Course simron singh hanpp_july2010

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

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

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


1

Land – a socioecological system
Purposive alteration – „colonization“

Socioeconomic Terrestrial
system ecosystem

Flow of resources (biomass)
and services


HANPP: measuring impacts of land use

HANPP measures
changes in yearly Resources gained
biomass flows in
ecosystems resulting
from land use

Change Colonized system
induced
through Society
colonization Natural ecosystem

Work / energy invested


2

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

NPP0 NPPact NPPt

NPP remaining after
Potential vegetation Actual vegetation
harvest

Productivity of Productivity of actual Energy remaining in
potential vegetation vegetation the ecosystem after
(hypothetical vegetation (including croplands,
harvest
assumed to prevail in the grasslands, built-up area, etc.
absence of land use; e.g.,
forests, grasslands, savannahs,
deserts, shrubs, etc.
Productivity change
Harvest (NPPh)
(∆NPPLC)
• Indicator of land-use intensity
Human approriation of NPP
• ‚Pressure‘ indicator, useful to analyze
(HANPP)
drivers of land use

Human Appropriation of Net
Primary Production (Definition)
NPP
gC/m²/yr

∆NPPLC

HANPP
Harvest
Potential Vegetation

NPPh
Actual Vegetation

NPPt


3

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]

Annabella Musel| CEECEC Vienna Workshop | 23 Feb 09 | 7

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


4

Impacts of HANPP
• Changes patterns and processes in
ecosystems, including biodiversity
Potential vegetation
• Alters stocks and flows of carbon in
ecosystems
• Affects biogeochemical cycles (water,
nitrogen, etc.)
Actual vegetation • Reduces the amount of trophic (=food)
energy available for all other species
than humans and their livestock
• May affect resilience and ecosystem
NPP remaining after
harvest
services such as self-regulating
capacity, buffering capacity, etc.


Human Appropriation of Net
Primary 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


5

HANPP methods: Calculation approach for
assessing 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

NPPact

Erb et al., 2007 J
Non-used areas Land Use Sci., 2:
Irrigation 191-224
Degradation


6

Summary of HANPP methods
HANPP component Data, methods Required expertise
MFA Methods, based Usual statistical
on data from methods
NPPh agricultural and
forestry statistics

Agricultural and Statistical methods
forestry statistics combined with GIS
NPPact GIS (e.g., CORINE
expertise
land cover)

Ecosystem modeling Ecosystem modeling
based on climate and
NPP0 soil data;
reconstructions of GIS expertise
potential vegetation


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

Mapping
global
HANPP
2000
(b) Aggregate HANPP (∆NPPLC plus harvest)
∆

Haberl et al., 2007.
Proc. Natl. Acad.
Sci., USA 104,
12942-12947.


7

Global HANPP 2000 – processes
9,6% ∆NPPLC
70 22,4% HANPP ∆NPPLC%
60

50 Human-
induced Breakdown of
fires
[PgC/yr]

40
HANPP
Backflows 8%
30 to nature
10%
20

10
∆NPPLC
dNPPlc
43%
0 HANPP%
NPP0 NPPact

Useful
harvest
39%


Global HANPP: towards an understanding
of proximate and ultimate causes
Activities causing global HANPP

Human-
induced
fires
8%
Infra-
structure
9%
Forestry
10%
Cropping
51%

Grazing
22%


8

Analysis of global HANPP patterns 2000

HANPP per person
5

4
[t C/cap/yr]

HANPP per unit of GDP
3

2 1

0,8
1
[kg C/US$]

0,6
0
0,4
Industrial core Transition Developing Global
countries
0,2 countries average

0
Industrial core Transition Developing Global
countries countries average


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


9

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


10

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


11

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


HANPP as a
socio-political tool within EE

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

2. HANPP as an indicator for ecosystem services
Loss of Biodiversity
Carbon storage

CEECEC Vienna Workshop| 27 Feb|
24

12

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
25

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
26

13

India


Brazil


14

United Kingdom


Saudi Arabia


15

Thank you for your attentation!

For further questions please contact also:
veronika.gaube@uni-klu.ac.at


HANPP and Biodiversity


16

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 HANPP
(e.g., through HANPP), then
species richness will decline.
• Notes
– Can explain species diversity
gradient from equator to poles.
Brown, J.H. (1981) Am. Zool. 21, 877-888.
– Not undisputed. Competing Gaston, K.L. (2000) Nature 405, 220-227.
(complementary) hypotheses Hutchinson, G.E. (1959) Am. Nat. 93, 145-159.
exist (e.g., intermediate Rapson, G.L. et al. (1997) J. Ecol. 85, 99-100.
disturbance hypothesis). 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
-2
4x10 100
i)
breeding bird species richness
all heterotrophs

10

2
Y = -1.975 +0.485 X Y =1.32916+0.69916 X-0.22962 X
2
R² =0 .549, p < 0.0001 Adj. R = 0.69
1
-2
10 0.1 1 10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 20
NPPt [MJ/m²*a]
NPPt

Case study 1: Correlation between NPPt Case study 2: Correlation between NPPt and
and autotroph species richness (5 taxa) on breeding bird richness in Austria, 328
38 plots sized 600x600 m, East Austria randomly chosen 1x1 km squares.

Haberl et al., 2004, Agric., Ecosyst. & Envir. 102, p213ff Haberl et al., 2005. Agric., Ecosyst. & Envir. 110, p119ff


17

LPJ
Vegetation model for calculation of
potential Vegetation


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

Climate, Soil, CO2
process modules into

10 plant functional types
Transformed by

competition, mortality, establishment
Time Loops

fire, permafrost
Space &

photosynthesis: coupled C and H2O cycles
C allocation (funct. and struct. relations)
Carbon pools: 4 in vegetation, 4 in litter/soil area
crown
leaves
Full hydrology
AET AET LAI
height
Ci Ci sapwood
stem
heartwood
C budget, H20 Budget, diameter

Vegetation Composition
0-50 cm
50-150 cm
fine roots

18

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


19

Global land-use change 1700-2000
Biome 300 data

140

120 Deserts and ice

Shrublands

100 Natural grasslands & tundra

Marginal cropland/grazing
80
[Mio. km²]

Intensive cropland

Boreal forests
60
Temperate forests

Tropical forests
40

20

-
1700 1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 1970 1990

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


Global wilderness areas 1700-2000

K.-H. Erb, unpublished draft results

20

Yield increases of cereals*, 1920-2000
6,00

5,00

4,00
[t/ha]

3,00 * Weighted
average of
cereals
2,00 (excluding
maize, rice)
1,00

0,00 Source:
1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 FAOstat

Germany Austria Czech Republic United States of America World


Global biomass harvest 1910-2000

7,0 • Data sources:
W ood FAO, Institute
6,0
Grazing
Residues
Internationale de
5,0 Crops Agriculture
4,0 • Total biomass
[Pg C/yr]

3,0
harvest grows
by a factor of 2.8
2,0
• Crops grow
1,0
fastest (factor
0,0 4.5), grazing
1910

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

most slowly (1.9)


21

Analysis of global biomass use
1910-2000

per capita Industrial Core
Transition countriesper unit of GDP
Developing Countries Industrial Core
80 Transition countries
Per capita biomass use [GJ/cap/yr]

total 60 Developing Countries
70

Biomass use per unit of GDP
total
50
60

[MJ/1990 US$]
50 40
40
30
30
20 20
10
10
0
1910
1920

1930

1940
1950

1960

1970

1980
1990

2000

0
1910
1920
1930

1940
1950
1960
1970

1980
1990
2000

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


22

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
18
15% 17%
16
21%
14
36%
12
16%
[Pg C/yr]

dNPPlc
10
NPPh
8
ANPPt
6
4
2
0
Transition

DC Africa
Industrial

DC America

DC Asia
countries
core


23

Population density strongly influences
HANPP per hectare, but…

(1) Yemen
(2) Qatar
(3) Kuwait



… HANPP per capita is smaller in densely
populated countries

(1) Yemen
(2) Qatar
(3) Kuwait



24

Natural productivity potential constrains
HANPP per unit area and year
• HANPP is
constrained by
productive potential
in poor
environments
• In favourable
environments
socioeconomic
factors determine
the level of HANPP


25

Course simron singh hanpp_july2010

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

En vedette

En vedette (8)

Similaire à Course simron singh hanpp_july2010

Similaire à Course simron singh hanpp_july2010 (20)

Plus de environmentalconflicts

Plus de environmentalconflicts (20)

Course simron singh hanpp_july2010