The Evaluation of Cereal Farms Using Ecological Footprint Method

Management Theory and Studies for Rural Business and Infrastructure Development ISSN 1822-6760 / eISSN 2345-0355. DOI: 10.15544/mts.2016.16 2016. Vol. 38. No. 3: 207–218. THE EVALUATION OF CEREAL FARMS USING ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT METHOD Kęstutis Biekša Scientific worker, PhD, Lithuanian Institute of Agrarian Economics. Kudirkos str. 18-2, 03105 Vilnius, Lithuania, tel. +370 52 614 589. E-mail [email protected] Received 15 08 2016; accepted 20 09 2016 Economic activities developed in the framework of sustainable development concept have to ensure balanced economic and technological development without weakening the social and natural environmental conditions. Environmental impact assessment using ecological footprint method helps to choose sustainable economic activities and technologies which are appropriate to sustainable development concept and has less impact to environment. This method is usually used as a public ecological and environmental educational tool and sometimes applied for creation of measures and programs for sustainable regional and economic development. The research problem is to determine whether the ecological footprint method is an appropriate tool to measure environmental impact of agricultural entities in accordance with sustainable development aspects. The paper aim is to evaluate the cereal farms using sustainable process index which is a member of ecological footprint method. The analysis was performed by analyzing the cereal farms which are growing wheat, rye and oats crops in Austria and Lithuania. The calculation was carried out using SPIonExcel software program. The results showed that the most significant environmental impacts arise from the use of fertilizers and the use of agricultural machinery (tractors and harvesters and the biggest share from the total ecological footprint goes to the pollution of air and water. The research also showed that if the ecological footprint method is used with a support service this can be a useful instrument for farmers showing how to improve farming from the ecological viewpoint and how to increase energy efficiency and reduce the use of primary resources. Keywords: agricultural economics, environmental impacts, sustainable development. JEL Codes: O13, Q51. 1. Introduction Economic activities usually have negative impact to the environment because of pollutants which emitted during the production processes. Since ecosystem is not closed in an ecosphere and don’t have borders though a negative impacts (pollutants) can be easily spread out to other regions in a distance making the impact to the global ecosystem. Environmental damages, such as degradation of land, contamination of soil, water, air and so on don’t have much influence to economic development problems. However pollution impacts and environmental damages are negligible and usually don’t influence the final product quality and product value, however environmental damages directly affect human social life through the loss of welfare which is not reflected in the product prices or national accounts. The discomfort of breathing polluted air, use of treated water polluted by industry is defined as loss of welfare. The defensive expenditure (treating of polluted water or air and contaminated soil) does not contribute to welfare, but because it is final expenditure, it is counted as part of GDP (Stoeglehner, 2008). There is an urgent need to develop more pre207 cise indexes of our wellbeing life and to correct the obvious drawbacks in using the GDP (Juška, 2003). Environment accounting or green indexes are used more often not only as a substitute for measuring economic well-being but as the main sustainable development indicator. Green environmental accounting models can assess the hidden aspects and costs of economic activities therefore it has an advantage to environmental and sustainable development indicators. Classification of sustainable development indicators showed that the economic sector is a predominant however all sustainable indicators are interrelated consequently economic indicators are mixed with social, environment and political indicators (Onat, 2010). There were many attempts to identify a comprehensive economic well-being index to supplement the national account system however the efforts were criticized (Kairiūkštis, 1999). An index for measuring economic welfare has been created in 1972 by William Nordaus ir James Tobin, where they have introduced an alternative index for evaluation of economic growth adjusting GDP index by including the value of leisure time and the amount of unpaid work in an economy. There were many different methods, concepts and indicators used to substitute GDP index and to evaluate economic activities or a production processes: genuine progress indicator (GPI), index of sustainable economic welfare (ISEW), index of human wellbeing (HWI), happy planet index, living planet index (LPI) and etc. Meanwhile there were many attempts to develop a common single indicator for evaluation of sustainable development however there is still a lack of one single indicator. In practice usually a complex indicator named as integrated sustainable development indicator is usually used for evaluation of regional sustainable development. (Čiegis, 2010). Nowadays the evaluation of economic activity is usually defined through a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) approach. This analysis uses an open loop methodology which usually is characterized as “cradle-to-grave” or “cradle-to-cradle” approach which attempts to reach 100 percent utilization of all type of wastes (Čuček, 2012). However the evaluation of economic activities needs to take into account all aspects of sustainable development including technical, economic, social, ethical, environmental, knowledge or institutional aspects. Consequently there were need to develop a tool which can help to determine the extent to which humanity’s demand remains within or exceeds the limits of what the Earth’s natural capital can provide as well as to detect early warning signs and potentially forecast the consequences of human-induced pressures on ecosystem (Mancini, 2016). Usually the predominant indictor for assessing a level of global climate change is CO2 emission and greenhouse gas impacts (Narodoslawsky, 2010). During the recent decade new tools named ecological or environment footprints have emerged and these new tools are used for assessment of sustainability and its components (Čuček, 2012). Ecological footprint method is based on the simple principle that human demand competes for a finite amount of biologically productive space (Lin, 2015). Ecological footprints have been widely used in recent years as indicators of resource consumption and waste absorption transformed on the basis of biological productive land area required per capita with prevailing technology (Eaton, 2007). Ecological footprint concept is based on the evaluation of physical area which is needed to sustain a certain process or economic activity. Area is the underlying dimen208 sion of the ecological footprint method and the more area a process needs to fulfill a service, the more it cost from sustainable point of view. Both demand and supply are measured in terms of areas that are adjusted for their perspective productivity, which called as global hectares. Using this standardized measurement unit enable footprint accounts to compare human demands against the biosphere ability to renew (Lin, Wackernagel 2015). However the Earth is a finite so an area has limited resources as well. The biophysical limits of our planet represent on key aspect of sustainability (Mancini, 2016). Many scientists have criticized the ecological footprint method and recognized it as a not perfect method however the research work are continuing identifying the priorities for improving ecological footprint accounting. The scientific problem of this paper is to determine if the ecological footprint method is a proper tool to measure environmental damage of economic activities in agricultural sector accordance to sustainable development aspects. The scientific paper aim is to evaluate the cereal farms using sustainable process index tool which is a member of ecological footprint method. The object of the research is the cereal farms which grow wheat, rye and oats crops in Austria and Lithuania. The sustainable process indexes for Austrian cereal farms were calculated using SPIonExcel software program. The sustainable process indexes for Lithuanian cereal farms were recalculated using Farm Accountancy Data Network (European Commission, 2016) comparing the main aspects of environmental impact. The paper is structured as follow. Section 2 describes the methodology of ecological footprint accounting and sustainable process index method. Section 3 presents the analysis of cereal farms using sustainable process index and results and discussions. Section 4 provides conclusive remarks of the research. 2. Methodology The family of ecological footprint methods belongs to sustainable development indicators group and is based on three pillars of sustainable development dimensions: environment, social and economic aspects. Sustainable development indicators classified by N. Onat (2010) showed that all sustainable indicators are interrelated however the economic indicators are predominant but social and environment indicators are also important for analyzing market environment. A separate group of indicators are set up for evaluation of environmental impacts. They show the air, water and soil pollution level, assess the problems of waste production and management, as well accessibility and extraction of natural resources. While the global warming is a predominant problem talking about sustainable development issues consequently the CO 2 and greenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions are normally the main environmental impacts. So over the past few years, the CO2 and GHGs footprint, which estimates the rate of emissions over the full life cycle of a process or product, has become one of the most important environmental protection indicators (Čuček, 2012). Other footprint indicators such as climate footprint (Wiedmann, 2008), methane footprint (Wright, 2011) and global warming potential footprint (Meisterling, 2009) have been suggested to use for evaluation of GHGs emissions. Meanwhile water has widely been used in a huge amount for production purposes a separate water footprint indicator (Mekonnen, 209 2010, Klemeš, 2009) has been suggested for evaluation of consumption and pollution of fresh water. Water footprint integrates water usage and pollution over the complete supply chain and is measured in terms of water volumes consumed and polluted per unit of time or per functional unit (Galli, 2012). Global Footprint Network organization in 2009 has suggested the energy footprint which is defined as the sum of all those areas used to provide non-food and non-feed energy. The energy footprint is the sum of the areas of carbon uptake land, hydropower land, forested land for wood fuel, and crop land for fuel crops (Čuček, 2012). A concept of composite footprints such as ecological footprint, sustainable process index and sustainable environment indicator is proposed to combines two or more individual indicators or “sub-indicators” into one number. Ecological footprint concept as the environmental impact assessment methodology has been used for several decades. It is widely accepted as a tool for educational and public awareness, but has criticized as a weak instrument in policy making and program developing (Narodoslawasky, 2016). Ecological footprints indicator emerged as a tool to measure a human demand for productive land and water and it is used for calculation of productivity for the economic activities and for evaluation of impact to environment (Čuček, 2012). Each hectare of the area forced to global hectare (gha), the size of which is larger than the actual one hectare. Using the ecological footprint indicator we can find out the current resource demand and collect information about the resource stocks, but cannot predict the resource trends (Narodoslawasky, 2016). The ecological footprint method is evaluating the influence to environment through a land occupied by a certain process using a life cycle approach evaluating the consumption rate of resources and the ability of ecosystem to regenerate. Ecological footprint represents the amount of biologically productive land and water area needed to regenerate the resources and to absorb the harmless corresponding wastes. It usually measures in units of area named “global hectares” or “hectare-equivalent” and is calculating dividing the total biocapacity of Earth by the total number of bioproductive. Ecological footprint method (Rees, 1992) has been developed in 1992 as a tool for evaluation of assimilation of energy, resources and wastes needs of particular social community or farms according needed productive land for their activities. Global Footprint Network organization recommends (Global..., 2016) the environmental footprint calculated including five types of area: productive land (1) sea surface (2), area of the territory needed to generate energy (3), built-up area (4) and land need to the biodiversity (5). The calculation of ecological footprint is based on assumption that the annual consumption of used resources (estimated in kg, tons, liters) is calculated valuing the area of land and water (ai) allocated for a certain production type which is assimilated by population consuming produced products (measured in hectares, ha). An annual consumption of each item is divided by the land productivity or production yield (measured in kg/ha). The calculation of ecological footprint is based on evaluation of annual consumption of the element and land productivity or output of each element. Ecological footprint is a negative indicator, while another biocapacity index used in ecological footprint calculation is treated as a positive indicator. Biocapacity is the size of the area of ecosystem used for production of natural capital 210 which usually understandable as renewable resources. Generally we can say that the EF represents the needed resources to meet the needs of humanity (their demand) and the biocapacity of land is the ability of this land to create resources (supply). Biocapacity of certain region (territory) is measured in global hectares (gha). Ecological footprint gives possibility to assess processes of production or service development providing a feedback and possibility to choose the best alternative from an ecological point of view. Ecological footprint method enables to identify the steps of production or service according a life cycle approach showing the most problematic points of sustainability. There are more than 80 currently available ecological footprint calculators on Internet where you can evaluate your individual or household, mobility, shopping or country’s footprint (Čuček, 2012). One of them is sustainable process index (SPI) method has already proved its usefulness in a number of studies involving renewable resource based technologies (Niederl, 2004; Sandholzer, 2005 and Narodoslawsky, 2008) and is freely available on the internet (http://www.spionexcel.tugraz.at/). SPI method was developed by Krotscheck and Narodoslawsky in Technical University of Graz (Austria) in 1995 is based on the assumption that an area is needed for the conversion of energy into products and services relies only on solar radiation as natural income (Kettl, 2011). An area has limited resources because the Earth has a finite surface. Area is the underlying dimension of the SPI index. The more area a process needs to fulfill a service, the more it cost from sustainable point of view. Ecological footprint is an impact to global environment per good or service process. This is represented by the overall footprint of a product where a tot is the specific (sustainable) service area and is calculated with equation unit can be kWh, kg, m3 or m2 or other dimension. atot  At o t St o t (m2/unit) (1) Stot is the number of unit-services (e.g. product units, goods or service) supplied by the process in question for a reference period of normally one year. This leads to the unit of the ecological footprint, as area use (m2) per produced goods or service during a reference period (unit a-1). The total area Atot is calculated with equation 2 Atot  A R  A E  A  AS  A p (m ) (2) The areas on the right hand side are called a partial area and refer to impacts of different productive aspects. AR – the area required for the production of raw materials, is the sum of the renewable raw material area (ARR) and the non-renewable raw material area (ARN); A – the area necessary to provide process energy; A S – the area to provide the installation for the process, is the sum of the direct use of land area (A ID) and the indirect use of land area (AII); AS – the area required for the staff; A – the area for sustainable p 211 dissipation of products and by-products. The reference period for these partial areas is usually one year. The SPI is the fraction of the area per inhabitant related to the delivery of a certain product or service unit. The SPI is calculated with this equation: SPI  a tot a in (cap/unit) (3) where ain is the area per inhabitant in the region being relevant to the process. The lower the SPI the lower is the ecological impact of providing the good or service on the ecosphere. The SPI relates the land area required by a certain process (production, services) to the area of a certain region. Regional sustainability is achieved, if the SPI of all processes of the region does not exceed “imported” and ”exported” areas are made visible as materials and energy embedded in traded goods and services. The calculation method of the SPI comprises different subareas for material resources, energy, personnel, process installation (e.g. machines for the production process), and product dissipation assessment of the waste quality and quantity of different material and energy flows and emissions. Within the methodology there are seven impact categories defined which are indicated by different colors: area for area, area for nonrenewable resources, area for renewable resources, area for fossil carbon, area for emissions to water, area for emissions to soil and area for emissions to air. The SPI index is smaller than 1 (SPI<1), it means that the product service or production process is sustainable and the influence to the environment is considerable small. If the SPI index value is between zero and one (0,001<SPI<1), it means that product service or production process is sustainable suitable. If the SPI index is greater than 1 (SPI > 1), it means that the product service or production process is too inefficient, benefits too expensive. Therefore the results of ecological footprint consists of seven values (partial footprints) representing different aspects of the ecological impact of the metabolism linking the life cycle under evaluation and the environment (Kettl, 2013). There are seven categories of partial footprints:  footprint for direct area use and installations – includes ecological impact through equipment, infrastructure and the direct use of area (e. g. the area required for buildings);  footprint for non-renewable (metal ores, minerals) resources use – summarizes the ecological pressures exerted by extracting the non-renewable resources, processing them and transporting them to the point where they enter the life cycle under evaluation;  footprint for renewable resources use – summarizes the ecological pressures associated with the generation of renewable (bio-) materials (e.g. wood, grass);  footprint for fossil carbon use – calculates the use of fossil carbon which was consumed within the process and taken out of the global carbon cycle and put in a long-term storage; 212  footprint for emissions to water – based on the general assumption of a replenishment rate of the compartment and a natural concentration of the emitted substance in this compartment;  footprint for emissions to soil – based on the regeneration rate of the compartment soil and the natural concentrations of the emitted substances in top soil;  footprint for emissions to air – calculated as the area of forest that emits the same amount than the emission in question. Figure. Evaluation of ecological footprint (Kettl, 2013) Analysis of ecological footprint using SPIonExcel program allows optimization of the process from ecological viewpoint. Calculation of ecological footprint using SpionExcel program includes the conversion of mass and energy flows into the surface area required by the process. It is summarizing the mass and energy flows over the life cycle of production or service (Sandholzer, 2007). This program evaluates the ecological footprint of a process, product, or service using an eco-inventory of NACE-category based on the “International Standard Industrial Classification of all Economic Activities”(fr. Nomenclature statistique des Activités économiques dans la Communauté Européenne) developed by the United Nation. 3. Results and discussion The evaluation of agricultural crops using SPI method was investigated comparing growing and cultivation of conventional and organic wheat, oat and rye crops. Investigation was carried out using SPIonExcel program using the information obtained from the Austrian case study done by the group of scientists under the supervision of prof. M. Narodoslawsky the head of the Institute of Process and Particle Engineering from Graz University of Technology. Although the research of ecological footprint for Lithuania agricultural crops is under the progress nowadays therefore the analysis of Lithuanian agricultural crops in this paper was carried using the information obtained from Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) and comparing the main impacts to environment according SPI methodology – the yield of crops and specific costs for fertilizers and machinery for used for growing of crops. The survey of agricultural crops (wheat, oat, rye) growing in organic and conventional farms using SPI method is showed in the table 1 below. This table also contains information about the partial footprints. 213 Table. Partial ecological footprints of agricultural crops Wheat Conventional Organic Ecological footprint (m2 kg per crop) CO2 footprint (CO2 per kg of crop) Oats Conventional Organic Rye Conventional Organic 49.7 32.1 41.8 28.8 38.7 28.7 0.19 0.13 0.16 0.12 0.15 0.12 Machinery 47.5 Harvesters 17.5 Tractors 30 Fertilizers 32.3 N- fertilizers 25.8 P-fertilizer 6.5 Area (land) 4 Other (seeds. pro10.4 6 18.3 9.3 16.2 tection products) The share of environmental impacts (partial footprints) (percent) Fossil-C 51.9 55.5 52.4 56.8 52.7 Air 30.2 25.2 29.8 24.4 30 Water 10.6 10.4 10.6 10.4 10.4 Area 4.6 8.1 4.7 7.8 4.1 Soil 2.3 0.5 2.1 0.4 2.4 Non-Renewable 0.2 0.15 0.2 0.1 0.2 Renewable 0.2 0.15 0.2 0.1 0.2 79.8 32.1 47.7 3.8 7.7 The share of ecological footprint (percent) 54.7 82.3 47 79.2 18.3 33.2 19.1 32 36.4 49.1 27.9 47.2 29.9 3.9 30.2 3.7 23.9 24.9 6 5.3 5 7.8 4.5 7.8 8.7 56.7 24.4 10.3 7.9 0.5 0.1 0.1 The results data shows that the largest share of ecological footprint goes to the machinery (use of tractors and harvesters) sector The share of footprint is from 47.5 pct. to 82.3 pct. from the total ecological footprint. The main impact to environment from growing and cultivating of agricultural crops goes to the extraction of organic carbon resources. It comprises around 50 pct. from the total emissions. The second largest influence to environment is the air pollution which accounts around 30 pct. and water pollution which accounts around 10 pct. from the total emissions. The impact of land use accounts around 5 pct. and the rest 5 pct. goes to other pollution aspects where the emissions to soil accounts around 2 pct. and extraction of renewable and non-renewable resources accounts only 0.2 pct. The results showed that ecological footprint of growing and cultivating of the wheat crops in conventional farms is 49.7 m² per kg of wheat crops and it is 55 pct. larger than for organic farming – 32.1 m²/kg. Respectively CO2 emissions accounts around 0.19 and 0.13 kg of CO2 per kg of wheat crop. The ecological footprint of growing and cultivating of the oat crops in conventional farms is 41.8 m² per kg of oat and it is 45 pct. larger than for organic farming – 28.8 m²/kg. Respectively CO2 emissions accounts around 0.16 and 0.12 kg of CO2 per kg of oat crop. The ecological footprint of growing and cultivating of the rye crops in conventional farms is 38.7 m² per kg of rye and it is 35 pct. larger than for organic farming – 28.7 m²/kg. Respectively CO2 emissions accounts around 0.15 and 0.12 kg of CO2 per kg of rye crop. 214 An overall impact of using machineries is around 82.3 pct. for organic farming and 54.7 pct. for conventional farming and the rest 27 pct. goes to the use of fertilizers, pesticides and arable land. The impact of using tractors for growing and cultivation of conventional wheat crops is around 36.4 pct. from the total ecological footprint. The harvester has an impact around 18.3 pct. from the total footprint. The second largest share of ecological footprint is the use of fertilizers, especially the use of nitrogen fertilizers which account around 23.9 pct. for wheat farming and the use of phosphorus fertilizers which account about 6 pct. The influence to environment of using an arable land is 7.8 pct. for organic farming and 5 pct. for conventional farming. The ecological footprint of using the fertilizers in conventional farms is seven times higher and the use of the machineries is two times higher than for organic farms The main differences of impacts to environment comparing conventional and organic farming are within the impact to area allocated to growing of crops and to emission of soil. The negative impact to area is twice higher for organic farm than conventional because the land is used more efficiently consuming all useful resources (minerals) from the soil. However this impact accounts only 5 pct. from the total impact factors consequently the impact is negligible to the overall footprint. The extraction of organic carbon resources is also higher (by around 8 percent) for organic farm because the land is used more efficiently consuming all useful resources (minerals) from the soil. The main impact of growing organic wheat goes the fossil carbon emission – 55.5 pct., the air emission accounts 25.2 pct., water emission – 10.4 pct. and the rest 8.9 pct. goes to the process area which includes the use of land (8.1 pct.), soil emission (0.5 pct.), extraction of renewable and non-renewable resources – 0.3 pct. The main impact of growing conventional wheat goes also to the fossil carbon emission – 51.9 pct, the air emission accounts 30.2 pct., 10.6 pct. – water emission and the rest 7.3 pct. goes to the process area which includes the use of land (4.6 pct.), soil emission (2.3 pct.), extraction of renewable and non-renewable resources – 0.4 pct. As was mentioned in the beginning of this chapter the investigation of Lithuanian agricultural crop sector was carried out by comparing the yield of crop and specific costs for fertilizers and machines. The information was taken from Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) (European Commission, 2016). According FADN information an average yield of wheat crops in Lithuania in 2013 was 4.7 t per ha, 5.1 t/ha in 2012 and 3.6 t/ha in 2011. Comparing the yield of wheat crops in Austria an average yield was 5.1 t per ha in 2013, 4.4 t/ha in 2012 and 5.7 t/ha in 2011. So the differences of wheat yield were around 18 pct. in 2013. The share of the main intermediate inputs in crop and animal production at basic prices for a period of 2010–2014 in Lithuania was 28.9 pct. (2013) and 31.4 pct. (2014) and for comparison in Austria respectively was 17.8 pct. and 18 pct. It can be assumed that the difference appeared due to the costs or the amount of consumption of fertilizers. Therefore the specific costs of fertilizers (SE295 code by FADN) in Lithuania were 200.8 Eur/ha in 2012 and 280.8 Eur/ha in 2013 and it is respectively less by 16 pct. in 2012 and more by 17 pct. in 2013 compare to the amount of used fertilizers in Austria. For example in Poland the costs of fertilizers were 264.2 Eur/ha 215 (2012) and 305.2 Eur/ha (2013), in Latvia – 228.4 Eur/ha (2012) and 268.6 Eur/ha (2013), Estonia – 225.1 Eur/ha (2012) and 263.7 Eur/ha (2013). So if to take an assumption that the prices for fertilizers don’t differ so much across European Union consequently Lithuania uses almost the same amount of fertilizers as Austria for agricultural crops. Therefore it can be assumed that the partial footprint of fertilizers for Lithuanian agricultural crop sector is the same as for Austrian farms. The overhead costs of farming for machinery and building (SE340 code by FADN) in Lithuania were 108.4 Eur/ha in 2012 and 99.1 Eur/ha in 2013 and it was around two times lower than for Austrian farms which were respectively 268.5 Eur/ha in 2012 and 262.9 Eur/ha in 2013. For example in Poland the overhead costs of machinery and building were 190.1 Eur/ha (2012) and 185.3 EUR/ha (2013), in Latvia – 362.8 Eur/ha (2012) and 618.5 Eur/ha (2013), Estonia –82.5 Eur/ha (2012) and 101.8 Eur/ha (2013). If to take an assumption that the prices for fuel didn’t differ so much across European Union countries consequently the main reason is that Lithuania uses around two times less tractors and harvesters for cultivation of cereal crops than Austrian farms. Therefore the footprint of machinery sector, which comprises from 50 pct. to 80 pct. from the total footprint in Austrian farms, will be two times lower for Lithuanian farms. The given results showed that due to the less cost for machinery in Lithuanian farms the partial footprints for the use of machinery and fertilizers will have the same impact to environment. The next step of further investigation is to evaluate the Lithuania cereal farms according ecological footprint method and to prove the assumption of this article. 4. Conclusions 1. Land stock in agricultural sector is a limited resource because the Earth has a finite surface. An appropriate estimation of area needed for a specific process for conversion of energy into product and service is a primary goal for sustainable development of agricultural activities. Sustainable process index as a member of the ecological footprint family method helps to identify the steps of production process using the life cycle approach identifying the main impacts to environment giving possibility to choose the best processes from an ecological viewpoint. 2. The amount of organic coal is the most important component of soil organic matter and it has the influence to the quality of the soil. The survey results showed that the farming activity is reducing organic carbon resources and this is the largest impact to environment according SPI methodology. It should be noted that organic coal reduction is large by 5 pct. for organic farms because the land is used more efficiently consuming all useful minerals from the soil The second largest influence to environment is the air pollution which accounts around 30 pct. and water pollution which accounts around 10 pct. from the total emissions. The impact of land allocated for growing of crops accounts around 5 pct. and the rest 5 pct. of impacts go to other emission. 3. The largest partial footprint goes to the use of machineries (harvesters and tractors) so the reduction of energy use and increase of energy efficiency should be the main goal for farming activities. The costs for use of machineries according 216 FADN database is 2 times higher for Lithuanian farms however the costs for use of fertilizers is almost equal consequently the total amount of these partial footprints will have the same impact to environment. One third of the total ecological footprint goes to the use of fertilizers, pesticides and arable land and this share is increasing for organic farms. 4. An investigation done using SPI method showed that the ecological footprint for conventional wheat crops is 49.7 m² per kg and it is 55 pct. larger than for organic wheat (32.1 m²/ kg). The ecological footprint of the oat (41.8 m²) and rye (38.7 m²) in conventional farms is larger respectively by 45 pct. and 35 pct. comparing with organic farms. Using partial footprint and environment values is possible to evaluate the best farming activities from sustainability viewpoint, so ecological footprint and SPI method particularly is an appropriate ecological and environmental educational tool which can be applied for development of sustainable regional agricultural programs. References Čiegis, R., Tamošiūnas, T., Ramanauskienė, J., Navickas, K. (2010). Darnaus industrinių zonų vystymosi vertinimas. – Šiauliai: Šiaulių universitetas. 344 p. Čuček, L,. Klemeša, J. J., Kravanja, Z. (2012). A Review of Footprint analysis tools for monitoring impacts on sustainability // Journal of Cleaner Production. Vol. 34: 9–20. Eaton, R. L., Hammon, G. P. (2007). Footprints on the landscape: an environmental appraisal of urban and rural living in the developed world // Landscape and urban planning. Vol. 83. 13–28. European Commission. 2016. FADN Public Database. – http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rica/index.cfm [10 08 2016]. Ewing, B., Reed, A., Kitzes, J., Wackernagel, M. (2010). Calculation Methodology for the National Footprint Accounts. 2010 Edition. – Oakland: Global Footprint Network. 21 p. Galli, A., Wiedmann, T., Ercin, E., Knoblauch, D., Ewing, B., Gilijum, S. (2012). Integrating ecological, carbon and water footprint into a “Footprint family” of indicators: definition and role in tracking human pressure on the planet // Ecological indicators. Vol. 16. 100–112. Global Footprint Network organization. 2016. – http://www.footprintnetwork.org [01 08 2016]. Juška, F. (2003). Renewables and their use in Lithuania. Report. – Vilnius: Ministry of Economy. Division of Energy Development. Kettl, K. H, Niemtz, N., Sandro, N., Eder, M., Narodoslawsky, M. (2011). Ecological impact of renewable resource-based energy technologies // Journal of fundamentals of renewable energy and applications. Vol. 1: 1–5. DOI: 10.4303/jfrea/R101101. Kettl, K. H. (2013). Manual and software structure of advanced sustainable process index calculation software SPIonWeb. – http://spionweb.tugraz.at/SPIonWeb_Manual_ger.pdf [15 08 2016]. Kitzes, J., Peller, A. (2007). Current methods for calculating national ecological footprint accounts //Science for environment & sustainability society. Vol. 4. No. 1: 1–9. Klemeš, J. J., Varbanov, P. S., Lam, H. L. (2009). Water footprint, water recycling and food industry supply chain. In: Waldron, K. Waste management and co-product recovery in food processing. Vol. 2. – Cambridge, UK: Woodhead Publishing Limited. 651 p. Lin, D., Wackernagel, M., Galli, A., Kelly, R. (2015). Ecological footprint: informative and evolving – a response to van den Bergh and Grazi // Ecological indicators. Vol. 58. 464–468. Mancini, M.S., Galli, A., Niccolucci, V., Lin, D. et al. (2016). Ecological footprint: refining the carbon footprint calculation // Ecological indicators. Vol. 61. 390–403. Meisterling, K., Samaras, C., Schweizer, V. (2009). Decisions to reduce greenhouse gases from agriculture and product transport: LCA case study of organic and conventional wheat // Journal of cleaner production. Vol. 17: 222–230. 217 Mekonnen, M. M., Hoekstra, A. Y. (2010). The green, blue and grey water footprint of farm animals and animal products. Value of Water Research Report Series No. 48. – Delft, the Netherlands: UNESCO-IHE Institute for water education. 50 p. Narodoslawasky M., Stoeglehner, G. (2016). Planning for local and regional energy strategies with the ecological footprint // Environmental Policy $ Planning. Vol. 12. No. 4. 363–379. Onat, N., Bayar, H. (2010). The sustainability indicators of power production systems // Renewable and sustainable energy review. Vol. 14: 3108–3115. Program software SPIonExcel. 2013. Graz University of Technology. – http://spionexcel.tugraz.at [18 08 2016]. Rees, W. E. (1992). Ecological footprins and appropriated carrying capacity: what urban economics leaves out // Environment and urbanization. Vol. 7. No. 2: 121–130. Sandholzer, D., Narodoslawsky, M. (2005). SPIonExcel – fast and easy calculation of the Sustainable Process Index via computer // Chemical Engineering Transactions. Vol. 7. No. 2: 443– 446. Stoeglehner, G., Narodoslawsky, M. (2008). Implementing ecological footprinting in decision-making processes // Land Use Policy. Vol. 25: 421–431. Wiedmann, T., Minx, J. (2008). A definition of carbon footprint. In: Pertsova, C. C. Ecological economics research trends. – New York: Nova Science Publisher Inc. 350 p. JAVŲ ŪKIŲ VEIKLOS VERTINIMAS NAUDOJANT EKOLOGINIO PĖDSAKO METODĄ Kęstutis Biekša Lietuvos agrarinės ekonomikos institutas Pateikta 2016 08 15; priimta 2016 09 20 Ūkinė veikla, plėtojama pagal tvaraus vystymosi dedamąsias, turi užtikrinti subalansuotą ekonominę, technologinę, socialinę ir gamtos aplinkos sąlygų plėtrą. Parinkti tvariai ūkinei veiklai tinkamas ir aplinkai mažiau žalingas technologijas padeda ūkinės veiklos poveikio aplinkai vertinimas naudojant ekologinio pėdsako metodą. Darbe sprendžiama problema – ar ekologinio pėdsako metodas yra tinkama priemonė vertinti žemės ūkio subjektų veiklos poveikį aplinkai, atsižvelgiant į darnaus vystymosi dedamąsias? Tyrimo tikslas – įvertinti javų ūkių veiklos poveikį aplinkai naudojant ekologinio pėdsako šeimos tvaraus proceso indekso metodą. Tyrimo metu buvo analizuojami grūdų ūkiai, auginantys kviečius, rugius ir avižas Austrijoje ir Lietuvoje. Skaičiavimai atlikti naudojant SPIonExcel programą, kurios veikimo algoritmas grindžiamas tvaraus proceso indekso metodu. Tyrimo rezultatai parodė, kad ekologinio pėdsako metodas gali būti naudojamas kaip priemonė, padedanti parinkti tvarius ūkininkavimo metodus, todėl yra gera ekologinio ūkininkavimo sąmoningumą didinanti priemonė. Atlikti skaičiavimai atskleidė, kad didžiausias poveikis aplinkai susidaro dėl trąšų ir mechanizmų (traktorių ir kombainų) naudojimo. Dėl suvartojamo mažesnio trąšų kiekio ekologiniuose ūkiuose, lyginant su tradiciniais grūdų ūkiais, senka vienas iš svarbiausių dirvožemio organinės medžiagos komponentų – dirvožemyje sukaupta organinė anglis, kurios išteklių mažėjimas tiek tradiciniame, tiek ekologiniame ūkyje sudaro didžiausią (apie 51 proc.) ekologinio pėdsako dalį. Svarbu pabrėžti, kad aplinkos oro ir vandens taršos ekologinio pėdsako dalis atitinkamai sudaro 30 proc. ir 10 proc. Tyrimo rezultatai parodė, kad ekologinio pėdsako metodo taikymas suteikia žemė ūkio subjektams naudingos informacijos apie aplinkos požiūriu naudingiausią ūkininkavimo veiklą, kuri taip pat padidina energijos vartojimo efektyvumą ir sumažina pirminių išteklių suvartojimą. Raktiniai žodžiai: darni plėtra, poveikio aplinkai vertinimas, agrarinė ekonomika. JEL kodai: Q51, O13. 218