat. 93, 145-159.

Rapson, G.L. et al. (1997) J. Ecol. 85, 99-100.

Waide, R.B. et al. (1999) Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 30,257-300.

Wright, D.H. (1983) Oikos 41, 495-506.

Wright, D.H. (1990) Ambio 19, 189-194.


Empirical studies support the HANPP / biodiversity hypothesis

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 202010

-2

4x10-2

Y = -1.975 +0.485 X

R² =0 .549, p < 0.0001

i)

all h

ete

rotr

op

hs

NPPt

0.1 1 10

1

10

100

Y =1.32916+0.69916 X-0.22962 X2

Adj. R2 = 0.69

bre

edin

g b

ird s

pecie

s r

ichness

NPPt [MJ/m²*a]

Case study 1: Correlation between NPPt

and autotroph species richness (5 taxa) on 38 plots sized 600x600 m, East Austria

Haberl et al., 2004, Agric., Ecosyst. & Envir. 102, p213ff

Case study 2: Correlation between NPPt and

breeding bird richness in Austria, 328 randomly chosen 1x1 km squares.

Haberl et al., 2005. Agric., Ecosyst. & Envir. 110, p119ff

18


LPJVegetation model for calculation of

potential Vegetation


LPJThe LPJ Dynamic Global Vegetation Model (Sitch et al., GCB, 2003)

Tra

ns

form

ed

by

pro

ce

ss m

od

ule

s i

nto

Climate, Soil, CO2

C budget, H20 Budget,Vegetation Composition

� 10 plant functional types

� competition, mortality, establishment

� fire, permafrost

� photosynthesis: coupled C and H2O cycles

� C allocation (funct. and struct. relations)

� Carbon pools: 4 in vegetation, 4 in litter/soil

� Full hydrology

AET

Ci

AET

Ci

crown area

height

fine roots

leaves

LAI

sapwoodheartwood

0-50 cm50-150 cm

stemdiameter

Sp

ace &

Tim

e L

oop

s

19


HANPP 1700-2000


Understanding global HANPP dynamics: Towards a consistent time series 1700-2000

• Global reconstruction of land use/cover change: BIOME

300, etc.

• Biomass harvest / biomass use data are available 1910-

2000

• Yield data are available 1910-2000

• So far no reconstruction of NPP0 and NPPact

– NPP0: DGVM-simulation

– NPPact: needs to integrate land use, yield, degradation and crop

morphology (harvest index) data

20


Global land-use change 1700-2000Biome 300 data

Klein Goldewijk, 2001. Glob. Biogeochem. Cyc. 15:417-433

-

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1700 1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 1970 1990

[Mio

. km

²]

Deserts and ice

Shrublands

Natural grasslands & tundra

Marginal cropland/grazing

Intensive cropland

Boreal forests

Temperate forests

Tropical forests


Global wilderness areas 1700-2000

K.-H. Erb, unpublished draft results

21


Yield increases of cereals*, 1920-2000

0,00

1,00

2,00

3,00

4,00

5,00

6,00

1920 1940 1960 1980 2000

[t/h

a]

Germany Austria Czech Republic United States of America World

Source: FAOstat

* Weighted

average of

cereals

(excluding

maize, rice)


Global biomass harvest 1910-2000

• Data sources:

FAO, Institute

Internationale de

Agriculture

• Total biomass

harvest grows

by a factor of 2.8

• Crops grow

fastest (factor

4.5), grazing

most slowly (1.9)

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

191

0

192

0

193

0

194

0

195

0

196

0

197

0

198

0

199

0

200

0

[Pg

C/y

r]

Wood

Grazing

Residues

Crops

22


Analysis of global biomass use1910-2000

per capita

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

19

10

19

20

19

30

19

40

19

50

19

60

19

70

19

80

19

90

20

00

Per

cap

ita b

iom

ass

use [

GJ/c

ap

/yr]

Industrial Core

Transition countries

Developing Countries

total

per unit of GDP

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

19

10

19

20

19

30

19

40

19

50

19

60

19

70

19

80

19

90

20

00

Bio

ma

ss

us

e p

er

un

it o

f G

DP

[MJ

/19

90

US

$]

Industrial Core

Transition countries

Developing Countries

total


Summary: Global HANPP 1700-2000

• Total biomass harvest increased more or less parallel to

population growth (1910-2000)

• Rising yields imply that HANPP per unit of biomass

harvested decreases ⇒ HANPP has probably risen at a

much lower rate than biomass harvest

• Climate change has probably increased NPP0 in the last

centuries (CO2 fertilization)

• Actual NPP is also driven by

– Land degradation

– Agricultural intensification

23


Some features and principles of HANPP methods

• Measurement of flows (and potentially stocks) in physical

units

– Tons of dry matter biomass per year [t DM/yr]

– Tons of carbon per year [t C/yr]

– Joules per year [J/yr]

• Spatially explicit

– Existing database: c 10 x 10 km at the equator (5 min)

– Feasible for Europe: 1 x 1 km or even lower (€!)

• Fits perfectly with MFA-derived indicators


Regional breakdown of global HANPP

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Industr

ial

core

Tra

nsitio

n

countr

ies

DC

Am

erica

DC

Afr

ica

DC

Asia

[Pg

C/y

r] dNPPlc

NPPh

ANPPt

21%

16%

15% 17%

36%

24


Population density strongly influencesHANPP per hectare, but…


(1) Yemen

(2) Qatar

(3) Kuwait


… HANPP per capita is smaller in denselypopulated countries


(1) Yemen

(2) Qatar

(3) Kuwait

25


Natural productivity potential constrainsHANPP per unit area and year

• HANPP is

constrained by

productive potential

in poor

environments

• In favourable

environments

socioeconomic

factors determine

the level of HANPP

Course simron singh hanpp_july2010

Documents

Transcript of Course simron singh hanpp_july2010