Sociometabolic transitions in human history and present, and their impact upon biodiversity
Marina Fischer-Kowalski
Institute of Social EcologyIFF Vienna, Klagenfurt University, Austria
Presentation to the Third ALTER-Net Summerschool, Peyresq, Alpes de Haute-Provence, September 2008
Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 2
Outline
1. Conceptual clarifications: social metabolism and metabolicprofiles, sociometabolic regimes, transitions
2. key features of the historical transition from the agrarian to the industrial regime
3. patterns of ongoing transformations in the South, in relationto the historical Northern transition, and in the context of global interdepency
4. How does all this relate to biodiversity, and to understanding trajectories of change?
Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 3
Social metabolism – metabolic profile
• Organismic analogy: any social system, like an organism, requires a steady flow of energy and matter to reproduce itself
• How much, and what kind of energy and matter it requires, is deeplybuilt into the structures and functioning of the social system, and beyondcertain points hard to change (metabolic profile).
• The toolbox and indicators of material & energy flow analysis (MEFA) match, in units of tonnes and joules, the toolbox of macroeconomicaccounting, in monetary units.
• The social system‘s material and energy requirements, both on the inputside (resource extraction) and on the output side (wastes and emissions) constitute pressures upon the environment, and inducechanges.
• Social metabolism: hinge concept/methodology between socioeconomicsystems and ecological systems
Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 4
Model of material social metabolism(according to MEFA)
Stocks
Domestic Environment
EconomicProcessing
DE DPO
Air,Water
WaterVapour
Imports Exports
Immigrants Emigrants
DMI
DE=domesticextraction
DMI=domesticmaterial input
DPO=domesticprocessed output
DMC= domesticmaterial consumption =DMI -exports
Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 5
composition of materials input (DMC)
material input EU15 (tonnes, in %)
Biomass
construction minerals
industr.minerals
fossil fuels
total: 17 tonnes/cap*y
source: EUROSTAT 2003
Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 6
Composition of DPO: Wastes and emissions(outflows)
D PO t o air ( C O2 )
D PO t o air*
D PO t o land ( wast e)
D PO t o land ( d issipat ive use)
D PO t o wat er
Source: WRI et al., 2000; own calculations
unweighted means of DPO per capita forA, G, J, NL, US; metric tons
DPO total: 16 tons per capita
Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 7
Sociometabolic regimes
The theory of sociometabolic regimes (Sieferle) claims that, in world history, certain modes of human production(Ricardo, Marx) and subsistence (Adam Smith, Diamond) can be broadly distinguished that share, at whatever point in time and irrespective of biogeographical conditions, certain fundamental systemic characteristics, derived fromthe way they utilize and thereby modify nature.
Key constraint: energy system (sources of energy and maintechnologies of energy conversion).
Result: characteristic metabolic profile (range of materialsand energy use per capita)
Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 8
Sociometabolic regimes can becharacterized by ...
1. a metabolic profile, that is a certain structure and level of energy and materials use (range per capita of human population)
2. secured by certain infrastructures and a range of technologies, as well as
3. certain economic and governance structures.4. A certain pattern of demographic reproduction, human life time and
labor structure, and5. a certain pattern of environmental impact: land-use, resource
exploitation, pollution and impact on the biological evolution6. Key regulatory positive and negative feedbacks between the socio-
economic system and its natural environment that mould and constrainthe reproduction of the socioecological regime.
Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 9
Transitions between sociometabolicregimes – research strategy
?
transition
Hunters and gatherers
Agrarian Industrial
Socio-metabolic regimes
Sustainable ? Postindustrial? Knowledgesociety?
Source: Sieferle et al. 2006, modified
Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 10
Transitions
Within regimes gradualism and path dependencyprevail: the system moves along a path, „maturing“into a certain direction, often towards a „high level equilibrium trap“ (Boserup 1965, Sieferle 2003), until:– that path is either interrupted from outside (such as: Mongol
invasion, major volcano eruption), or– the system implodes / collapses, and possibly falls back to
an earlier stage of that same path (Diamond 2005) – or particular (contingent) conditions allow for a transition into
another sociometabolic regimeTransitions between regimes can be turbulent and
chaotic; they are usually irreversible; there is no predetermined outcome or directionality.
Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 11
Part 2:The transition from the agrarian to the industrial
socioecological regime in history (1600-2000)
Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 12
the energy transition 1700-2000: from biomass to fossil fuels
Share of energy
sources in primaryenergy
consumption(DEC)
United Kingdom
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1700 1725 1750 1775 1800 1830 1850 1875 1900 1925 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Biomass
Coal
OIL/Gas/Nuclear
Source: Social Ecology Data Base
biomasscoal
Oil / gas / nuc
Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 13
the energy transition 1700-2000 - latecomers
Share of energysources in primary
energyconsumption
(DEC)
United Kingdom
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1700 1725 1750 1775 1800 1830 1850 1875 1900 1925 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Biomass
Coal
OIL/Gas/Nuclear
Austria
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1700 1725 1750 1775 1800 1830 1850 1875 1900 1925 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Biomass
Coal
OIL/Gas/Nuclear
Japan
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1700 1725 1750 1775 1800 1830 1850 1875 1900 1925 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Biomass
Coal
OIL/Gas/Nuclear
Source: Social Ecology Data Base
Japan
AustriaUK
Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 14
Increasing population (density) 1600-2000
Population density (UK incl. Ireland) (cap/km2)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
35016
00
1650
1700
1750
1800
1850
1900
1950
2000
UK & Ireland
Japan
Austria
Source: Maddison 2002, Social Ecology DB
Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 15
Reduction of agricultural population, and gain in income 1600-2000
Share of agricultural population
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1600
1650
1700
1750
1800
1850
1900
1950
2000
GDP per capita [1990US$]
0
5.000
10.000
15.000
20.000
25.000
1600
1650
1700
1750
1800
1850
1900
1950
2000
Source: Maddison 2002, Social Ecology DB
Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 16
Longterm increase in economic energyeffciency (1900-2005)
Energy Efficiency ($ GDP / GJ primary energy)
-
20
40
60
80
100
120
14019
00
1910
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
[$/G
J]
Austria
United Kingdom
Japan
Efficiencyincreases:Average 11 % per decade, orroughly 1% annually.
Source: SocialEcology DB
Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 17
Increasing economic material efficiency (whilemetabolic profile fairly constant)
EU-15
0,81,01,21,41,61,82,02,22,4
1970
1973
1976
1979
1982
1985
1988
1991
1994
1997
2000
2003
DMCPopulationGDPResource Productivity (GDP/DMC)
SocialEcology DB
On average 20 -23% increase in economicmaterial effciency per decade
Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 18
Metabolic profiles of the agrarian and industrial regime:
transition = explosion
Agrarian Industrial Factor Energy use (DEC) per capita [GJ/cap] 40-70 150-400 3-5 Material use (DMC) per capita [t/cap] 3-6 15-25 3-5 Population density [cap/km²] <40 < 400 3-10 Agricultural population [%] >80% <10% 0.1 Energy use (DEC) per area [GJ/ha] <30 < 600 10-30 Material use (DMC) per area [t/ha] <2 < 50 10-30 Biomass (share of DEC) [%] >95 10-30 0.1-0.3
Source: Social Ecology DB
Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 19
0,0
5,0
10,0
15,0
20,0
25,0
SangSa
eng,
Thailan
d 1998
Trinket,
Nico
bars 2
000
Törbel, S
witzerl
and 1
875
Austria
1830
UK 1884*
Austria
1991
German
y 1991
Japan
1991
Netherl
ands
1991
USA 1991
Swede
n 1991
UK 1991
t/cap
ita
Biomass Minerals Fossils Products
Metabolic profiles by sociometabolicregimes (DMC/capita)
Agrarian Societies Industrial SocietiesMeans
* UK 1884: DMI data
Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 20
Historical sociometabolic regimes
Agrarian regime:1. Solar energy, resource base flow
of biomass. 2. infrastructures decentralized. key
technology: use of land through agriculture;
3. subsistence economies & market; if more complex, strong hierarchical differentiation;
4. tendency of population growth and increasing workload;
5. potentially sustainable, but soil erosion, wildlife / habitat reduction;
6. distinct limits for physical growth (low energy density);
Industrial regime:1. Fossil fuel based; exploitation of
large stocks; 2. centralized infrastructures, industrial
technologies; 3. capitalism and functional
differentiation; 4. thrifty reproduction, prolonged
socialization, somewhat lesser workload;
5. large-scale pollution (air, water and soil), alteration of atmospheric composition, depletion of mineral resources, biodiversity reduction;
6. abolishment of limits to physical growth; decoupling of land and energy and labour;
Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 21
Part 3: Ongoing transitions
• Is „development“ such a transition from an agrarian to an industrial regime? – does it follow the same historical trajectory? – Does it lead to similar outcomes, that is for example a factor 3-4
increase in material and energy use?– What are the relevant framework conditions influencing these
transitions? How do they differ from history?
• Is a contemporary industrial metabolic profile possible for all and everywhere?– What are indications of local / regional constraints?– What are the global constraints?– What are the ways out?
Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 22
Country classification (N=165 countries forthe year 2000)
Development status: according to UN classification; differentiation between industrialized countries (incl. Transition Markets) and developing countries (all others; wide range from least developed to newly industrialized countries)Population Density: low and high density countries (50 persons/km² as dividing line)Length of history of agrarian colonization: “Old World” countries versus “New World” countries
Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 23
Country classification (165 countries worldwide, by the year 2000)
Developing low density –old world: Arid countries in Asia and Africa (N = 41)
Industrial low density – old world: Former Soviet Union, Scandinavian countries.(N = 15)
Population density low(<50/km2)OLD WORLD
Developing low density –new world: South America. (N = 22)
Industrial low density -new world: North America, Australia, New Zealand.(N= 4)
Population density low(<50/km2)NEW WORLD
Developing high densityMost of S-E Asia incl. India, China, Central America, some African countries.(N= 65)
Industrial high density European countries, Japan, South Korea (N=30)
Population density high(>50/km2)
DevelopingIndustrial
I - Hd
I – Ld - nw
I – Hd - ow
D - Hd
D – Ld - nw
D – Hd - ow
Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 24
Unequal distribution of global resources (for the year 2000)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
S hare o f popu la tion S ha re o f te rrito ry S ha re o f G D P
D - Ld - owD - Ld - nwD - H dI - Ld - owI - Ld - nwI - H d
Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 25
Transition tracks:Population and Economy (2000)
Population density
[cap/km2]
Agricultural population
[%]
GDP [US$
PPP/cap] I - Hd 149 9% 18,364 I – Ld - nw 12 2% 30,540 I – Ld - ow 12 14% 6,333 D - Hd 140 56% 2,866 D – Ld - nw 19 19% 6,312 D – Ld - ow 17 52% 2.802 World 45 42% 6,665 China 134 67% 3,491 Australia 2 5% 24,090
Source: Maddison 2002, Social Ecology DB
Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 26
Metabolic profiles in 2000:Material and Energy use per capita
Source: Maddison 2002, Social Ecology DB
Conclusion: Factor 2 difference between high and low density countries
Material use (DMC)
per capita[t/cap ]
Energy use(DEC) per
capita[GJ/cap ]
Electricityuse per
capits[GJ/cap ]
I - Hd 15 190 22I – Ld - nw 29 443 52I – Ld - ow 14 192 20D - Hd 6 49 3D – Ld - nw 15 131 7D – Ld - ow 6 76 4World 10 102 9China 8 75 4Australia 42 470 40
Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 27
Metabolic profiles in 2000:Material and Energy use per capita
M a te ria l
us e (D M C ) pe r ca p ita
[t/cap ]
E ne rg y us e (D E C ) pe r
ca pi ta [G J /cap ]
E le ct ric ity us e pe r
ca pi ts [G J /cap ]
I - H d 1 5 1 9 0 2 2 I – Ld - n w 2 9 4 4 3 5 2 I – Ld - o w 1 4 1 9 2 2 0 D - H d 6 4 9 3 D – Ld - nw 1 5 1 3 1 7 D – Ld - o w 6 7 6 4 W o r ld 1 0 1 0 2 9 C h ina 8 7 5 4 A ust ra lia 4 2 4 7 0 4 0
Source: Maddison 2002, Social Ecology DB
Conclusion: Factor 2 difference between high and low density countries
Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 28
Environmental pressures 2000
Source: Maddison 2002, Social Ecology DB
Conclusion: Regional environmental pressure already high in high density developing countries
E n e r g y us e (D E C ) pe r
h a [G J / ha ]
M a te r ia l u se (D M C ) pe r
h a [ t/ ha ]
H A N P P a p p r o p r ia te
d p la n t e n e r g y
[% ] I - H d 2 8 4 2 3 4 2 % I – L d - n w 5 4 4 1 9 % I – L d - o w 2 4 2 1 5 % D - H d 6 9 9 4 0 % D – L d - nw 2 5 3 1 4 % D – L d - o w 1 3 1 1 5 % W o r ld 4 6 4 2 2 % C h ina 7 3 1 0 3 8 % A us t ra lia 1 2 1 1 1 %
Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 29
Developing countries:
Achieve the same p/c energy consumption as industrial countries of same density class
Convergence scenario: World energyconsumption (DEC) by the year 2050
-
600
1.200
1.800
DEC 2000 DEC 2050
[EJ]
High denisty developingLow density Africa/AsiaLow density New worldFormer Soviet UnionOld world industrial coreNew world industrial core
Industrial countries:p/c energy consumption
of 2000 – 30%(high density: 135 Gj/cap,low density: 310 Gj/cap)
Scenario assumptionsfor the year 2050
Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 30
Additional factor explaining variation withinregimes: population density
• High population density is associated with lower resourceuse (about factor 2), but the relationship remains complex. – If there are few resources, such as very arid land or cold climate,
there is a limit to the number of people that can be sustained underagrarian conditions (>low density + low resource consumption)
– If a few people come to a rich environment, such as to a newlyconquered continent, they will generously consume (>low density + high resource consumption).
– If many people populate a rich environment, resources will becomescarce, but each person will need less for a good standard of livingbecause of economies of scale (>high density + low resourceconsumption)
Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 31
Part 4:
How does all that relate to biodiversity???
(some loose ideas, based in part on RP Sieferle(2003), and Social Ecology team work)
Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 32
Principal mechanisms
• Impacts of social metabolism:– Outcompeting other species of (certain) general life sustaining
resources, such as land, water and plant biomass– Pollution of environmental media by wastes and emissions– Creation of new opportunities and niches
• Impacts of human colonization strategies:– Interventions into ecosystems (biotopes)– Interventions into organisms / populations– Interventions into evolution
> Both depend on sociometabolic regime!
Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 33
Colonization of natural systems
SocialsystemNatural
system
Colonizedsystem
Work / energyinvested
Resources / servicesgained
Change inducedthrough colonization
Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 34
Colonization intensity of terrestrialecosystems: HANPP
Society
Harvest of biomass forfood, energy, fibre, etc.
Agricultural work, fuel fortractors, energy for fertilizer, etc.
NPP0
NPPt
HANPP
Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 35
Definition of HANPP
Rationale: HANPP measures changes in the availability of trophic energy for wild-living heterotrophic organisms in ecosystems induced by human activities
Some papers on HANPP:
Vitousek et al. 1986. BioScience 36, 363-373.
Wright 1990. Ambio 19, 189-194.
Haberl 1997. Ambio26(3), 143-146.
Haberl et al. 2001. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 15, 929-942.
Imhoff et al. 2004. Nature 429, 870-873.
NPP of the potential
natural vegetation= NPP0
NPP =remaining inecosystemsafter harvest
t
Net
prim
ary
prod
uctio
n (N
PP)
[tC
/yr]
NPP of theactually prevailing
vegetation= NPPact
HANPP
NPP : NPP changes induced by soil degradation, sealing,and ecosystem changes
LUCC
NPP =harvested byhumans
h
HANPP = NPP +NPPHANPP = NPP - NPP
LUCC h
0 t
Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 36
The species-energy hypothesis• Basic claim: The number of
species is positively related to the flow of energy in an ecosystem.
• Corollary: If humans reduceenergy flow (e.g., throughHANPP), then species richnesswill 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.
Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 37
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
eter
otro
phs
NPPt
0.1 1 10
1
10
100
Y =1.32916+0.69916 X-0.22962 X2
Adj. R2 = 0.69bree
ding
bird
spe
cies
rich
ness
NPPt [MJ/m²*a]
Case study 1: Correlation between NPPtand 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
Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 38
Hunters & gatherers
• Metabolism: – Risk of regional eradication of prey species (particularly large
herbivores). Particularly high in „pioneer situations“ (newimmigration). [example: eradication of North and middle American megafauna?] Cultural regulation through hunting, area and foodtaboos, leisure culture, control of population growth (Sahlins)
– barely pollution, no particular niches
• Colonization:– Mainly self-colonization (sex and reproduction regulation, body
tattooos …)– Sometimes: use of fire in hunting [example: modification of
Australian flora & fauna by aborigines]
Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 39
Agrarian societies• Metabolism:
– Metabolism (almost) completely based on local biomass; monopolization of terrestrial ecosystems for human and livestock nutrition (gradual eradicationof forest – „clear the land“. But dependence on functionally diverse land cover). Eradication of competitors (large carnivores).
– More or less closed cycles, barely pollution– Great time for parasites: dense homogenous man, animal and plant
populations create new niches for plants, animals and microorganisms(McNeill, Cohen, Crosby)
• Colonization:– Colonization of terrestrial ecosystems: modification of plant and soil species.
Increase of erosion. [cult. measures for erosion control]– Breeding and importing of functional species. Risk of bioinvasions.– Self-colonization for production of labor power (many children), diligence and
thriftiness. Move themselves into lock-in of high population density, high yields per area, low labor effciency. (Boserup, Netting)
Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 40
Industrial society
• Metabolism: – Energy base = fossil fuels, no competitors (relief on land and
biomass). Nutritional base: much more animal protein, increase in livestock. Energy surplus allows mobilisation and transport of hugeamounts of materials, restructuring of earth surface and waterbodies.
– Large scale pollution; local impacts can be controlled, global impacts(CO2) not (yet?)
– Niches: diversity of plant and animal pets, protected areas. Lessaggressive attitude towards „useless“ plant and animal life.
• Colonization:– New strategies to invervene in organisms and evolution (medicine
and bio-technologies)
Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 41
Results: HDI vs. Energy
Source: Steinberger & Roberts 2008
20052000
19951990
19851980
1975
HDI
Energy
R2 = 0,85 – 0,90
Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 42
Results: HDI vs. Carbon
Source: Steinberger & Roberts 2008
20001995
19901985
19801975
R2 = 0,75 – 0,85
Carbon
HDI
2005
Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 43
How does the energy threshold compare to global energy per capita?
Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 44
And how does the carbon threshold compare to carbon emissions per capita?
Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 45
Global energy use
Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 46
Global carbon emissions
Fischer-Kowalski | Peyresq | 9-2008| 47
Global Sustainability – a Nobel CausePotsdam Memorandum 10.10.2007
„Is there a ‚third way‘ between environmental destabilizationand persistent underdevelopment?
Yes, there is, but this way has to bring about, rapidly and ubiquitously, a thorough re-invention of our industrialmetabolism – the Great Transformation.“