practice of sustainability in an eco village: ecological ... · practice of sustainability in an...

Practice of Sustainability in an Eco Village: Ecological Footprint of Krishna Valley in

Hungary

Dániel Csaba Lánczi

Eötvös Lóránd University, Faculty of Science, Department of Environment and Land Geography,

H-1117 Budapest, Pázmány Péter sétány 1/C. e-mail: [email protected]

Budapest, 2009

2

Table of Contents

Introduction................................................................................................................. 5

1. Setting a Problem ................................................................................................... 5

2. Self-sufficiency and Sustainability ........................................................................ 6

2.1. Self-sufficiency................................................................................................. 6

2.2. Sustainability.................................................................................................... 8

3. Ecological Footprint ............................................................................................. 10

3.1. The Notion of Ecological Footprint............................................................... 10

3.2. The Ecological Footprint Analysis in the Service of Sustainability............ 12

3.3. The Calculation Method of Ecological Footprint.......................................... 13

3.3.1. The Calculation Procedure ........................................................................ 14

3.3.2. The Calculation of Biological Capacity ....................................................... 17

4. The Autonomous Initiative of Krishna Valley ..................................................... 17

4.1. The History of Krishna Valley........................................................................ 18

4.2. Autonomy in Krishna Valley in Various Aspects of Life.............................. 18

4.2.1. Administration ............................................................................................ 18

4.2.2. Culture....................................................................................................... 19

4.2.3. Local Economy .......................................................................................... 21

4.2.4. Local Commerce........................................................................................ 24

4.2.5. Agriculture ................................................................................................. 25

4.2.5.1. Cultivation of Plants.................................................................................... 26

4.2.5.2. Gardening .................................................................................................. 28

4.2.5.3. Pasture and Cow Protection ....................................................................... 31

3

4.2.5.4. Apiary......................................................................................................... 34

4.2.6. Public Services .......................................................................................... 35

4.2.6.1. Heating, Hot Water..................................................................................... 35

4.2.6.2. Electricity.......................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

4.2.6.3. Water and Waste Water ................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

4.2.6.4. Waste Material ........................................................................................... 39

4.2.6.5. Telephone .....................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

4.2.6.6. Internet........................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.1

5. The Ecological Footprint of Krishna Valley ...........Error! Bookmark not defined.

5.1. Energy Land ......................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

5.2. Consumed Land .............................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.6

5.3. Currently Used Land .........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

5. 4. Biological Capacity ........................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.2

6. Results ................................................................................................................ 534

Summary .................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.9

Literature................................................................................................................... 60

Internet Sources ....................................................................................................... 62

4

Introduction

“Civilization is built from resources and energies drawn away from

nature. The higher a civilization aims the more resources it needs and the more

resources it needs the more is drawn away and the more is drawn away the

larger is the devastation. At the outset of the third millennia we have reached a

point, where we used up all these resources not only from the point of view of

space, but also time.”1 The words of Géza Molnár bitterly call attention to the

fact that contemporary society wants to live and survive in such manner in

which it exploits natural resources at its own will and pleasure. It is truly

distressing that our society is agonizingly trying to maintain this lifestyle so

isolated from all natural systems and in the meantime it does not even catch its

eyes that this “drawing away” is endangering its very own future. What is more,

its separation has reached a level, where there is no compromise: civilization

does not believe that it is possible to cut down trees and simultaneously

maintain biological diversity, or moreover, if we protect forests, then it is

impossible to create economic activity, or to make profit (SHENG, F 1993).

1. Setting a problem

Every responsible human can see that this condition is unsustainable.

The question may come up: is there a solution to the self-destructive conduct of

our society? In my thesis I will show an alternative conception, an experiment,

which deals with nature in a completely different way and which may set an

example how it is possible to cooperate with nature.

The area of my research is the village of the ISKCON (International Society for

Krishna Consciousness) community found in the vicinity of Somogyvamos,

1 Molnár G.: A Tiszánál (At River Tisza), Ekvilibrium Kiadó, Budakeszi, 2003. p. 31.

5

Hungary. Residents of this community lead a lifestyle that endeavours to live in

harmony with their natural environment and utilize nature’s resources in this

manner as well. This alternative way of life – discernible in the community’s

approach – is an attitude embodied in such a self-sufficient farming commune,

which aims at achieving complete autonomy in every field of life, and

furthermore, sees this autonomy as a token of long-term sustainability.

In order to accomplish my study I have used the procedure of ecological

footprint analysis, the results of which, as well as the analyses in relation,

support the idea that the key to the survival of society is at hand and it is not

necessary to treat nature inimically.

Therefore, in this regard I analyze as well as show the autonomous initiative of

Krishna-valley from the viewpoint of self-sufficiency and sustainability with the

application of the aforementioned processes.

“A responsible man has no other choice, but to research and show all

cooperating systems.” 2

2. Self-sufficiency and sustainability

2.1 Self-sufficiency

The idea of self-sufficiency follows the history of humankind. We may find

this concept even in present cultures of people living close to nature or in the

autarky (policy endeavouring for economic detachment) of isolated, ex-socialist

countries. The present work does not deal with self-sufficiency or with the in-

depth analysis of autonomy in broader context, but merely studies the matter on

a community scale in relation to the topic of the paper. In what follows we

describe the autonomy, self-sufficiency of one particular community.

In everyday terms self-sufficiency can be described as follows: the object

under study does not require any external input for its functioning, it stands on

2 Molnár G.: A Tiszánál (At River Tisza), Ekvilibrium Kiadó, Budakeszi, 2003. p. 191.

6

its own feet as much as possible. Nonetheless, there is a bit more to it than

describing self-sufficiency by this plain terminology. Autonomy, in a broader

sense, can be defined as such an independence which relies upon own

personal assets as much as rational facilities provide that. (ERTSEY A. ED. 1999)

This definition shows an absolutely new perspective on self-sufficiency and

sharply draws a distinction between the idea of isolation (see autarky) and self-

sufficiency. A community relying on its own personal assets is actively

connected to its local as well as broad environment. Its autonomy manifests

itself in such a way that the community acts as a peer of equal rank with the

outside world, without any one-sided dependence or constraint. (ERTSEY A. ED.

1999)

However, it is important to think of autonomy not only in terms of economy,

as in that case we merely talk of an economic community, but a self-sufficient

community is much more than that. Autonomy is worth and ought to be

analyzed from all aspects of life.

Concerning the analysis of self-sufficiency in practice it is primal to take into

consideration the following statement. “To achieve self-sufficiency there is a

need to meet some basic requirements: production of food and clothes, medical

treatment, education and protecting ourselves (building, providing shelter). If all

these things are firmly established, then we can meet the primary needs of the

community” (Radha-kanta, 2008) 3. This formal reflection may be used as a

systematic approach in detailed, in-depth analyses of self-sufficient

communities.

3 Eco Valley Magazine, ISKCON Hungary, Somogyvámos, 2008. p. 24.

7

Autonomy in various aspects of life:4

- administration: own local government, self-management

- culture: private, independent, self-managing school, cultural programs,

associations, non-governmental organizations, less and less

dependence on governmental resources

- local economy: powerful local economy, small and medium-sized

enterprises, local taxes

- local trade: goods are not provided by one or two supermarkets on low

prices, but locally produced quality goods are dominating or exclusive

- agriculture: farming on the entire territory, complete land use, territories

not applicable for other use or protected areas utilized as energy

resources, nature preservation

- public utilities/services:

§ heating, hot water

§ electricity

§ water and waste water management

§ waste material

§ telephone

§ internet

4 Autonóm Kisrégió (Autonomous Small Region) – National Recommendation, Ertsey A. ed., Független Ökológiai Központ Alapítvány, Bp., 1999. pp. 22-28.

8

2.2 Sustainability

The exact meaning of sustainability is hard to grasp, as sustainability is

simultaneously an ideology, a way and object of thinking about present and

future, furthermore, various branches of science use it with different meanings.

(HAVAS 2000)

The notion of sustainability, unfortunately, is nowadays different from its true

meaning due to the misconstrued message the various TV channels broadcast

regarding “sustainable development”. The notion of sustainability, which came

into existence by the issuing of the 1987 report of the Brundtland-committee, is

interpreted by the Hungarian authority, Iván Gyulai (2006) in the following way:

“Sustainable development is nothing else, but substantial treatment of the

available resources in such a way, which would preserve resources for future

development as well.” 5 But even this interpretation – this single word – can

confuse the reader concerning the real meaning of sustainability.

In the notion of sustainable development the problem comes up with the

word: development. Or to be more precise, the inadequate interpretation of the

term. The adequate interpretation is the following: “It is an old-fashioned

statement that the primary goal of economy is increment. This is the major

principle in ministries of finance, stock markets and hypermarkets all around the

world, neglecting the obvious fact of endangering natural resources by this

approach, as the rapidly growing population as well as the consumer-oriented

economy finds growth inevitable. However, growth (increasing the economy)

does not always concur with development (amelioration of the economy)…” 6

Therefore, it would be much more befitting, if one uses the term: building-up

sustainability; or pays more attention to the phrase of sustainable development,

5 Borsos B. & al.: Ötletek a fenntartható vidékfejlesztési programok tervezéséhez (Ideas for Planning Sustainable Regional Development Programs), CEEWEB, Miskolc, 1998. p. 3.

6 Gardner & Prugh: A fenntartható gazdaság csírái (Seeds of Sustainable Economy) in: A Világ helyzete – A washingtoni Worldwatch Institute jelentése a fenntartható társadalomhoz vezet• folyamatról, Föld Napja Alapítvány, Bp., 2007. p. 23.

9

so that the word development is used as a way of improvement, rather then

increment.

It is worthy of remark that sustainable development does not mean that

development (economic growth) is put on first place and it will solve all the

problems of our age, but by the improvement of economy we will gain long-term

results. This can solely be achieved by an ecological concept: “…where human

needs adjust harmoniously to a certain place, to the boundaries of the

ecologically sustainable capacity of the area, then this will consequently provide

the basis of long-term sustainability.” 7

Consequently, the condition of sustainability is that the studied object (in this

case a self-sufficient community) does not make a burden to its environment, so

that the ecological equilibrium gets upset (ERTSEY A. ED. 1999). “Therefore,

sustainable development is a continuous social improvement without

overgrowing the ecological capacity.” 8

3. Ecological Footprint

3.1 The Concept of Ecological Footprint

The concept of ecological footprint was introduced by Mathis Wackernagel

and William E. Rees, Canadian ecologists. The term can be read first in

Wackernagel’s 1993 work in this subject. The raison d'•tre of the notion is that

in order to “achieve sustainable development we have to able to show in figures

how much natural resources of the Earth are available and how much we use of

it.” 9

7 Borsos B. & al.: Ötletek a fenntartható vidékfejlesztési programok tervezéséhez (Ideas for Planning Sustainable Regional Development Programs), CEEWEB, Miskolc, 1998. p. 34.

8 Wackernagel & Rees: Ökológiai lábnyomunk (Our Ecological Footprint), Föld Napja Alapítvány, Bp., 2001. p. 47.

9 Pappné Vancsó: Az ökológiai lábnyom: a fenntartható fejl•dés mér•eszköze (Ecological Footprint: Measuring Tool of Sustainable Development) in: Földrajzi Közlemények CXXVIII. (LII.) vol, 2004. Issues 1-4. pp. 73.

10

“The ecological footprint analysis is such a calculation procedure, which

allows us to make an estimate regarding needs of resource-consumption and

recycling of waste materials of a certain population or economy in figures of

productive land.” 10 That is to say, we supply information concerning the amount

of land and water needed on the one hand to produce all the consumed goods

of that certain population and on the other hand to the processing of produced

waste.

Natural resource can mark any kind of natural assets, the yield of which is

the flow of substantial goods and services in future. Among the goods we may

find the wood of the forest or the fish stock – out of which the “interest” goes to

humanity; whereas services cover lots of areas from assimilating waste material

to protection against ultra-violet radiation (WACKERNAGEL, M & al. 2001).

“If we consume more than the interest or profit coming from our natural

capital, we reduce our biophysical wealth. This procedure undermines our

future, because regardless of our ever-growing technical efficiency people are

still in a state of “obligatory dependency” in connection to ecosphere’s

productivity and livelihood.” 11 We must always remember that people are

ecological beings no matter how advanced they are from an economic,

technical or cultural point of view. To meet basic necessities we use energy and

material resources of nature, and at the end this material and energy returns

into the ecosphere in the form of waste. (WACKERNAGEL, M at al. 2001). The

question is until what degree is nature able to carry the so-called burden of

humanity? This weight-bearing capacity is measured in capita/hectare. In the

case of ecological footprint analysis this weight-bearing rate is inverted and the

calculation is done with hectare/capita value. According to the theory of

ecological footprint to every aspect of energy and material use, as well as waste

disposal there is a need for a certain amount of land with productive or

10 Wackernagel & Rees: Ökológiai lábnyomunk (Our Ecological Footprint), Föld Napja Alapítvány, Bp., 2001. p. 21-22.


11

absorbing capacity (WACKERNAGEL, M & al. 2001). If we add up all the land

areas, the overall amount of land is the ecological footprint of the studied

project. The ecological footprint can also be determined in a way that it is the

overall amount of land consisting of the different categories of ecologically

productive land, which is continuously needed to cover the whole material and

energy use, as well as waste disposal service of the project (WACKERNAGEL, M

& al. 2001).

3.2 The Ecological Footprint Analysis in the Service of Sustainability

“Measuring a wide array of human activities in terms of their ecological

footprints makes it possible to compare their separate ecological impacts. Every

economic activity imposes a demand on the ecosphere, the ecological footprint

shows how all these demands for food and fibre, non-renewable resources,

waste absorption, urban development and even maintaining biodiversity

compete for ecological space.”12

The ecological footprint is an effective (and up to now unparalleled) method

to show that the goods and services produced to meet the demands of modern

man are based on the depletion of natural resources. The ecological footprint

reminds us of the fact that humanity is dependant on ecological assets and

services no matter how grandiose technical development has it achieved. The

analyses of ecological footprints can help us to determine the limits, which are

drawn by the ecological environment we live in. Furthermore, they can help us

to manage our actions in a way so that we do not cross the boundaries of

capacity. It is not expedient to live on the edge as it may have disastrous

consequences.

“Ecological resilience and social well-being are more likely to be assured, if

the total human load remains substantially below Earth’s carrying capacity, as


12

living at the ecological edge compromises ecosystems’ adaptability, [...] and

ultimately humanity itself.” 13

The ecological footprint describes sustainability in plain, but specific terms

and it can set up the basis for debates, action programs, political and

technological decisions. Moreover, it points out that the ecological and social

consequences of over-consumption go far beyond the area of domicile

(WACKERNAGEL, M & al. 2001).

Ecological footprinting challenges common assumptions about economy,

society, and nature and places the issue of over-consumption by affluent

countries (and the rich everywhere) openly on the table.14

The attitude and mentality of people who are aware of the footprint model

can change a lot, and due to new information and conversations they may come

to the conclusion to reconsider the correlation between man and environment.

3.3 The Calculation Method of Ecological Footprint

“In theory, the ecological footprint of a population is estimated by calculating

how much land and water area is required on a continuous basis to produce all

the goods consumed, and to assimilate all the wastes generated, by that

population.” 15

However, this would lead to serious data controlling problems and we could

easily lose thread. Consequently, in the calculation of ecological footprint we

use simplified methods, which are the following: 16



15 Wackernagel & Rees: Ökológiai lábnyomunk (Our Ecological Footprint), Föld NapjaAlapítvány, Bp., 2001. p. 81.


13

• we base the calculations on the assumption that the current

industrial production (concerning farming and sylviculture)

methods are sustainable, which is often not the case

• we take into concern only nature’s basic supplies

• we try not to take into account more than once territories,

when a land is used for two or more purposes at a time

• we use the plain systematization of ecological productivity

including eight land categories (or ecosystems) and more recently

we also take into account sea territories as well

It must be mentioned though that the analysis would most likely never be

able to meet the demands – what we expect from it – to take into account the

total amount of consumed goods and waste material. Nonetheless, we can

state with confidence that it represents quite a good balance between

complexity and simplicity. It is also important to note that the calculation method

is continuously developing and improving, therefore it can serve as a more and

more important basis for the structure of sustainability.

3.3.1 The Calculation Procedure

The theoretical basis of calculation is that there has to be a certain amount

of land, which acts as a source of energy and as waste-disposal. As there is no

opportunity to take into account tens of thousands of consumption goods owing

to lack of information and lack of treatment capacity, therefore the calculations

are made in accordance with various main categories and some distinct goods.

Consumption categories (the footprint components) are the following: 17

- food

- housing


14

- transport/service

- consumer goods

- services

The reckoning of ecological footprint is a multiple-stage process. During the

first step we calculate one’s annual consumption of certain items based on

regional or national data. The essence of calculation is that we divide the

average consumption by the population (WACKERNAGEL, M & al. 2001). This

approach is simpler than if we calculate an individual or a domestic

consumption by direct measuring. (However, I am going to reckon Krishna

Valley’s ecological footprint with the latter, and consequently I would defer from

the below mentioned methodology). National statistics include commercial

information as well; therefore from these one can calculate the consumption

inclusive of commercial data.

consumption including commercial data = production + import – export

The next step is the calculation of the amount of land use per person (kf) in

relation to all the goods (c). The annual consumption of certain goods (f,

kg/capita) is divided by their annual productivity or yield (p, kg/ha):

kfc = fc/pc

Adding up all this data we get the complete ecological footprint (ef) of an

average individual:

ef = •kfc (c = 1->n)

If we are interested in the ecological footprint of the population, then we

multiply the ecological footprint per head by the number of population (N):

EFn = N (ef)

15

These footprint calculations are based on average national consumption as

well as average land output of the earth. Therefore it can be said that these

numbers are quite general, nevertheless they can be used in comparative

analyses. However, for more detailed analyses it is advisable to take into

account the local consumption and productivity data, if these are available.

The next step of the ecological footprint calculation is that the footprint

components have to be equalled (according to the equivalence index18) and

added up in accordance with the different land categories (Chart 1.)

(PAPPNÉ VANCSÓ 2004). The process of equivalence is needed because the

biological productivity of various ecological areas differs

18 Ewing B. et al.: Calculation Methodology for the National Footprint Accounts, 2008 Edition (Version 1.1), Oakland: Global Footprint Network p. 4.

16

Chart 1. Land categories of footprint estimation

(Source: Wackernagel at al.)

Energy land A. land „appropriated” by fossil energy use

Consumed land B. built environment

Currently used land C. gardensD. crop landE. pastureF. managed forest

Land of limited availability G. untouched forestsH. non-productive areas

3.3.2 The Calculation of Biological Capacity

Regarding calculations of biological capacity we take into account what

percentage of a certain area falls within the land category in concern; these

calculations are made in accordance with the existing land categories. We add

up all the intermediate results after multiplying them with the equivalence factor

and subtract 12 % of the land area, which is the minimal requirement for the

protection of biodiversity (PAPPNÉ VANCSÓ 2004). Afterwards, the value of

ecological footprint and biological capacity can be compared, besides it can be

settled whether the analyzed object functions within the compass of its

allowance.

17

4. The Autonomous Initiative of Krishna Valley

4.1 The History of Krishna Valley

“Man, if he is part of nature, he never exists on his own, individually, but just

on the contrary lives in community, whether it may be a close one, a human

commune, or a broad one, natural environment. Intertwining of a human

community, society and a specific region has brought into existence those

systems, which like particular entities bear in them the opportunities for life.” 19

The history of Krishna Valley goes back to the beginning of the 1990’s. The

Hungarian devotees of Krishna have been living in the village of Somogyvámos

of Somogy County since 1993. They run their self-sufficient farming community

according to the Vedic model of social structure and lifestyle. There are 135

volunteers living in the village and they maintain themselves on 234 hectare of

land.

4.2 Autonomy in Krishna Valley in Various Aspects of Life

The analysis of self-sufficiency is carried out by the categories of Ertsey that

have been previously mentioned. This has been complemented by elements

which are highly important in the case of inhabitants of Krishna Valley and they

also reflect their individuality. The bases of analysis are conversations that

occurred during my numerous visits, mailing carried out electronically and the

Eco Valley Magazine published by the community.

19 Molnár G.: A Tiszánál, Ekvilibrium Kiadó, Budakeszi, 2003. p. 126.

18

4.2.1 Administration

Krishna Valley from an administrative point of view is part of Somogyvámos.

The operation of the community is ensured by a well-organized executive

system. In the Krishna Village (from now on village) every aspect of life, every

constitutional unit has a head in charge, who organizes the work in a specific

field according to his or her skills conscientiously with other people under his or

supervision. This concept can be seen in the assignment of work as well,

because in the village everybody does work in accordance with skills,

qualifications, and we might even say: his work is his hobby. This means that

everyone in the village takes responsibility for his work, because he likes to do

it, and in this way establishes a genuine, sustainable asset (RADHA KRISNA DASA

2008.10.28).

4.2.2 Culture

When analyzing Krishna Valley we cannot disregard that this community is

following a lifestyle and philosophy which is far away from the European culture

and penetrates all the phases of the village. The members of the community

organize their lives according to social structure presented in the Vedic

literature called varn••rama and which could represent the operable alternative

to modern society. “The institution of varn••rama indicates a mainly agriculture

based society, where people are relying on simple technology, work with locally

available commodities and basic materials in order to produce and meet

fundamental necessities of life. The uniqueness of the varn••rama system is

that it primarily lays emphasis on the spiritual advancement of its members.

In the varn••rama system during their studies 98% of the people are taught

how to produce, deal with and trade goods that are essential for day to day life.

In this way education and work are directly related to the maintenance of

people. In this system, which provides a natural balance between supply and

demand, there is no need for economic growth, media, loan and the over-

production of unnecessary, inessential goods. In this system there is not any

19

unemployment, furthermore, the extent of indebtedness and over-production is

quite low.

The technical facilities of the varn••rama system are plain and they serve in

order to locally produce goods of vital importance and the minimal amount of

luxury articles to foster spiritual advancement, which is the prime goal of the

system.” 20

Devotees of Krishna have a lacto-vegetarian diet, which “means that

Krishna-conscious people do not eat any animal products besides milk, so they

do not eat meat and eggs, and besides these they do not take garlic, onion or

mushroom either […]. They neither drink coffee, alcoholic drinks or black tea.21

1. Picture The school of Krishna Valley

One of the most prominent pillars of cultural life is the school (1. Picture) and

the education taking place there. Krishna Valley has its own primary school

20 Eco Valley Magazine, International Society for Krishna Consciousness - Hungary, Somogyvámos, 2008. p. 20.

21 Farkas J.: „Visszaenni magunkat Istenhez.” A táplálkozás, mint áldozat a Krisna-tudatban. (”To eat uourselves back.” Nutrition as sacrifice in Krishna-consciousness) in: Pócs É. ed. Sors, áldozat, divináció; Janus/Osiris, Bp., 2001. p. 109.

20

(gurukula), where they teach primarily a certain scale of values, object of life in

compliance with the Vedic scriptures. The profession and sciences are tools

utilized so that man can accomplish his highest goal of life. Vedic education

does not emphasize the accumulation of material things, but the developing of a

refined character and establishing harmonious, blissful and loving relationships,

and eventually relies on these.

There are two foundations that were established to organize the cultural

events of the village and coordinate tourism as well. The financial funds of this

are maintained from the tax subsidies and allowances, as well as the sale of

books and magazines of the village.

4.2.3 Local Economy

“The way we think, see, love and act determines our economic life; if we

change the nature of our thinking, the way we see, love and act, the economy

changes in that manner.” 22

When analyzing Krishna Valley’s economy we may rely on widespread

geographical economy-analyses only with slight reservations. Bearing this in

mind I make an analysis regarding energy, home industry and services (and

agriculture in the following section).

Energy supply for maintaining the village is much less than the general use

in Hungary. Most of the energy is needed in order to heat the buildings, which is

accomplished by using firewood. To meet the demands of the present

population of the village, the community would need a forest of 100 hectares.

Today it is not realizable, because the village produces and uses 25% of total

firewood, but the annual stocking of 2-2.5 hectares will slowly meet the whole

demand (RADHA KRISNA DASA 2008.10.28).

The greatest electricity consumption takes place in the temple, in the

administrative building and by tourism. Their demand is supplied by a diesel

22 Dauncey, G: Összeomlás után (After Collapse), Göncöl Kiadó, Bp. 2001. p. 48.

21

generator. In houses and public buildings lighting is provided by candles and oil

lamps. Inhabitants use cooking-stove or some kind of Calor-gas for cooking.

Some of the houses have solar panels and windmills, but they do not plan to

further develop it. The indirect utilization of solar energy is visible in the

verandas of houses. One of the specific alternative energy resources is the use

of ox power. This is easily discernible by looking at the capstan (2. Picture),

which works in a very simple way: the oxen like in a mill rotate the pole, which

with a cardan shaft and a few cogwheels operates some energy demanding

tools like crop grinder, thrasher or a future mill. Oxen also have an important

role in transportation and production.

There is a plan to set up an institution concerning research of alternative

energy resources that will study the possibilities of utilizing biogas, geothermic

energy and thermal water as well.

Agriculture plays a specific role in Krishna Valley. It is the basis of economy,

all the other activities are based on it.

2. Picture The capstan working with ox power

22

Home industry is only on a small scale presently and has little production

(bottling, preservation, herbal cures, ointments, etc.), but there is an option and

will for future enlargement (RADHA KRISNA DASA 2008.10.28). The next project of

home industry will be a mill run by ox power, and later on there is a plan for

producing clothing material, i.e. flax and hemp production.

Among services we only find essential elements. Besides the

aforementioned primary school other educational facilities are the various

courses for the general public during which participants can get acquainted with

lots of things from organic gardening to vegetarian cooking. There are two

doctors responsible for the health care of the village, as well as the science of

ayurveda, i.e. Indian medicine. Among the numerous plans of the village there

is a project for establishing an ayurvedic clinic here. “According to ayurveda the

essential elements of health protection are internal and external cleanliness,

regulated diet and appropriate lifestyle.” 23 These three basic ideas help us to

point out that these elements are really alien to the present nature of the world

(lacto-vegetarian diet, strict moral regulations, special modes of cleanliness,

various exercises, early morning meditations, etc.). The basis of health care is

prevention, two of the many fields connected to this are the use of officinal

herbs and apitherapy, which is utilizing honey and other apiary produces for

healing; the basic material is provided by the village’s apiary.

Tourism is a determinant in the village, for the very reason that it represents

the largest income source. There are about 25 to 30,000 visitors each year.

“Returning guests see, learn, experience something new each and every time.

This is what representing a culture, a lifestyle really means. Krishna Valley is

not a exhibitory village, the guests who come get a glimpse in the lives of

Krishna devotees. […] The day-to-day life of the inhabitants is full of music,

dance and joy; their work, which they do not consider as work, but as rendering

service to Krishna, the Almighty Lord, gives them happiness. There is not such


23

a man who does not like to share his pleasure with others.” 24 Hosting guests is

a perfect opportunity to share this pleasure.

To manage all the activities there are not many resources needed from

outside the village. The remarkably precise labour organizing system helps the

village economy, besides a few exceptions, to produce essential crops, goods,

and services. There is a limited liability company (Ltd) and a deposit company

(Dc) operating within the village.

24 Eco Valley Magazine, International Society for Krishna Consciousness - Hungary, Somogyvámos, 2008. pp. 54-55.

24

4.2.4 Local Commerce

Most of the village commerce can be analyzed as commerce directed

towards outside demands, however, there is an inner commerce as well, but it

functions in a specific way. On the first hand, external commerce is limited to

those crops, produces which the village is completely unable to grow or cannot

grow in sufficient amount, or on the other hand, from which there is surplus.

Such export-import produces are food-products. Most of the export goods are

that of wheat and other fodder crops as well as honey and other apiary

produces. Besides this there is an option for the sale of preserves, compotes

and gardening products. We may find foodstuffs on the list of imports as well,

because during festival programmes the available quantity of the community is

limited. The community has to import goods that it cannot produce like

components for machines, detergents (Frosch), clothing, and medicines. They

have to obtain a greater amount of firewood from an external source (their own

resources provides only 20-25%), fossil energy resources and several building

materials (roof tiles, bricks, reinforced concrete). Goods needed for household

maintenance can be accessed in a special shop available merely for community

members. In the village there is a special currency called syama, which is the

money used in between the different departments (KUN A. – PARTHA DASA

2009.03.12).

A prominent unit in commerce is the gift shop, which first of all sells

handicrafts made by village residents and several other products to curious

visitors.

25

4.2.5 Agriculture

“… a man lives on the same land through generations, he loves it, and

based on good, practically acquired ecological knowledge he gives back what

he gets from the soil.” 25

Krishna Valley is a self-sufficient community where all activities are based

on agriculture, thus these topic needs a more elaborate introduction. Food

production is essential for all the inhabitants of the village, for this reason every

resident has to help in agriculture. Agricultural production is divided in four

sections, but they are not separated from each other. Basic principles in this

regard are nicely summarized in the following quotation:

“Agriculture is not an industry; plants, animals are not like machines,

consequently wheat, apple, chicken are not produced. They all are living entities

and even the soil lives as it gives home to milliard of living beings. Weeds,

pests, germs are not enemies to be completely killed off (as a matter of fact it is

a fruitless endeavour). Plants, animals rather live in communities, then I

monocultures, but even plants have their friends or enemies. The best

protection against diseases is looking after everyone and everything in

adequate circumstances. And if we want to fight, then we can turn to our natural

enemies. We should nurture the land, not the plant. Not only humans should be

treated in a humane way, but also animals should be bred, kept in “animale”

circumstances. 26

25 Lorenz, K.: A civilizált emberiség nyolc halálos b•ne. (Eight Mortal Sins of Civilized Man); Ikva, Sopron, 1988. p. 22.

26 Seléndi Sz.: Ökológiai gazdálkodás, ökofarmok, ökorégiók. (Ecological Farming, Eco-villages, Eco-regions); Környezetvédelmi Füzetek, OMIKK, Bp. 1996. p. 3.

26

4.2.5.1 Cultivation of Plants

From a geographical point of view Krishna Valley is located in the area of

Western-Somogy County of Hungary. The land of Krishna Valley is favourable

for plant cultivation. The annual precipitation is 713 mm (average data of 6

years). Most of the land is that of brown Ramann soil, which indicates that once

this territory of Somogy County was covered with thick forests, and besides this

one may find clayey brown soil. The subsoil is sand and loess.

Chart 2. Plants cultivated in Krishna Valley

Crop Amount of cultivated land Use

Wheat 35% Human consumption

Mustard 15% Oil, vegetable fertilizer

Alfalfa 20% Nitrogen supplement,

fodder-crop

Split peas 5% Human consumption,

fodder-crop

Phacelia 10% Fodder-crop, melliferous

place, phosphorus

supplement

Other crops

(barley, rye, oat)

15% Fodder-crop

Source: Radha-kanta dasa

Plant cultivation takes place on 11 hectares of land. The requirements of the

community can be satisfied by cultivating 3 hectares of land (Chart 2.); in 2008

the total amount of crops was 54 tons.

27

All the above listed plants are grown in a system of annual crop rotation,

usually sowing-seeds come from internal resources, but sometimes it is

necessary to purchase some from merchants.

During farming they attempt to reduce and save labour as much as possible.

Most of the work has to be done during getting the land ready for sowing,

sowing itself and harvesting. Generally, there is no need for pest-control.

Nutrients are supplemented by vegetable fertilizer in a certain part of the land;

furthermore, manure is spread on the land every second year. Afterwards the

land is ploughed and the next step is the preparation of bedding. Periodically,

when growing wheat micro organisms are used as top dressings, but this

technology is in an experimental stage. The essence of this method is microbes

put into land improve the attributes of that particular land and enhance

composting. 27 Sowing is done without machines and oxen help in transporting

the seeds. In general, animals are involved in other work as well; nonetheless,

some of the activities have to be carried out by tractors. Apparently, diesel oil

and the tractor as well come from an external source.

Waste arising from farming is altogether organic and it can be well applied in

composting, or ploughing back. Moreover, straw is an important element for the

dairy farm.

On account of climate change there is a strong initiative in the village to

domesticate crops, not so well-known in Hungary, which are drought-resistant.

Genetically modified plants are not grown in the village, but the head of the

agricultural department considers it essential to plant old, extensive kinds of

crops for the sake of gene preservation (Based on the answers received from

RADHA-KANTA DASA).

27 www.oko-volgy.hu

28

4.2.5.2 Gardening

The essential gardening produces are ensured by a 1.5 hectare orchard and

a 0.5 hectare vegetable garden (3. Picture), there is also a greenhouse. In

future they would like to double the vegetable garden as well as plant saplings

in between the existing rows of trees.

The vegetable seed stock is supplied by the community from its own

resources, but the total amount has to be complemented with organic sowing

because the community only provides 60% of the necessary amount. Seeds are

put in a special tea before sowing, which is made from valerian, oak bark,

achillea, stinging-nettle and calendula. With this macerating tea one can shorten

the germination period and the plant also becomes more resistant.

The basis of successful gardening is the compost consisting of manure,

vegetable and kitchen refuse, i.e. material produced on the territory of the

village.

3. Picture The vegetable garden

29

In the garden of Krishna Valley the gardeners have developed a special

seed-bed with horse-dung. The advantage of it is that the horse-dung heats the

seeds and for instance residents can pick fresh radish in February.

They use several practical achievements of plant conservation in Krishna

Valley. Apart from the special soaking tea before sowing, they use other organic

juices to keep away pests, and to supply nutrients. This is done every fortnight.

Coupling is not only useful because we avoid monocultures, which plants do not

like, but also vegetables better develop in the association of adequate

neighbouring plants and the yield is better as well; what to speak of their mutual

protection against pests. A good example for coupling would be vegetables with

various aromatic, sweet herbs, which pests cannot stand. Mulching is used

against weeds, gardeners use woodchip or straw which is easily available in the

village. Watering is done with collected rain water and well-water. There are

several wells and water is pumped out onto the vegetable garden. The five most

important vegetables for the community are: French bean, zucchini, beetroot,

carrot and pumpkin.

We find lots of varieties of trees in the orchard (4. Picture), most of the trees

are apple trees. Apple is an important foodstuff for the community during winter

months. In between the trees most likely gardeners will plant new saplings; if

there will not be a tree, then they will plant currant-bushes. The aim is to grow

such plants which are the most resistant, so they can ensure self-sufficiency for

the village. Therefore, there is an ongoing research regarding acclimatization

(e.g. persimmon, fig). For the protection of trees gardeners use spraying with

organic juices.

As organic gardening is a demanding work and there are hardly any

machines used in the production, this is why almost every inhabitant has to do

an hour of gardening three days a week. Gardening is based as well as some

other activities on the moon calendar, which gives adequate information

concerning particular activities to be done. For the self-sufficiency of the

community vegetables and fruits have to be preserved and stored. To provide

this there is a kitchen for preserving, where jams and preserves are prepared

30

for winter months. There is an option for desiccation as well. Also there is a

huge cellar of 150 square meters used for vegetable and fruit storage.

As during winter months gardening is impossible, thus this time period is

used for accurate planning and the production of organic juices (SUNDARA-

GOPALA DASA 2008.11.27).

4. Picture The orchard

31

4.2.5.3 Pasture and Cow Protection

In the life of Krishna Valley cattle has a prominent place as they are

Krishna’s favourite animals and all the inhabitants of the village treat them as

individuals. They do not exploit them, but take care of them and accept

whatever they give. There is a cattle cemetery in the village for the cows and

oxen that passed away. “It would be the most immoral deed, if we sent them to

slaughterhouse when they get old, because they are not useful any more.” 28

Cows provide milk for the community, as well as cow-dung, whereas ox-

power is used in cultivating land and transportation.

Climate change also affects animals and western breed can hardly adapt to

these changes. To solve this problem the village has launched the Zebu

programme (5. Picture) which aims at domesticating and breeding the Indian

Zebu cattle.


5. Picture Nandi: the Zebu of Krishna Valley

32

The Zebu, taking into account its characteristics, is more suitable to the

demands set up by the more and more dry climate. It has strong working

capacity and exceptionally tolerates heat and drought.

There are thirty-six cattle in the cow-shed at present (6. Picture), but this

number does not meet the requirements of the community, so in the following

years they would like to increase this number by four progeny each year and

thus enlarge the herd to a total of sixty-eighty animals.

There is a need for large land in order to maintain the herd. At present their

pasture is 47 ha, but they also have the possibility to graze on a 3-6 as well as a

20 hectare of extra land. Forage is also a must in animal husbandry. One third

of the 47 hectare land is regularly cut, besides that there is another hayfield for

some extra nutrition. Forage mainly consists of grass, alfalfa and some other

crops (Based on the answers received from GOVINDANANDANA DASA).

6. Picture The cowshed

33

4.2.5.4 Apiary

The apiary of Krishna Valley was established in 1993 with the aim of

providing honey for the community; after a short break in functioning

apiculture was re-launched again in 2002, but then apitherapy came into the

limelight. Besides this there is bee-keeping, honey production, pollen

collection, and also beeswax and propolis production in Krishna Valley (ECO

VALLEY MAGAZINE 2008).)

Today the apiary has its own brand of products. The most popular of

these are the different ointments as well as ear and body candles. In

addition, it is worth mentioning the healing nectars, which are honeys into

which different herbs were soaked. “The auspicious effect of these medical

products is based on the fact that honey makes the healing power of these

herbs sixfold, so we can manufacture an absolutely effective product, which

can mainly be used in prevention.” 29

There is a sevenfold overproduction of honey in Krishna Valley (RADHA

KRISNA DASA 2008.10.28).


34

4.2.6 Public Services

Traditionally, Krishna Valley cannot be called comfortable, as there are

no cables, pipes, wires to spoil the magnificent scenery of Somogy region.

Instead of public utilities of the modern world we find alternative, apt

solutions in the village regarding services (KUN A.-PARTHA DASA

2009.03.12.).

4.2.6.1 Heating, Hot Water

The analysis of the buildings’ heating technologies is done according to

the construction of the buildings. In Krishna Valley most of the construction

work is done by building contractors, but some of the buildings, for instance

the temple was built by the community.

The foundation of the buildings is concrete or reinforced concrete. Walls

are built on this foundation, which are mostly erected by using cob or brick. It

is characteristic to use cobbing or adobe as these can be gained from locally

available materials, as well as the use of brick and small-sized brick. The

insulation of walls is sometimes done with building in straw bales.

The ceiling is done with beams and strengthened with pugging or

concrete. Additionally, concrete beams are also used. The roofing is always

that of wood covered with Bramac tiles. We can see a few building with flat

roof in the village, but it is less accustomed.

The colours of the buildings reflect the vivid colours of India, so they

seem a bit strange in the declivous scenery of Somogy County (7. Picture).

The heating of the building is done by firewood. Most of the houses have

glazed tile stoves. However, one of the most important elements of heating

is the proper insulation of the houses.

35

7. Picture Houses

Hot water can be made by using black-coloured barrels during the

summer months, the only thing is to provide sufficient supply when

necessary. In winter hot water is provided by boilers or wood-burners.

4.2.6.2 Electricity

The community’s need for electricity is minimal. There is not a single

overhead cable in the village, houses get electricity from solar panels and

wind-engines. What is more, most of the houses do not even have electric

apparatuses. Most of the electricity is used by the communal buildings like

the temple or office, as well as the tourist department which is provided by

the aforementioned generator. This machine supplies about 95% of

electricity of the total need of the community.

36

4.2.6.3 Water and Waste Water

Water supply of the community is ensured by tube-wells. There is a well

next to each house, which water is tested and drinkable. At the present

territory of the village erstwhile there was an industrial agriculture and

sheep-farming, the nitrate contamination level of the land has been reduced

under the limit of sanitary requirements in fifteen years of time. There are

plans to bore a deep well, which would supply drinking water and irrigation in

the long run.

In the village there is approximately ~3,000 m³ of waste water annually,

which is ~22.2 m³/head/year. The national average regarding waste water is

~56.9 m³/head/year, whereas in Somogy County it is ~32.4 m³/head/year. 30

Beforehand, waste water was shipped from Krishna Valley, but in 2009

construction work for a reed-bed zone sewage system was finished (8.

Picture), which is a water managing method European Union also supports.

The essence of this method is that the waste water goes through sump and

then three basins with reed. The water slowly flows through the basins,

where micro organisms living in the root of reed cleanse it and then it

irrigates a plantation. This plantation consists of poplar and bamboo trees,

which can be utilized in heating (ECO VALLEY MAGAZINE 2008).

30 According to 2006 data of the National Statistics Bureau regarding waste water.

37

8. Picture Building of the reed-bed zone sewage system

38

4.2.6.4 Waste Material

One of the cardinal questions of eco-conscious lifestyle is to produce the

least amount of waste. In Krishna Valley the quantity of the yearly communal

waste, which in not recyclable for compost, is 230 m3 (~51-52 T31), i.e.

~383.3 kg/year per person.

In comparison Hungary’s average waste in relation to settlements is

~396.8 kg/head, while Somogy County’s waste production is ~443.9 kg/head 32

(inclusive of materials for composting). In Krishna Valley the quantity of waste

per head includes the waste of 30,000 tourists as well, but not the waste for

composting (9. Picture). There is no available data concerning composted

waste.

31Based on: http://www.nyf.hu/others/html/kornyezettud/szelektiv/eredet1.htm •=0,2-0,25

32 According to 2007 data of the National Statistics Bureau.

9. Picture Composting heaps

39

The selective waste management in the village is in its introductory phase. It

can be stated that ~75% of the waste is plastic wrap. Metal waste is minimal

~10%. Waste glass is also insignificant as all the fruit-jars can be reused,

therefore actual glass waste is ~5% of the total waste. In addition, there is a

category of other waste, which is ~10% of the total. There is no paper waste as

it is used in heating. Also the waste from construction sites is getting less and

less as the building operations are decreasing. The disposable cutlery and

plates used in tourist catering are replaced by ones made from corn and potato

flour that can be recycled in composting. In comparison national waste

production is a great extent larger than what we can experience in Krishna

Valley. The numbers speak for themselves: paper 15-17%; plastic 5-7%; glass,

metal, textile 3-4%; inorganic 25-30%; organic/for composting 35-40%33 (Based

on the answers received from PARTHA DASA).

4.2.6.5 Telephone

There is no telephone line in the village, but only to the building, which

serves as the reception of Krishna Valley, located in the main street of

Somogyvámos. Members of the community use cell phones primarily for their

service. Every third person has a mobile phone as the community has a

contract for a really advantageous telephone package with the supplier. This

means whoever is a member of this package can talk to other members free of

charge.

The latest data regarding mobile usage in Hungary claims that there are 122

subscribers for every one hundred people34. In Krishna Valley only ~33% of the

residents have cell phones.

33 A hulladékgazdálkodás általános kérdései, alapelvei (Basic Questions, Principles of Waste Management). Hulladékgazdálkodási Szakmai Füzetek 1. Köztisztasági Egyesülés munkacsoportja, KvVM, Bp. 2003. p. 24.

34 http://hirek.prim.hu/cikk/71914/

40

4.2.6.6 Internet

The community has a private website (www.krisnavolgy.hu,

www.okovolgy.hu), where we may read about community life, organic

gardening, natural lifestyle. They also publish articles regarding vegetarian diet

and culture, as well as reply to emails. Internet access is only available in the

office and temple; moreover, its use is limited.

41

5. The Ecological Footprint of Krishna Valley

The calculation of the ecological footprint of Krishna Valley that is the

procedure of reckoning is a bit different from the customary methods found in

specialized literature. The reason for this is primarily because I gathered the

necessary information based on personal investigation and not on nation-wide

statistics. Therefore, the calculation of the footprint is altered. Furthermore, I

specified the figures in accordance with the latest footprint calculation

methodology. 35

The collection of footprint components was completed on the basis of

land categories, which were previously mentioned. There is a special exception

of footprint calculation with regard to waste material. As the calculation of waste

material is in close correlation with the calculation of consumer goods,

therefore, when considering the amount of produced waste material, the input

consumption data had also been taken into account. As the calculation of

consumer goods in Krishna Valley was not realizable for lack of appropriate

data, the measurement of waste material footprint had to be altered, too.

35 According to EWING, B.- REED, A.- RIZK, S.M.- GALLI, A.- WACKERNAGEL, M.-AND KITZES, J. (2008): Calculation Methodology for the National Footprint Accounts, 2008 Edition (Version 1.1), Oakland: Global Footprint Network. and REED, A.- RIZK, S.M.- GALLI, A.- WACKERNAGEL, M.- AND KITZES, J. (2008): Guidebook to the National Footprint Accounts, 2008 Edition. Oakland: Global Footprint Network.

42

5.1 Energy Land

In order to calculate the energy footprint (A) one has to measure the use

of fossil energy sources. Different departments of the community in concern

utilize petrol, diesel oil, propane gas and Calor gas; the statistics on this can be

seen in Chart 3. The calculation is based on the method of converting the

different sorts of used fuel in accordance with their heat-value36 into energy

units (GJ/year). The acquired results have been related to the whole population

per capita, i.e. the sum is divided by the number of the entire population

(GJ/capita/year). The last step in the calculation is that we divide the acquired

number by the 100 GJ/ha/year land-for-energy ratio and in this way we receive

the ecological footprint per capita of the energy source consumption of a certain

product. All the data get into the consumption land-use matrix (Chart 5.) after

equivalence. The equivalence factor is 1.33.

36 petrol: 44 MJ/kg, diesel oil: 42.35 MJ/kg, propane gas: 46.3 MJ/kg, Calor-gas: 45.5-46.5 MJ/kg

43

Chart 3. Use of fossil energy resources in Krishna Valley

Field of use Quantity (kg/year) Energy unit (GJ/year)

Electric power output of the

electric generator set (diesel

oil)

9 456.77 400,5 (because of the ~30%

efficiency rate: 1335)

Garden apparatus,

lawnmowers (petrol)

3 556.45 156.48

Transportation (diesel oil) 5 403.87 228.85

Book distribution (diesel oil) 18 913.55 801

Arable land (diesel oil) 1 034.84 43.83

Gardening (diesel oil) 1 269.91 53.78

Dairy farm (diesel oil) 918.65 38.9

Apiary (diesel oil) 324.23 13.73

Other (diesel oil) 11 996.59 508.06

Communal kitchen (propane

gas)

3 000 138.9

Restaurant (propane gas) 1 500 69.45

Cooking, heating ~108 gas bottle 29.8

School 5 gas bottle 1.38

Total: 3 419.16

Source: Radharadhya dasa

44

It can be stated from the above chart that the electric generator set,

which provides electricity for the village, primarily for managerial and executive

establishments, consumes most fuel energy. Book distribution also demands

prominent amount of diesel oil, though it is an activity which does not serve the

autonomy of the community, but nonetheless has an important role in the life of

Krishna-valley’s population. The energy need of food production is mostly

ensured by utilizing human and animal power, so the use of fossil energy

source is not significant here. The energy for cooking is also provided from

fossil energy resources; this figure includes the quantity of energy source used

for providing foodstuffs for guests. The chart does not include the data

regarding firewood used for heating, as in the calculation of ecological footprint

the quantity of used firewood is indicated in the so called forest-footprint. In

order to get a view of this, the energy unit of firewood in Krishna Valley is 7106

GJ/year, which per person is 52.637 GJ/capita/year.

The chart does not show another energy footprint related to waste

material, which takes into consideration the energy needed for the production of

different kinds of materials. This particular calculation can be observed in the

section on waste footprint.

The ecological footprint of use per person based on the statistics of

transportation is the following (the same reckoning has to be applied for other

data as well):

228.85 GJ/year / 135 capita = 1.695 GJ/capita/year

1.695 GJ/capita/year / 100 GJ/ha/year (x1.33) = 0.023 ha/capita

45

5.2 Consumed Land

The category of consumed land (B) comprises the area of built

environment, i.e. buildings and roads. The formula of calculation concerning this

footprint is quite simple: territory/entire population. The equivalence factor is

2.64.

The system of Krishna Valley’s buildings and covered roads is shown in

Chart 4.

Chart 4. Buildings and covered roads of Krishna Valley

Buildings dimension (m2)

Houses ~1 850

Temple 1 000

Festival tent 450

Guest house 220

Dairy farm 450

Apiary 30

School 160

Offices 260

Two houses 160

Storerooms 550

Buildings total 5 130

Roads ~16 000

Source: Partha dasa

46

According to the data of the chart, the buildings of Krishna Valley occupy

5 130 m2 altogether, whereas the roads approximately 16 000 m2. This forms

less than 1% of the whole area of the valley. Most of this area is occupied by

houses (~1 850 m2). However, this figure may increase as it is very likely that

the population will grow in the future. Roads connect the most important

buildings of the valley.

The ecological footprint of the consumed area per person concerning

roads is (the same calculation has to be applied for other data as well):

1.6 ha / 135 capita (x 2.64)= 0.031 ha/capita

5.3 Currently Used Land

In the category of currently used land belong the territories of the garden

(C), crop land (D), pasture (E), and forest (F). In this case the calculation is

somewhat different from the method described in the section about the theory of

ecological footprint. During calculations I did not take into account the per capita

consumption and productivity factor per hectare of certain items, but proceeded

from the factor of whether the area in question meets the demands of the

community or not. Considering this the figures depicting footprint components

are the following:

Gardening produces

The vegetable garden is 0.5 ha, the orchard is 1.5 ha, altogether 2 ha. As

this area meets the requirements of the community one hundred per cent,

therefore, the footprint calculation can be done according to the following

operation: territory/population (the equivalence factor is 2.64).

47

vegetable: 0.5 ha / 135 capita (x 2.64)= 0.0104 ha/capita (37 m2)

Land produces

The entire seeding area is 11 ha, however, to meet the requirements of

the population merely 3 ha area is needed. The footprint can be calculated in

such a way that we divide the figure of the required area with the number of

population. The equivalence factor is 2.64.

arable land: 3 ha / 135 capita (x 2.64) = 0.0586 ha/capita

Pasture

There is 83 hectare area for the cattle, where they are able to graze, or

from where they can get scythed forage. The footprint reckoning in this case as

well is based on the fact that this territory meets the requirements of the

community. So, the calculation is territory/population. The equivalence factor in

the case of pasture is 0.5.

pasture: 83 ha / 135 capita (x 0.5) = 0.307 ha/capita

Forest

The annual need of the village regarding firewood for cooking and

heating is 550 m3 (418 000 kg). The procedure of calculation is the following:

the complete use of firewood of the village (kg/year) is transferred into energy

48

units, just like in the case of fossil energy sources (GJ/year). Afterwards it is

calculated per person (kg/capita/year) and then that figure is divided with the

100 GJ/ha/year land-for-energy ratio. In this way, we acquire the so called

forest footprint (ha/capita). In the case of firewood we take into account 17

MJ/kg heat-value, which is considered as a general value in determining the

productivity of energy forests.37 The equivalence factor is 1.33.

418 000 kg/year * 17 MJ/kg = 7 106 000 MJ/year = 7 106 GJ/year

7 106 GJ/year / 135 capita = 52.637 GJ/capita/year

52.637GJ/capita/year / 100 GJ/ha/year (x 1.33) = 0.7 ha/capita

Waste

In the case of waste footprint calculation one needs to know not only the

amount of waste material, but the amount of consumer goods as well.

Unfortunately, as this is unavailable, so we make specific calculation with waste

material in accordance with the energy used for the production of a certain

produce.

- Waste paper: as there is no waste paper at all, and furthermore, the

amount of consumption is unavailable; therefore, this data is not

included in the calculation.

- Waste metal: this proportion of waste is not a significant one;

moreover, whereas the energy used for the production of various

metals differs and the composition of the waste metal is unknown,

therefore, this is not included in the calculation either.

37 Dr. Gyulai I.: A biomassza dilemma (The biomass dilemma), Magyar Természetvéd•k

Szövetsége, MacKensen Kft, 2006. p. 11.

49

- Waste glass: the quantity of scrap glass is trivial, so it is not included

in the calculation.

- Synthetic waste: it comprises the highest percentage of Krishna-

valley’s waste, which is containerized and taken away.

The quantity of synthetic waste is ~172.5 m3, which is comprised of

assorted things. The density of synthetic materials differs widely, so to

determine the mass of a certain item we use the PET •=1.35 kg/dm3

value. In the calculation we take into consideration the amount of energy

that is needed in order to manufacture mixed synthetic material per ton,

this figure is 85 640 kJ/t38. The gained result is divided per capita and by

the 100 GJ/ha/year land-for-energy ratio we acquire the footprint value in

ha/capita.

172.5 m3/year * 1 350 kg/m3 = 232 875 kg/year

232.875 t/year * 0.085640 GJ/t = 19.94 GJ/year

19.94 GJ/year / 135 capita = 0.148 GJ/capita/year

0.148 GJ/capita/year / 100 GJ/ha/year (*1.33) = 0.00196 ha/capita

In relation to the above described examples all the calculations and

equivalences of footprint components are shown in the consumption land-use

matrix (Chart 5.). The totalizing line of the matrix indicates the results describing

the ecological footprint of the community per capita.

38 http://www.muanyagipariszemle.hu/2004/06/muanyaghulladek-elegetni-vagy-ujrafeldolgozni-18.pdf

50

Chart 5. The consumption land-use matrix of Krishna Valley

Ecologically productive

land (ha/capita) A(e

nerg

y)

B(f

all i

n va

lue)

C(g

arde

n)

D(c

ropl

and)

E(p

astu

re)

F(f

ores

t)

Tota

l

1. Food 0.0148 0.00094 0.039 0.0586 0.307 0.42

11. Land produce 0.0043 0.0586

12. Vegetable, fruit 0,0053 0.039

13. Dairy products 0,0038 0.00088 0.307

14. Apiary products 0,00135 0.00006

2. Housing 0,0029 0.0036 0.28 0.2865

21. Maintenance 0.0029 0.28

3. Transport, service 0.1515 0.031 0.1825

31. Transport of goods 0.0225

32. Book distribution 0.0789

33. Other traffic 0.05

4. Consumer goods ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

5. Services 0.1696 0.0055 0.42 0.595

51. Management 0.1052 0.0028

52. Education 0.0001 0.0003

53. Tourism 0.0331 0.0013

54. Communal kitchen 0.0137

55. Apparatuses

(lawnmowers)

0.0154

56. Store-room ? 0.001

57. Waste material

(synthetic)

0.00196

Total 0.3389 0.041 0.039 0.0586 0.307 0.700 1.485

The ecological footprint of Krishna Valley is ~1.485 ha/capita.

51

It can be seen from the value of ecological footprint that in Krishna-valley

resources of fossil energy, firewood and pasture comprise most of the available

ratio. Other areas of agriculture represent a minor proportion of the footprint.

The estimate regarding ecological footprint is not complete as the calculation of

consumer goods has been neglected due to lack of adequate data. Such items

are clothes, detergents, household appliances, etc. On account of the fact that

the inhabitants of Krishna Valley are devoting all their efforts to live a nature-

friendly lifestyle, it can be experienced that their consuming customs greatly

differ from the conventional Hungarian consumer practice. As the demand for

consumer goods is quite low in the village – or rather it is confined to basic

needs – therefore, it would merely alter the ecological footprint in a slight

degree.

It is characteristic of the value of ecological footprints to underrate the

actual quantity of consumed land; in the present case the lack of taking into

consideration of consumer goods makes this valid to a greater extent.

5.4 Biological Capacity

The last step in the procedure is the calculation of biological capacity. In

this particular case, we determine what percent of the examined territory

belongs into the examined land-use category. These areas are calculated per

capita similarly to footprint calculations and they are also factorized (Chart 6.).

52

Chart 6. The biological capacity of Krishna Valley

Land-use

(ha)

Equivalence

factor

Land-use

(ha/capita),

Biological

capacity

(ha/capita)

Consumed land *1 ~25 2.64 0.1852 0.488

Arable land 11 2.64 0.0815 0.215

Garden 2 2.64 0.0148 0.039

Pasture 83 0.5 0.6148 0.307

Forest 34 1.33 0.2518 0.335

Other*2 79 ? 0.5852 0.585

Total 234 1.7333 1.969

For the protection of

biodiversity (-12%)

1.733

*1 roads, communal buildings, houses with private gardens*2 economically non-utilized land

The biological capacity of Krishna Valley is 1.733 ha/capita.

The calculation of biological capacity was made difficult by the fact that

the 79 hectare land, which functions without the equivalence factor, gives place

to various activities (recreation, grass-covered land, the reed-bed zone sewage

system). Taking into consideration the impacts of these is somewhat

complicated due to lack of adequate information.

53

6. Results

The most self-evident analysis concerning the value of the ecological

footprint and biological capacity is if we compare them to other similar data, and

furthermore, if we make a correlation between the two values.

Krishna Valley’s ecological footprint is 1.485 ha/capita, which can serve

as a comparison basis, but with reservations, since the calculation procedure is

somewhat different in Krishna Valley. Moreover, there are no results regarding

the footprint of consumer goods. However, taking into consideration the data of

Hungary as well as that of our globe’s average footprint, it can be stated that

Krishna Valleys ecological footprint is less than that of Hungary’s and the

world’s footprint. In accordance with the data of The Ecological Footprint Atlas39

Hungary’s ecological footprint is 3.55 ha/capita (Pappné Vancsó determined

this ecological footprint figure in 2001 as 4.64 ha/capita)40, which is a bit more

than the double of Krishna Valley’s footprint. Additionally, the world’s ecological

footprint is 2.69 ha/capita, which is nearly the double of Krishna Valley’s

footprint as well. If we are curious what are the factors which have an influence

on these differences, it is advisable to pay attention to the data found in the

consumption land-use matrix (Chart 5.).

Taking into account energy land, it can be claimed that Krishna Valley’s

value is 0.3389 ha/capita, whereas Hungary’s is 1.49 ha/capita, which clearly

represents how determinant is the use of fossil fuel here in Hungary. One can

find resembling data regarding world’s energy footprint, i.e. 1,41 ha/capita.

39 EWING, B.- REED, A.- RIZK, S.M.- GOLDFINGER, S.- STECHBART, M.-WACKERNAGEL, M.- AND KITZES, J: The Ecological Footprint Atlas 2008. Oakland: Global Footprint Network. p. 54.

40 Pappné Vancsó: Az ökológiai lábnyom: a fenntartható fejl•dés mér•eszköze (Ecological Footprint: a Mesuring Tool for Sustainable Development) in: Földrajzi Közlemények CXXVIII. (LII.) kötet, 2004. 1-4. szám. p. 85.

54

We can experience similarly great difference concerning land-use of food

producing plants. Krishna Valley’s data on garden and crop land (The

Ecological Footprint Atlas 2008 deals with these two categories as one) is

approximately ~0.1 ha/capita, whereas Hungary’s is 1.48 ha/capita, while the

world average is 0.64 ha/capita. Still, this comparison would not be complete

without the footprint data of pasture. In Krishna-valley cattle is of high

importance. The ecological footprint of pasture here, in Krishna Valley is 0.307

ha/capita, while in Hungary it is less than 0.005 ha/capita and in the world it is

0.26 ha/capita. Notwithstanding, after adding up the footprint components of

food produces the difference is getting more subtle. The data of Krishna Valley

on this is about ~0.4 ha/capita, which is approximately one hectare less than

the Hungarian average and roughly the half of world’s average. This

phenomenon can be ascribed to differences originating from cultural as well as

dietary customs.

There are significant differences in the data regarding consumed land

footprint in between Krishna Valley and Hungary, however, there is not such a

prominent contrast between Krishna Valley and the world average. The

consumed land in Krishna Valley is 0.041 ha/capita, whereas in Hungary this

footprint is 0.2 ha/capita. The reason for this difference is that Krishna Valley is

set in a village-like environment, close to nature. The world average in this

regard is 0.07 ha/capita.

Concerning forest footprint this is the sole value where Hungary’s data is

less, than Krishna Valley’s footprint. In Krishna Valley the intense use of

firewood brings forth the 0.7 ha/capita forest footprint, which is almost the

double of Hungary’s 0.38 ha/capita data. Nevertheless, even Hungary’s forest

footprint goes beyond world’s average data, which is 0.23 ha/capita.

The chart, which depicts the data of the above analysis, shows the well

discernible differences of the various footprints. (Chart 7.)

55

Source: The Ecological Footprint Atlas 2008 and personal calculations

Data of ecological footprint can give opportunity to other analysis as well.

The ecological footprint analysis shows whether an object under examination is

within the boundaries of sustainability or not. The most useful information can

be gained by the mutual analysis of the value of ecological footprint as well as

the value of biological capacity together.

The ecological footprint of Krishna Valley is 1.485 ha/capita, while its

biological capacity is 1.733 ha/capita; the difference between the two is 0.248

ha/capita. This value means that Krishna Valley functions within its biological

capacity, that is to say it meets the sustainability criteria of the ecological

footprint analysis. It is worth to compare the connection between Hungary’s

ecological footprint and biological capacity. It can be read from the two data

(ecological footprint: 3.55 ha/capita, biological capacity: 2.82) that Hungary has

a 0.73 ha/capita deficit, in other words, it uses more land than the sustainability

criteria allows. It is worth making a comparison with world average data as well,

56

which is 2.06 ha/capita. Krishna Valley’s biological capacity is below the world’s

average and far beneath Hungary’s data, but behind all this there is the

community members’ conception, which entails such an economy that involves

the use of biologically productive land within the limits of sustainability. In

opposition to this, Hungary’s biological capacity is over the world’s average,

furthermore, due to its present economic activity it goes beyond this limit as

well.

In making comparison between the various land categories, we can

declare that the differences are more subtle regarding the data of Krishna

Valley, Hungary and the world’s average.

The consumed land area of Krishna Valley, i.e. 0.488 ha/capita cannot

be used for comparison as this value includes the gardens of the housing

estates. This is a simplification in data administration, whereas the produces of

these gardens cannot be included into land categories.

One finds huge differences in comparing the biological capacity of crop

lands. Krishna Valley’s capacity in this regard is 0.254 ha/capita (this does not

include the productivity of private gardens in the area of housing estates), which

is one third of world’s 0.64 ha/capita capacity, and looks rather small beside

Hungary’s 1.99 ha/capita data. The reason for this is that while Hungary uses

~50 % of its territory as arable land, Krishna Valley merely uses ~5 % of its total

territory as plough-land.

We experience the opposite in the values regarding the biological

capacity of pastures. Krishna-valley’s biological capacity is 0.307 ha/capita and

this is double of Hungary’s 0.15 ha/capita figure. The world average in this

regard is 0.37 ha/capita. It is worth mentioning concerning this comparison that

~10 % of Hungary’s total territory is used as pasture, whereas in Krishna Valley

this number is ~35 %. Both territory ratios of arable land and that of pastures

reflect the differences in dietary customs.

57

On the basis of the biological capacity of forests, it can be claimed that

Krishna Valley far exceeds its 0.335 ha/capita value regarding wood

consumption in relation to its 0.7 ha/capita ecological footprint. Hungary’s

biological capacity value of 0.47 ha/capita and the world average 0.81 ha/capita

value is larger than Krishna-valley’s, however, firewood consumption remains

within the values of sustainable boundaries both in Hungary as well as in the

world.

Summarizing the results of comparisons it can be declared that Krishna

Valley exists within the boundaries of sustainability in most of the examined

areas. In the case of firewood the ecological footprint exceeds the biological

productivity. In order to overcome this, continuous forestation, which is already

going on for several years in Krishna Valley, can provide resolution for the

future.

Another option to decrease this footprint in Krishna Valley would be the

reduction of fossil energy fuels, in case they could provide an alternative energy

from some other, economically adequate source.

58

Summary

In my work I was looking for the ways of finding alternative methods to

restore the deteriorated circumstances between society and nature. The area in

question what I have chosen is the village of the Krishna-conscious community

(Krishna Valley) that can be found in Somogy County, in the vicinity of

Somogyvámos. The community is trying to lead a self-sufficient, autonomous

existence in every field of life in order to maintain and sustain their community in

the long run. I was interested whether their lifestyle that is adjusted according to

the principles and spirituality of Vedic scriptures meets the requirements of

sustainability, whether it is sustainable at all.

In order to get full scope analyses regarding sustainability I found it

necessary to make an elaborate study and introduction of every field of life

which reflect the autonomy of the community. All this information provides

support to understand the sustainability analysis.

Concerning the question whether Krishna Valley functions in a

sustainable way or not, I have tried to give an answer by the analysis of

ecological footprint. The ecological footprint is quite a new term, which was

introduced by two Canadian ecologists, Mathis Wackernagel and William E.

Rees. The essence of the analysis is that in the procedure of calculation it is

worked out how much ecologically productive land is used to meet the

requirements of human consumption.

The ecological footprint analysis of Krishna Valley has shown results

values, which clearly indicate that the farming community in the vicinage of

Somogyvámos makes good progress in establishing a sustainable community.

59

Literature

A.C. BHAKTIVEDANTA SWAMI PRABHUPADA (1989.): Bhagavad-gíta úgy,

ahogy van. H.n. The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust.

A hulladékgazdálkodás általános kérdései, alapelvei. Hulladékgazdálkodási

Szakmai Füzetek 1. (2003.) Köztisztasági Egyesülés munkacsoportja.

KvVM. Bp.

BORSOS B.- GALLI A.- GYULAI I.- HIVATAL N.- KOVÁCS H.- LANTOS T.-

NAGY A.- TÖMÖSVÁRY T.- VARGA A. (1998.): Ötletek a fenntartható

vidékfejlesztési programok tervezéséhez. CEEWEB. Miskolc.

DAUNCEY, G (2001.): Összeomlás után. Göncöl Kiadó. Bp.

ERTSEY A. (szerk.) (1999.): Autonóm Kisrégió – Országos Ajánlás. Független

Ökológiai Központ Alapítvány. Bp.

EWING, B.- REED, A.- RIZK, S.M.- GALLI, A.- WACKERNAGEL, M.-

AND KITZES, J. (2008): Calculation Methodology for the National

Footprint Accounts, 2008 Edition (Version 1.1), Oakland: Global Footprint

Network.

EWING, B.- REED, A.- RIZK, S.M.- GOLDFINGER, S.- STECHBART, M.-

WACKERNAGEL, M.- AND KITZES, J: The Ecological Footprint Atlas

2008. Oakland: Global Footprint Network.

FARAGÓ T. - GYULAI I. (szerk.) (1994.): Környezet és Társadalom Közös

Jöv•je. Fenntartható Fejl•dés Bizottság.

FARKAS J. (2001.): „Visszaenni magunkat Istenhez” A táplálkozás, mint

áldozat a Krisna-tudatban in: PÓCS É. szek. Sors, áldozat, divináció.

Janus/Osiris. Bp.

60

GARDNER, G. - PRUGH, T. (2007.): A fenntartható gazdaság csírái in: A Világ

helyzete – A washingtoni Worldwatch Institute jelentése a fenntartható

társadalomhoz vezet• folyamatról. Föld Napja Alapítvány. Bp.

GYULAI I. (2006.): A biomassza dilemma. Magyar Természetvéd•k

Szövetsége. MacKensen Kft.

HAVAS P. (2000.): A fenntarthatóság pedagógiája in: A fenntarthatóság pedagógiája Papp Gy. szerk. Kölcsey Ferenc Református Tanárképz• F•iskola. Debrecen.

LORENZ, K. (1988.): A civilizált emberiség nyolc halálos b•ne. Ikva. Sopron.

MOLNÁR G. (2003.): A Tiszánál, Ekvilibrium Kiadó. Budakeszi.

Öko-völgy Magazin (2008.): Magyarországi Krisna-tudatú Hív•k Közössége.

Somogyvámos.

PAPPNÉ VANCSÓ. J. (2004.): Az ökológiai lábnyom: a fenntartható fejl•dés

mér•eszköze in: Földrajzi Közlemények CXXVIII. (LII.) kötet, 1-4. szám.

REED, A.- RIZK, S.M.- GALLI, A.- WACKERNAGEL, M.- AND KITZES, J.

(2008): Guidebook to the National Footprint Accounts, 2008 Edition.

Oakland: Global Footprint Network.

SELÉNDI SZ. (1996.): Ökológiai gazdálkodás, ökofarmok, ökorégiók.

Környezetvédelmi Füzetek. OMIKK. Bp.

SHENG, F. (1993.): Integrating Economic Development with Conservation in:

Rebuilding Communities: Experiences and Experiments in Europe. ed.

by RAJAN, V. Totnes, Devon: Green Books Ltd ; Gland : WWF.

WACKERNAGEL, M. - REES, W. E. (2001.): Ökológiai lábnyomunk. Föld Napja

Alapítvány. Bp.

61

Internet Sources

hirek.prim.hu/cikk/71914/

www.eletaen.gr/Documents/aiolos/Texnika_ka/WIND_ENERGY_THE_FACTS_EE_DG_ENERGY_1996.pdf

www.ksh.hu

www.muanyagipariszemle.hu/2004/06/muanyaghulladek-elegetni-vagy-

ujrafeldolgozni-18.pdf

www.nyf.hu/others/html/kornyezettud/szelektiv/eredet1.htm