Fehrenbach SETAC 2015 Hemeroby

Horst Fehrenbach (IFEU), Birgit Grahl (INTEGRAHL) and Mirjam Busch (IFEU) SETAC Europe 25th Annual Meeting 5 May 2015

Hemeroby as an impact category metric for the integration of land use and biodiversity into the Life Cycle (Impact) Assessment

INTEGRAHL

Horst Fehrenbach | Birgit Grahl | Mirjam Busch 2 05.05.2015

Conceptual and Methodical Basics in a Nutshell

• Naturalness is the safeguard subject capturing also information on biodiversity and ecosystem services

• The negative impact = loss of naturalness.

• It’s a midpoint metric, close to the level of LCI results.

• Only occupation impact.

• Ordinal scale of seven hemeroby classes,

• with the option to apply Characterization Factors

• It’s applicable for every land-use type.


Overview

1. The Hemeroby Approach

2. Scheme for forest area

3. Scheme for agricultural area

4. Examples

5. Characterization factors

6. Outlook


The Hemeroby Approach

The so-called „UBA method“ since the late 90ies



„Hemeroby“? What does it mean?

Ancient greek:

hémeros = tamed, cultivated

bíos = life

Hemeroby = Distance to nature



multi-criteria approach linking the use of land to different safeguard subjects:

• Structure and functionality of ecosystems as such • Biological diversity • different ecosystem services contributing to human wellbeing

(definition ESS).

Presumes a priori positive character of nature proximity „wilderness“ (nature does not harm itself!) per se good natural conditions at ecosystem level



Cause-effect chain around hemeroby



The 7 hemeroby classes I Natural

II Close-to-nature

III Partially close-to-nature

IV Semi-natural

V Partially distant to nature

VI Distant-to-nature

VII Non-natural


The Hemeroby Approach - Indicative typology Indicative examples

Hemeroby class for forested area for agricultural land for other land type

I Natural - - Undisturbed ecosystem, pristine

forest, no utilisation

II Close-to-

nature

Close-to-nature

forest manage-

ment,

- -

III Partially

close-to-

nature

Intermediate forest management

Highly diversified

agroforestry systems,

-

IV Semi-

natural

Semi-natural forest management

Close-to-nature agric.

land use, extensive

grassland, orchards etc.

-

V Partially

distant to

nature

Mono-cultural forest Intermediate agric.

Moderate intensity,

SRC, fertilized grassland

-

VI Distant-to-

nature

- Large-area, highly intensified

arable land in cleared

landscape

Solar fields, windparks

VII Non-

natural

- - Long-term sealed,

mining lands, landfills

Isle of Vilm (DE)



Determination scheme based on metrics score system



Is an ordinal scale less science-based or more value-based than factors on a cardinal scale?

1. Value based decisions are unavoidable (see figure).

2. indicator data in precise numerical form tend to suggest a pseudo-objective accuracy that is not supported by actual science

3. classes allows an assignment into common classes of land use typology


Scheme for forest area

Pristine forest = Class I paradigm for close-to-nature forestry utilizing the forest without letting it know.

Criteria and metrics based on forest management safeguarding the natural processes Assessing metrics referring to:

• Status quo (given measurable conditions on site)

• Active management (documented forestry activities)


Scheme for forest area

Criteria and metrics

Criterion: Natural character of the soil

metric 1: Intensity of mechanical earth working (AM)

metric 2: Forest dissection (SQ)

metric 3: Intensity of material interventions (liming and fertilization) (AM)

metric 4: Intensity of material interventions (pesticide deployment) (AM)

metric 5: Continuity of soil development (SQ)

metric 6: Continuity of mature forest sites (AM)

metric 7: Unspoiled water regime in the top soil (AM)

Criterion: Natural character of the forest vegetation

metric 1: Natural character of the vegetation mix (SQ)

metric 2: Natural character of the cultivated areas (AM)

metric 3: Relative tree species diversity (SQ)

metric 4: Vertical and horizontal structural diversity (SQ)

metric 5: Dead wood content (SQ)

metric 6: Typical microstructures (SQ)

Criterion: Natural character of the development conditions

metric 1: Spontaneity of vegetation growth (SQ)

metric 2: Spontaneity of forest renewal (AM)

metric 3: Spontaneity of vegetation development (SQ)

metric 4: Intensity of management interventions (AM)

metric 5: Continuity of vegetation development (SQ)

metric 6: Intensity of final use (AM)

metric 7: Assumption of random developments (AM

SQ: status quo metric; AM: active management metric


Scheme for forest area (example)

Application on a forest plot

Kriterien Indikatoren Ergebnis für Forst

Naturnähe des Bodens Intensität mechanischer

Bodenbearbeitung (AH)

Klasse 2

Waldzerschneidung (SQ) Klasse 3: 38,5 lfm/ LKW-fähiger

Weg

Intensität stofflicher Eingriffe

(Kalkung und Düngung) (AH)

Klasse 1: keine Kalkung und

Düngung

Intensität stofflicher Eingriffe

(Pestizideinsatz) (AH)

Klasse 1: kein Pestizideinsatz

Kontinuität der Bodenentwicklung

(SQ)

vermutlich Klasse 2

Kontinuität Alter Waldstandorte

(AH)

Klasse 2

Ungestörter Wasserhaushalt im

Oberboden (AH)

Klasse 1: keine

Entwässerungsmaßnahmen

Naturnähe der

Waldgesellschaft

Naturnähe der

Vegetationszusammensetzung (SQ)

Klasse 2: ca. 25% sind nicht mit

Baumarten der natürlichen

Waldgesellschaft bedeckt

Naturnähe der Anbauten (AH) Klasse 2: ca. 25% der Verjüngung

waren Baumarten, die nicht der

natürlichen Waldgesellschaft

angehörten

Relative Baumartenvielfalt (SQ) Klasse 1

Vertikale und horizontale

Strukturvielfalt (SQ)

Klasse 2

Totholzvorrat (SQ) Klasse 4: wenig Totholz; mehr als

25% im obersten Viertel der

natürlichen Altersspanne

Typische Kleinstrukturen (SQ) keine Angaben

Naturnähe der

Entwicklungsbedingun

gen

Spontanität der

Vegetationsentstehung (SQ)

Klasse 2

Spontanität der Walderneuerung

(AH)

Klasse 2

Spontanität der

Vegetationsentwicklung (SQ)

Klasse 2

Intensität der Pflegeeingriffe (AH) Klasse 2

Kontinuität der

Vegetationsentwicklung (SQ)

Klasse 1

Intensität der Endnutzung (AH) Klasse 1; aber nur 5 % Totholz

Annahme zufälliger Entwicklungen

(AH)

Klasse 3

Naturnähe des Bodens

Indikator ermittelte

Klasse

Anzahl Klasse x

Anzahl

plus

Verdoppl.

Indikator 1 2 x2 Klasse 1 3 3 4

Indikator 2 3 Klasse 2 3 6 10


Indikator 4 1 x2 Klasse 4 0

Indikator 5 2 Klasse 5 0

Indikator 6 2 x2

Indikator 7 1 div. 9

Durchschnitt 1,9

Das entspricht der Wertung: B

Naturnähe der Waldgesellschaft


Klasse

Anzahl Klasse x

Anzahl

plus

Verdoppl.


Indikator 2 2 x2 Klasse 2 3 6 8


Indikator 4 2 Klasse 4 1 4


Indikator 6 k.A. div. 6

Durchschnitt 2,2

Das entspricht der Wertung: B

Naturnähe der Entwicklungsbedingungen


Klasse

Anzahl Klasse x

Anzahl

plus

Verdoppl.






Indikator 6 1 x2

Indikator 7 3 div. 8

Durchschnitt 1,8

3 x B class II “close-to-nature forest management”


Scheme for agricultural area

Paradigm for agricultural areas:

The goal is an agricultural ecosystem rich in structural and species diversity in which disturbance caused by production practices is reduced to the minimum necessary for the maintenance of sustainable productivity.

• Note: agricultural areas are “disturbed” inevitably

• Diversity of species (spontaneously occuring) and structures are key

• The less the impact on soil and the input of external substances the better.



Criteria and metrics

Criteria metrics

Area-related factors

► Diversity of weeds

• Number of weed species in the area

• Existence of rarer species

► Diversity of structures • Size of cuts • Elements of structure in the area

• Variety of landscape

Action-related factors

► Soil conservation

• Intensity of ground moving

• Ground covering

• Crop rotation

► Material input

• Manuring techniques

• Intensity of manuring

• Plant protection agents



Metric 1: Number of weed species in the cultivation area

Group 1: high diversity of species and associations of plant more than 150 species (not only typical species of fields) per hectare

Group 2: steady existence of species belonging to different associations from 100 to 150 species per hectare

Group 3: steady existence of species belonging to different associations from 50 to 100 species per hectare

Group 4: sporadically existing flora, exclusively typical weeds up to 50 species per hectare, predominantly strongly competitive characters

Group 5: area nearly free from weeds only sporadic existence of only strongly competitive and common species



Metric 2: Existence of rarer species

Group 1: Steady existence of several species marked in the “Red Data Book” of threatened species including some that are at least „strongly threatened” (cat 3).

Group 2: Steady existence of at least one species marked in the “ Red Data Book ” of threatened species

Group 3: Sporadic existence of species marked in the “ Red Data Book” of threatened species

Group 4: (not occupied)

Group 5: Only common species existing.



Metric 3: Elements of structure in the area

Group 1: Formation of the farmlands with many structural elements

present

(more than 10% hedges, trees and habitable area in the farming field)

Group 2: Many point and linear structure elements with a high level of

flora/fauna flow between them (up to 10%)

Group 3: Individual linear structure elements (up to 5%)

Group 4: Individual point structural elements (few per hectare)

Group 5: No structural elements present, no overlaps or borders for

wildlife



Metric 4: Size of cuts

Group 1: no mono-structured cuts (e.g. extended agro-forestrial structure)

Group 2: average size of cuts < 0,5 hectare

Group 3: average size of cuts 0,5 to 1 hectare

Group 4: average size of cuts 1 to 2,5 hectare

Group 5: average size of cuts > 2,5 hectare



Metric 5: Variety of landscape

Group 1: Landscape has a spaciously variform character,

a parkland-like appearance rich of wood;

high integration of field, meadows and woods

Group 2: Varied farmland, fine-meshed structure of landscape, richly

pervaded by woody zones or other scenic elements

Group 3: Frequent changes between fields, meadows and woods

Group 4: Predominantly monotonous landscape, rarely structural

elements

Group 5: Spaciously monotonous unstructured landscape



Metric 6: Soil conservation

Group 1: Ground moving locally and temporarily restricted to sowing and

planting

Group 2: Ground moving strongly restricted, no heavy machinery

Group 3: No profound ploughing, limitation to grubber or similar tools

Group 4: Profound ploughing at most every second year.

Group 5: Profound ploughing every year, regular employment of heavy

machinery



Metric 7: Soil coverage

Group 1: soil covered all over the year by several complementary

techniques

(mulching, multi-seasonal green manuring, Alley Cropping, integration

of trees)

Group 2: soil mostly covered, regulary cultivation of green manure and

intercrops

Group 3: several techniques of soil coverage, preference of over-average

covering cultures

(fodder crops , winter rye, barley, oil fruit but rarely root crop)

Group 4: Root crops only combined with sowing in layers of mulch or

similar techniques

Group 5: No employment of soil covering techniques



Metric 8: Crop rotations

Group 1: Mixed cultivating with many different types of crops

Group 2: In the course of six years six different types of crops will be

planted in a balanced pattern of exchange between grains and

other crops (animal feed, proteins, oils). No root crops are grown.

Group 3: In the course of six years five or six of the crops are rotated,

there may be root crops, but then also left uncultivated for a bit.

Group 4: In the course of six years rotations four to five different crops

are cultivated, including root crops.

Group 5: A maximum of three different crops are rotated through,

many root crops and otherwise grains.



Metric 9: Procedure of fertilising

Group 1: Fertilising only by means that are disposed by the farm itself,

no supply from outside

Group 2: Input of nitrogen and phosphorus only by manure or

composted manure and/or other hardly soluble fertilisers

(e.g. thomas meal, bone meal)

Group 3: Predominance of manure or composted manure

Group 4: Predominance of artificial fertilisers and/or liquid manure

no application during periods when plants don’t grow

Group 5: Exclusively artificial fertilisers and/or liquid manure

also during periods when plants don’t grow



Metric 10: Intensity of fertilising

Group 1: no additional input of N besides green manure

Group 2: less than 50 kg N per ha

if weak soil fertility and cultivation of hardy crops (if not group 3)

Group 3: 50 to 100 kg N per ha

if weak soil fertility and cultivation of hardy crops (if not group 4)

Group 4: 100 to 150 kg N per ha

Group 5: more than 150 kg N per ha



Metric 11: Plant protection agents

Group 1: no active pest control

(but indirect measures like “weed management“)

Group 2: only biological and mechanical methods of pest control

Group 3: at most one application of pesticide per year or up to three

times on less than 50% of the total area

Group 4: up to three application per year

Group 5: regular employment of pesticide

(several times per year)


Scheme for agricultural area (example)

Application on farm level

Example: 3 ha cut of farmland Rheinland-Pfalz/Germany. All indicators could be valuated by one visit and intensive interview of the farmer. total average value: 3.8 class V “partially distant to nature”

Criteria metrics Result for the exemplary cut

Diversity of weeds

Relative richness of flora in the area

Class 3: number of species between 50

and 100 sporophytes per ha

3 points

Existence of rarer species Class 3: sporadic existence of threatened

species

Diversity of structures

Size of cuts

Elements of structure in the area

Variety of landscape

Class 5: size of cut >2,5ha

Class 3: individual linear structure

elements

Class 4: rarely structure elements

4 points

Soil conser-vation

Intensity of ground moving

Class 5: often profound ploughing

5 points

Ground covering Class 5: no specific soil coverage

methods

Crop rotation Class 5: 3 rotations, incl. root crops

Material input

Manuring techniques Class 4: predominance of artificial

fertilisers

3,33 points

Intensity of manuring Class 3: N-input 50 - 100 kg/ha

Plant protection agents Class 3: at most 1 application per year


Examples

… for class III: Highly diversified structured agroforestry system

Modern agroforestry in Rwanda Traditional Homegarden in Sumatra


Examples

… for class IV: mixed orchards or structured conservative agriculture in structured landscape

Mixed Orchards (Streuobstwiesen) Highly diversified small scale

agriculture in structured landscape


Examples

… for class V: Agriculture with medium large cuts, medium intensity; landscape with structures


Examples

… for class VI: Highly intensified agricultural land, large areas cleared landscape, often root crops


Characterization factors (CF)

Aggregation of different classes into a single indicator value can be useful for certain applications.

Class IV: 98

Class VI: 145

Class VII: 52

ISO 14044, clause 4.4.2.4 and 4.4.5: characterization factors must use “a distinct identifiable environmental mechanism and/or reproducible empirical observation“. Empirical approach

INVENTORY RESULT: in m2*1a/(funct. unit) Aggregation to

one LCIA value



1st basic determination:

The determination of the maximum range between the CFs for area classes that are included as inventory data

Approach: the global share of area classified as class VII amounts to approx. 3% of total land area. In consequence, the ratio between class VII land and the sum of the other areas is 1:33. The product of area and CF of the existing class VII area does not exceed the results of the entire remaining land area, assuming that land area was classified as class II.

Total land area



2nd basic determination:

The determination of the numerical intervals (factors, spans) between the classes

Linear? (blue)

Linear with leaps? (green)

exponential (x2) (red)

class VII => factor 1 class VI => factor 0.5 … halving factor from class to class maximum span: 1 : 32 corresponds with share of class VII area of entire area (see previous slide)

Total land area



Example for application of the characterization factors (CF)

Biogas pathways: from maize (whole crop) and grass silage (extensive grassland) Input data: Maize: crop yield 41,000 kg/(ha·a), biogas yield: 4.23 MJ/kg Grass: crop yield 20,000 kg/(ha·a), biogas yield: 3.6 MJ/kg

LCI result: Maize requires less area (0.064 m2·a/MJ biogas) than grass (0.0154 m2·a/MJ biogas). LCIA result: Grassland requires less land use impact than maize. Conclusion: Considering the type of land use and biodiversity with this approach can lead to significant change in the order of LCI and LCIA results.

Grassland: land consumption high impact low


Outlook

The concept is ready for application to almost any form of land use in central and northern Europe. However solutions for other regions around the globe need to be advanced.

Data need to be enhanced to provide generic default values for the most common products with land-use relevance.

We deem joint research comparing this approach with other land-use-related LCIA approaches by case studies extremely promising .

Wilckensstraße 3 69120 Heidelberg Telefon +49 (0)6 221. 47 67 - 0 Telefax +49 (0)6 221. 47 67 - 19 www.ifeu.de Wilckensstraße 3 69120 Heidelberg Telefon +49 (0)6 221. 47 67 - 0 Telefax +49 (0)6 221. 47 67 - 19 www.ifeu.de

Thank you [email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

INTEGRAHL

mailto:[email protected]





Fehrenbach SETAC 2015 Hemeroby

Documents

Transcript of Fehrenbach SETAC 2015 Hemeroby