Issues in evaluating sustainability of farming systems with indicators

13 Pages·2017·0.72 MB·English

Issues in evaluating sustainability of farming systems
with indicators
Christian Bockstaller, Pauline Feschet, Frédérique Angevin
To cite this version:
Christian Bockstaller, Pauline Feschet, Frédérique Angevin. Issues in evaluating sustainability
of farming systems with indicators. Oléagineux, Corps Gras, Lipides, 2015, 22 (1), pp.1-12.
￿10.1051/ocl/2014052￿. ￿hal-01475931￿
HAL Id: hal-01475931
https://hal.univ-lorraine.fr/hal-01475931
Submitted on 28 Feb 2017
HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de
teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés.
OCL2015,22(1)D102 OCL
(cid:2)c C.Bockstalleretal.,PublishedbyEDPSciences2015
DOI:10.1051/ocl/2014052
Oilseeds & fats Crops and Lipids
Availableonlineat:
www.ocl-journal.org
Research Article – Dossier Open Access
C
RITÈRESDEDURABILITÉ
ustainability criteria
S
Issues in evaluating sustainability of farming systems
with indicators r
e
Christian Bockstaller1,2,(cid:2), PaulineFeschet1,2 and FrédériqueAngevin3 si
s
1 INRA,UMR1121AgronomieetEnvironnement,INRA-UniversitédeLorraine,BP20507,68021ColmarCedex,France o
2 UniversitédeLorraine,UMR1121,AgronomieetEnvironnement,BP20507,68021ColmarCedex,France D
3 INRA,UAR1240Eco-Innov,avenueLucienBrétignières,78850Thiverval-Grignon,France
Received14November2014–Accepted3December2014
Abstract – Thegrowingconcernabout side-effectsofpoliciesfocusingoneconomicgrowthoreventechnological
innovations, aswellasagricultureintensificationleadsmoreandmorestakeholders topayattentiontothequestions
ofmonitoring andevaluation of agricultural practices. Thisstepof evaluation isnow essential inpolicydecision, in
research and design of innovative solutions, in NGOs’ development projects, as well as in improvement process in
ISO certification. The aim of thisarticle isto review steps inthe evaluation of sustainability in agriculture, starting
inafirstsectionwiththenecessitytodevelopaconceptual indicatorframeworktopreciseevaluators’ownvisionof
sustainability.Inasecondsection,weaddressthenecessitytoanswerpreliminaryquestionsthatwillguidetheselection
ofasetofindicatorsoranassessmentmethod.Inathirdsection,afterdiscussingthewaytocategorizeindicators,we
provide an overview of available indicators for two sustainability themes of the environmental dimension regarding
respectivelynitrogenmanagementandbiodiversity.Inafourthsection,wehighlightthediversityofevaluationmethods
ofsustainabilitythroughsixexamplesinFrance.Finallyweconcludethearticlewithageneraldiscussiononquestions
thatremaintoaddress.
Keywords: Multi-criteriaassessment/framework/aggregation/nitrogenmanagement/biodiversity
Résumé– Choixd’unensembled’indicateurspourévaluerladurabilitédespratiquesagricoles. Lesoucicrois-
santausujetdeseffetssecondairesdepolitiquescentréessurlacroissanceéconomique oudesinnovationstechnolo-
giquesmaisaussidel’intensificationdel’agricultureconduitdeplusenplusd’acteursàs’intéresseràlaquestionde
l’évaluationetlesuividespratiquesagricoles.Cetteétapedel’évaluationestdevenueprimordialedansladécisionpu-
blique,danslarecherchedesolutionsinnovantes,dansdesprojetsdéveloppementd’ONGouencoredanslesdémarches
deprogrèsencertificationISO.L’objectifdecetarticleestdepasserenrevuelesétapesd’unedémarched’évaluationde
ladurabilitéenagriculture,enpartantdelanécessitédedévelopperuncadreconceptueldesindicateursafindepréciser
lavisiondeladurabilitédel’évaluateur.Dansunesecondepartie,nousmettonsenévidencelanécessitéderépondre
àdesquestionspréliminairesquivontguiderlechoixd’unensembled’indicateurset/oud’uneméthoded’évaluation.
Dansunetroisième,aprèsavoirdiscutédelapossibilitéd’établirunetypologied’indicateurs,nousprésentonsunevue
d’ensembledesindicateursdisponiblespourdeuxthématiquesdeladimensionenvironnementale,lagestiondel’azote
etcelledelabiodiversité.Dansunequatrième,nousillustronsladiversitédesméthodesd’évaluationdeladurabilité
enagricultureautraversdesixexemplesfrançais.Enfin,nousterminonsl’articleparunediscussionsurlesquestionsà
approfondir.
Motsclés: Évaluationmulticritère/cadreconceptuel/agrégation/gestiondel’azote/biodiversité
(cid:2) Correspondence:[email protected]
ThisisanOpenAccessarticledistributedunderthetermsoftheCreativeCommonsAttributionLicense(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0),
whichpermitsunrestricteduse,distribution,andreproductioninanymedium,providedtheoriginalworkisproperlycited.
C.Bockstalleretal.:OCL2015,22(1)D102
1 Introduction orpracticesledtonumerousassessmentmethodsimplement-
ingascoringsystemoffarmers’practicesliketheIDEAmeth-
Followingthe Rio conferencein 1992,the environmental odsfortheenvironmentalpillarofsustainability(Zahmetal.,
issue and, more generally, the question of sustainability be- 2008) or the indicator set of Rigby et al. (2001). The goal-
came a concern in the developed countries and at the planet basedapproachofsustainabilityisalsoverycommonanden-
level.Thoughitsabilitytofederate,thisconceptfailedtomeet compassesa frameworkbasedona setofgeneralgoalsoften
aconsensusonitsimplementationuntilnow(Robinson,2004) dividedinmoreoperationalgoals(Bockstalleretal.,1997).An
so that Lacousmes (2005) spoke about a “driving illusion”. exampleofanenvironmentalgeneralgoalcanbe“preserving
However, the growing concern about side-effects of policies water quality” that can be translated into several operational
focusingoneconomicgrowthortechnologicalinnovations,as goalslike“reducingnitrateleaching”or“decreasingpesticide
well as agriculture intensification led more and more stake- transfertogroundorsurfacewater”.Insomecases,thegoals
holders to pay attention to the questions of monitoring and canbequantified(e.g.“reducingthenitrateleachingbyX%”).
evaluation.This step of evaluationhas becomenow essential In many other systems, goals are expressed more vaguely in
in policy decision,in research and design of innovativesolu- formofthemesandsub-themes(e.g.AlkanOlssonetal.,2009;
tions, in the NGOs’ development projects, as well as in im- Ledouxetal.,2005).InLife-CycleAnalysisfocusingmainly
provementprocessin ISOcertification(López-Ridauraetal., ontheenvironmentaldimension,goalsrefertoenvironmental
2005;NiemeijeranddeGroot,2008).Thus,thereisageneral impacts derivedfrom the cause-effectchain (Payraudeauand
agreementontheneedofdevelopingsustainabilityindicators vanderWerf, 2005).Morerecently,Life-CycleAnalysiswas
that have to be organizedin a conceptualframeworkto form appliedto the socialdimension(Falqueet al.,2013; Feschet,
anevaluationmethod.Theuseofindicatorscanbeeasilyex- 2014). The last approach of sustainability referring to a pro-
plained by the impossibilityto measure directlyenvironmen- priety of agricultureto continue was extendedby severalau-
tal impactsin routineoutside of researchcontext,or bydiffi- thors to a set of systemic properties.Bossel (2000) proposed
cultieswhenaddressingcomplexsystemsorconceptssuchas six basic axes linked to systemic properties:existence, effec-
biodiversityandsustainability(Grasetal.,1989;Mauriziand tiveness,freedomofaction,security,adaptability,andcoexis-
Verrel,2002).Thishasfosteredagreatdevelopmentofstudies tence across totally different systems like cultural and social
onindicators,especiallyintheagriculturalsector(Riley,2001; systems, ecosystsms. López-Ridauraet al. (2005) collecteda
Rosnobletetal.,2006). longlistofattributesorpropertiesofsustainabilitytodevelop
The aim of this article is to review steps in the evalua- anassessmentmethodofsustainabilityofsmallpeasantfarms
tionofsustainabilityinagriculture,startingin Section1 with inMexico.Finallyhefocusedonfivemainattributes:produc-
the necessity to developa conceptualindicator frameworkto tivity (ability to produce a combination of outputs), stability
precise evaluators’own vision of sustainability.In Section 2, (to reproduce the former), reliability (ability to remain at an
weaddressthenecessitytoanswerpreliminaryquestionsthat equilibrium state in normal conditions), resilience (ability to
willguidetheselectionofasetofindicatorsoranassessment recover a normal stage following a perturbation) and adapt-
method. In Section 3, after discussing the way to categorize abilityorflexibility(abilitytofunctioninnewconditions).Al-
indicators,weprovideanoverviewofavailableindicatorsfor though this last approach is interesting in its genericity and
two sustainabilitythemesoftheenvironmentaldimensionre- in avoiding long list of indicators, its implementation raises
gardingrespectivelynitrogenmanagementandbiodiversity.In problem when a property should be translated into concrete
Section4,wehighlightthediversityofevaluationmethodsof indicators(AlkanOlssonetal.,2009).
sustainabilitythroughsixexamplesinFrance.Finallywecon-
clude the article with a general discussion on questions that Most of sustainability frameworks are structured across
remaintoaddress. three sustainabilitydimensionsorpillars:economic,environ-
mental and social. Within each dimension, a list of items,
goals,themes,etc.aredefined.Insomecases,thoseareorga-
2 Different sustainabilityframeworks nized in a hierarchical way which leads the aggregation step
of indicators like for the MASC (Craheix et al., 2012) and
Sustainabilityisbynatureamultidimensionalissuewhich DEXiPM models (Pelzer et al., 2012), or in the method of
addresseshenceasetofcriteriawhichcanbesimplyorganized van Asselt et al. (2014). The property-based approach pro-
inalistorinamorecomplexframework(Ledouxetal.,2005). poses generic properties across the three dimensions of sus-
Inanycase,ageneralconceptualindicatorframeworkisapre- tainability.A similar attemptwas presentedby Alkan Olsson
requisitetoanyindicatorselectiontoavoidaunconsideredand etal.,2009)foragoal-basedindicatorframework(GOF)that
evenbiasedassessmentofsustainability(AlkanOlssonetal., classifiessustainabilitythemesbetweenultimategoal,process
2009).Hansen(1996)distinguishedbetweensustainabilityas toachieve(goal)andmeans(AlkanOlssonetal.,2009).This
an approachof agricultureand sustainabilityas a propertyof classificationofthemesacrosssustainabilitydimensionscon-
agriculture.Heseparatedtheformerbetween(i)analternative siderstheactionchain.Apolicyismotivatedbyoneorseveral
ideologyand(ii)asetofstrategies,andthelatterbetween(iii) ultimategoals(e.g.humanhealth,viability,seeBossel(2000))
anabilitytofulfillgoalsand(iv)anabilitytocontinue.Ifthe requiring some process to achieve it (e.g. balance of envi-
firstapproachbasedonanideologyremainsgeneralandvague, ronmental function, improvement of economic performance)
the three others have been translated in operational princi- and means (e.g. protecting environmental compartment, in-
plesthatinspireddifferentevaluationframeworks(Smithand creasing financial capital), across the three sustainability
McDonald,1998).Definingsustainabilityasasetofstrategies dimensions.
D102,page2of12
C.Bockstalleretal.:OCL2015,22(1)D102
Contribution to global issue
(e.g. energy, greenhouse
Global encompassingsystem
gases, depletion of P, K
(e.g. country continent, planet)
resources)
Local encompassingsystem Contribution to local issue
(e.g. water catchment, région) (e.g. water quality, food chain
supply)
System studied
(e.g. field, farm) Direct issue for the system
(e.g. soil protection, profitability)
Fig.1.Definitionofsystemandrelatedsustainabilityissues. r
e
i
3 Preliminary choices When?),theorganizationallevel,whichwillbeinfluencedby s
s
theuserneeds,theissuesofconcerns,etc.InLifeCycleAnal-
The clarification of a sustainability frameworkthat struc- ysisapproaches(LCA),usersarecompelledtodefinethesys- o
turestheindicatorselectionhastobecompletedbyseveralpre- tem boundaries(Brentrupetal.,2004). Itcanbe theproduct, D
liminary choices and assumptions (Bockstaller et al., 2008). the farm including or not upstream such as productionof in-
Aninitialdiagnosisisrequiredtoidentifytheactualissuesre- puts and offstream activities such as waste management. In
garding sustainability for a given system, to put in evidence many other evaluation methods, this definition seems to be
stakeholders and participants implicated, processes involved, neitherexplicitnorunifiedbetweenindicators.Forexample,in
degree of severity of impacts etc. (answering therefore the severalmethodsindirectenergycostduetofertilizer,pesticide,
question:whytoevaluate?). machineproductionareincludedintheenergycalculationlike
Theidentificationoftheend-users(toevaluateforwhom?) in LCA although for the rest of issues like water quality or
and the definition of the practical objectives (to evaluate for emissionsofpollutanttoair,suchapproachisnotimplemented
what?)oftheindicator,werepointedoutasanessentialstepby and only directimpactat field or farm levelare covered.Re-
severalauthors(BrooksandBubb,2014;Girardinetal.,1999; gardingspatialandtimescalesoneshouldpayattentiontothe
Mitchell et al., 1995). This preliminary steps will serve as a resolution of calculation and the level at which basic calcu-
basis to design or select indicatorsthat meetend-usersneeds lations are carried out. Farm and year are typical resolution
andrequirements.Differentusersgroupscanbeidentifiedlike, forenvironmentalindicators.Thisshouldnotbeconfusedwith
forexample,scientists,advisors,farmers,decisionmakers,or the extent,i.e.the wholearea,(e.g.theregion),ortime span,
consumers. The group of people doing the calculations and (e.g. the crop rotation), covered by the indicators calculation
thegroupofpeopleusingtheresultsshouldbedifferentiated. (Purtaufetal.,2005).
In many cases, although farmers are the targeted user group, Another aspect to consider is the differentiation between
theyareactuallynotdirectusersoftheevaluationmethodbut the system itself and the encompassing systems that can be
they are end-users of the results (Cerf and Meynard, 2006). separatedbetweenthelocalandtheglobalones(Fig.1).This
Itshouldbenoticedthatthepositionofusersandend-usersof refers respectivelyto “on-site” (on the system) and “off-site”
resultsisinmanycasesnotonlydrivenbyscientificconsidera- issues (outside the system), (Smith and McDonald, 1998).
tions(Bouleau,2012;Gudmundsson,2003).Indeed,theymay “On-site” issues (e.g. soil quality of farm fields) are linked
interestintheselectionofindicatorsortheirresultstodefend to the sustainability of the studied system (e.g. farm) while
theirinterests. “off-site”issuesconcerntheencompassingsystem,(e.g.region
An indicator can be developed for various objectives. where the farm is located), or the society as a whole (Alkan
Thosecanbeorderedinthreemainusages:(i)togainknowl- Olssonetal.,2009).Theformerreferstosustainabilityofagri-
edge about a system, e.g. ex post evaluation of an action at cultureitself,thelattermaybeconsideredasthecontribution
theendorduringitsimplementation,monitoringpurposewith ofagriculturalsystemstosustainabledevelopment.Forthelat-
an alert role, or checking the respect of regulation. (ii) for ter, local and globalissues can be distinguished.In any case,
decision support: ex ante evaluation of actions in a planning intheperspectiveofsustainability,abalancedchoicebetween
phasetoselectthe“best”system(Sadoketal.,2008),decision directissuesofthesystem,andcontributiontolocalandglobal
support in real time to drive the system, (iii) communication issuesshouldbedone(AlkanOlssonetal.,2009).
which impliesa reduced numberof indicatorseasy to under- Lastbutnotleast,meansandresourcesshouldbeassessed
stand(Mitchelletal.,1995). beforeselectingamethod.Itincludesbudget,time,dataavail-
Thedesignofa sustainabilityframeworkallowstodefine ability,etc.tobesurethattheymeettherequirementsofase-
theissueofconcernsorcriteriatoprecisethecontentofeval- lectedmethod.
uation(toevaluatewhat?).Thosecanbepresentedinformof
a set of strategies, of goals, themes, systemic properties, etc.
aspresentedintheprevioussection.Thedefinitionofthesys- 4 Different typesof indicators
temboundariesisanotherimportantstepdirectlylinkedtothe
previousone (VanCauwenberghet al., 2007). Itincludesthe Differenttypologieswereproposedtocategorizethebroad
calculation scales, spatial and temporal (to evaluate where? variety of indicators proposed in the last decades. At the
D102,page3of12
C.Bockstalleretal.:OCL2015,22(1)D102
MMaannaaggeemmeenntt *
Emission/state/impact
Soil* Climate
Abiltiyto trace
cause-effect
relationship
Predictiveeffect
indicatorbasedon
Predictiveeffect complexmodel
indicatorbasedon M(x , … x , p ,p)
1 n 1 k MMeeaassuurreedd
ooppeerraattiioonnaallmmooddeell
(e.g. Vegpop2) effectindicator
f(x , …, x )
1 p
y , y
Causal indicator (e.g. Flora-predict) 1 2
xx , xx , xx //xx , xx -xx ((ee..gg.. nnuummbbeerrooff bbiirrddss
1 2 1 2 1 2 species)
(e.g. % semi-naturalarea)
Intégration
ooff pprroocceessss
Feasibility
Fig.2.Typologyofindicatorsaccordingtotheirnature(adaptedfromBockstalleretal.,2011).
international level the well-known Pressure/State/Response variablesor environmentalvariables(soil, climate, etc.).
(PSR) and Driving-force/Pressure/State/Impact/Response For the former,the term “means” is relevant but not for
(DPSIR)frameworkswereinspiredbythecause-effectchain. thelatter;
They were developed to ascertain the relevance of environ- (ii) Predictive effect indicators based on model output that
mentalindicatorsforhumanactivitiesandtheirconsequences canbeoperational(withareducedandavailablenumber
at national level. These frameworks are extended by some ofinputvariables)orcomplex(fromtheresearchpointof
authors to lower scales (e.g. Maurizi and Verrel, 2002) in view,withoutconsideringthenumberandavailabilityof
spite of criticisms formulatedbydifferentauthors(Niemeijer inputdata);
and de Groot, 2008). One major drawback is the impression (iii) Measured effect indicators based on field assessment or
of linearity between pressure, state and impact given by the observation.
framework,whereastherealityismorecomplexandcloserto
a causal network than to a chain. Another flaw is the ambi- Effect indicators may refer more precisely to different
guity ofthe item, for instancepressure.Behind,youcan find stages on the cause-effect chain: emission, state or impact
severaltypesofindicators(seebelow).Forexample,pressure (Bockstaller etal., 2008). Asshown onFigure2, those types
encompassesemissionindicatorswhichcanbemeasured(e.g. do not show same qualities. Indicators belong to the groups
nitrogen content at bottom of the root zone, measured by of causal indicators and result in most cases in a poor pre-
ceramiccup)ormodeloutput(fromfieldleachingmodel),as dictive quality whereas measurement indicators may provide
wellassimpleindicatorsbased oninformationfromfarmers’ more precise informationaboutthe state or the impact, with-
managementdata(e.g.amountofnitrogeninput). outprovidinginformationonthecauses.Predictiveindicators
Several authors made the difference between (i) means- are usefulforex anteassessmentandto relateeffectto cause
based indicators (van der Werf and Petit, 2002), or action- (Bockstalleretal.,2008).Inanycase,allthosetypeshavetheir
oriented indicators (Braband et al., 2003) using informa- utility,causalindicatortohighlightchangesinmanagementor
tion on farmers’ practices or other causal variables; and (ii) environment sensitivity, measured effect indicators for mon-
effect-basedindicatorsorresult-orientedindicators,basedon itoring, predictive indicators for analyzing cause-effect rela-
an assessment of the effect at different stages of the cause- tionsinordertoimprovethesystem.
effect chain. Concerning biodiversity, some authors also dis-
tinguishedbetweenindirect(means-based)anddirect(effect-
based) indicators. However, observing that these classes still
cover indicators totally different like measurement or model 5 Example of indicatorsand of evaluation
output, Bockstaller et al. (2011) and, Feschet and Lairez methods
(2015)proposedanothertypologytakingintoaccountthena-
tureandstructureoftheindicators.Hereweproposeanadap-
tationoftheformerbasedonthefollowingclasses: In this section we illustrate the diversity of indicators
for two major environmentalissues: impactof nitrogenman-
(i) Causal indicator based on a causal variable or a simple agement and biodiversity. We also describe different evalu-
combination of variables of same nature (sum, product, ation methods based on a set of indictors to highlight their
ratio). Causal indicators can be based on management variability.
D102,page4of12
C.Bockstalleretal.:OCL2015,22(1)D102
Category Number Scale Example
Management
Input management 11 Farm,Year Storagecapacitiya
FFaarrmm, FFiieelldd
Goodmanagement 13 Numberof fertilizationsa
Year
Farm, Water catchment % referencearea fertilizedwith
Fer(cid:2)lizedarea 4
Year organicfertilizera
Farm, Field, Cropping
Nitrogenamount 20 Nitrogenratea, b
system, Year
Farm, Field
Nitrogenbalance 31 Farm-gatebalancea
Pluriannual
Devia(cid:2)on from the Farm, Field Devia(cid:2)on from r
5
recommended nitrogen rate Year recommenda(cid:2)ona e
Farm, Field si
Produc(cid:2)vity/ Efficience 7 Nitrogenuse efficiencyb
Year s
Field Baresoilduringdrainage o
Soilcovermanagement 20
Year perioda D
Sensi(cid:2)vityof environemen(cid:4)o Field, Water catchment
15 DRASTICb
ttrraannssffeerr PPlluurriiaannnnuuaal
Field, Croppingsystem
Nitrogenbalancex Coefficient 3 N-Index Tier-1b
Pluriannual
Field, Croppingsystem
Qualita(cid:2)ve oppera(cid:2)onalmodel 5 MERLINa, c
YYear, Pluriannual
Field, Croppingsystem
Quan(cid:2)ta(cid:2)veopera(cid:2)onalmodel 17 IN INDIGOd
Year, Pluriannual
Field
MMeeaassuurreemmeennttooff ssooiillnniittrrooggeenn 66 SSooiillmmiinneerraallnniittrrooggeennb
Year, Pluriannual
Emission/ Water catchment, Field
Measurementof water quality 8 Nitrateconcentrationa
state/impact Pluriannual
Fig.3.Typologyofnitrogenindicators(Schnelleretal.,2013a).Referencesfortheexamples:a CORPEN,2006,b BuczkoandKuchenbuch,
2010,cAvelineetal.,2009,dBockstalleretal.,2008.
5.1 Nitrogenindicators extensivelydiscussedbysomeauthors(e.g.Lindenmayerand
Likens, 2011). Indicators based on species diversity and/or
ThetypologypresentedinFigure3resultsfromtheanaly- abundance among a given taxon or several taxa (e.g. birds,
sisofadatabaseof1464environmentalindicatorsissuedfrom
plants, carabid beetles, etc.) are the most commonly used at
112methodsor reviewsonindicators.Thedatabase wascre- different scales, from field to national level. Many proposals
ated by Rosnoblet et al. (2006) and extended and analyzed
alsoexistforcausalorindirectindicators.Amongthe91indi-
by Schneller et al. (2013b). The whole variability presented
catorslistedforagriculturebyDelbaere(2003)morethanhalf
in Figure 3 ranges from causal indicators based on manage-
belongstothistype.Whenconsideringthegeneralmodelex-
mentdata,likethemanurestoragecapacity,tomeasuredeffect plaining biodiversityin farmland(Le Roux et al., 2008)they
indicators of water quality with in-between effect predictive canbeintwogroups:(i)indicatorsrelatedtomanagementof
indicators based on operationalmodels. The category “nitro-
farmlandlikethepercentageofsemi-naturalareaand,(ii)indi-
genbalance”isthemostpopularwithmorethan30proposals.
catorsaddressingcroppingpractices,whichcanbeexpressed
Thosecouldbedifferentiatedbetweenfarm-gate,soil surface
inamountofinputsperareaunitorinpercentageofareadis-
andsoilsystembudgets(Oenemaetal.,2003).Althoughnitro-
turbedbyfertilizer,pesticides,irrigation,tillage.Bothgroups
genbalanceisrecognizedasthemostcommonlyusedindica- canbeexpressedatdifferentscales.
tortoassessnitrogenmanagement(Langeveldetal.,2007),its
Contrarytothetwoprevioustypesofindicators,examples
predictive quality of nitrogen losses, especially nitrate leach- ofpredictiveeffectindicatorsaccordingtothetypologyinFig-
ingremainsquestionable,especiallyinthecaseofcalculations
ure2arelessnumerous.Table1providesanoverviewofini-
withannualdatainsituationswithlowsurplus(Oenemaetal.,
tiativesbasedonanoperationalmodelinarablefarming.Most
2005).
of the methodsbelongto a multi-criteriaassessmentmethod.
SALCAbd(Jeanneretetal.,2014)wasdevelopedtocomplete
theSALCAmethodbasedonLifeCycleAnalysisalthoughit
5.2 Biodiversityindicators
onlydealswithdirecteffectsatfieldandnotupstreamoroff-
Since the 80s, a large number of direct measured indic- streamindirectimpacts(seeSect.3).Outputsareinformofa
tors for biodiversity has been proposed in the literature and probability of presence or a decreased of number of species,
D102,page5of12
C.Bockstalleretal.:OCL2015,22(1)D102
e
p
a
Scale Fields,farm,landscape Farm,landsc Field,farm,landscape Field,farm Regional
a)
h
o)/N
Inputvariableorcomponent/E.g.grazing(yesno)/Slurryapplication(yesnMineralfertilization(kg SoilcoverCropdiversityMachineusePesticideriskIrrigationSemi-naturalareaE.g.numberoftillageperturbationamountofnitrogennumberofherbicidesAllcroppingpractices E.g.springtoautumnsowingAgrochemicalinputsLossofnon-croppedhabitatLanddrainage
etal.daptedfromBockstaller,2011). Aggregationfunction CalculationofsuitabilityindexfromtheBritishNationalVegetationClassificationAprobabilityofpresenceisderivedfromthisindexDecisiontreewithfuzzysubsetsforglobalindicatorsandcomponents Continuousfunction Eachcroppingpracticesisscoredandanaveragevalueiscalculated Scoringsystem:assessingimpactone.g.speciesneeds(diet,foragehabitats)
a
(
htheirmaincharacteristics Expressionofresult Probabilityofpresencebetween0and1 Scorebetween0(maximumimpact)and10(noimpact) Disturbanceimpactscoredbetween0(none)and1(high) Scorebetween1(negativeimpact)and5(positiveimpact) Riskscorebetween0(none)and3to6(high)
wit
dicators Speciesnumber534 1111 Notexplicit1 Notexplicit 63142344190
n
i
ctivebiodiversity Taxonomicgroup(species)Plants PheasantPartridgeFieldhareWildrabbit Amphibian Partridge PlantsMammalsBirdsAmphibiansSnailsandslugsSpidersCarabidbeetlesOrthopteraBeesandbumblebeesButterfliesBirdsBumblebeesButterfliesMammalsBroadleafplants
di
1.Examplesofpre Namereference VEMetal.(Sanderson,1995) Keichinger(2001) Meyer-Aurichetal.(2003) SALCAbdetal.(Jeanneret,2014) etal.Butler(2009)
e
bl
a
T
D102,page6of12
C.Bockstalleretal.:OCL2015,22(1)D102
d
anat
m mbit
e ea
e st sth
cal sy syng
S ng ngori
Croppi Croppineighb Field Field Farm
InputvariableorcomponentCropdiversityNon-sprayedareaTreatmentfrequencyaindexE.g.deeptillage,Treatmentfrequencyaindex,Habitatmanagementforsoilnaturalennemies E.g.croppingpractices,Herbicidestreatmentafrequencyindex,/Fertilization(kgNha) 11managementand11habitatvariablesE.g.mineralfertilization/(kgNha)TreatmentfrequencyaindexAreawithtillage cticides. ossierD
e
8) ns
EXi EXi 200 es,i
Aggregationfunction DecisiontreeimplementedinDetal.software(Bohanec,2008) DecisiontreeimplementedinDetal.software(Bohanec,2008) Decisiontreewithfuzzysubsets Logisticregressionfunction Decisiontreeimplementedinetal.DEXissoftware(Bohanec, eparatelyforfungicides,herbicid
s
d
1 e
Expressionofresult 4qualitativeclasses 5qualitativeclasses Between0(low)and Occurrenceofbird/(yesno)5qualitativeclasses etheindexiscalculat
er
H
peciesumberNo Notxplicit 111NotxplicitNotxplicit2 None rate.
Sn e e e d
e
d
n
Taxonomicgroup(species)Notprecised FlyingnaturalenemiesPolllinatorsSoilnaturalenemiesWeedsFloraofsemi-naturalareaBirdAmphibianMammalHoverfly Fieldflora Birds None /eraterecomme
d
ci
Continued. Namereference MASCetal.(Craheix,2012) DEXiPMetal.(Pelzer,2012) etal.Sattler(2010) etal.Tichit(2010)IBEAAnonymous(2011) ratioactualpesti
1. of
e m
bl u
a S
T
a
D102,page7of12
C.Bockstalleretal.:OCL2015,22(1)D102
or in form of risk or impact scores. Whereas some models However,forsomethemes,thenumberofindicatorsmay
tackleinanexplicitwayabroadnumberofspecies,forplants be low. This is particularly true for predictive effect indica-
(Sanderson et al., 1995) or several taxa (Butler et al., 2009), tors based on operationalmodels. Such indicators require an
most of them focus on a few number of species or few taxa important design work integrating knowledge on the effect
withoutexplicitinformationonthese. of farmer management in interaction with soil, climate vari-
ables to give an output which expresses an effect which can
be linked to emissions, or the state and furthermore the im-
pactlikeinLCA.Topicslikebiodiversity(seeSect.5.2),soil
5.3 ExamplesofdifferentFrenchevaluationmethods
compaction, nuisance due to noises and odours present gaps
ofsustainability
for predictive effect indicators. A new challenge will be to
evaluate ecosystemic services in such a predictive way, from
Providing an exhaustive overview of the “explosion” of managementpracticestobiodiversityandfrombiodiversityto
evaluation methods in the last decades is totally out of the ecosystemicservices.Thesecondstepisaddressed,forexam-
scope of the article. The reader should refer to synthesis like ple,byanindicatorassessingflowerpollinationvalueoffloral
thisofRosnobletetal.(2006)orSinghetal.(2012).Table2 diversityinfieldmargin(Ricouetal.,2014).
gives an overview of six French evaluation methods of sus-
Inanycase,usersneedalsotoknowthequalityofthein-
tainability in agriculture. The number of indicators for each
formationdeliveredbyanindicator,especiallywhenitisused
methodishigherthan30withhighestnumberforDAESEand
to evaluate effect on an issue of sustainability like an envi-
EVAD. Strictly speaking,DAESE and EVAD are notevalua-
ronmental impact. Due to many simplifications, a direct cor-
tionmethodreadytoimplementbytheend-usersbutoffersre-
relation can rarely be expected excepted for a broad range
spectivelyabroadlistofindicatorsforthefirstone,andanin-
of landscape conditions. Such correlations were for exam-
dicatorlistandamethodologicalframeworkforthesecond.At
ple pointed out between diversity within taxon (birds, bees,
farm level, causal indicators based on management variables
etc.)andcausalindicatorsbasedonmanagementvariablelike
areimplementedtomakethemethodeasytousewithfarmers.
thenitrogeninputorpercentageofsemi-naturalarea(Billeter
MASCandDEXiPMhavebeendevelopedtobeimplemented
etal.,2008).Specificteststoidentifymorecomplexrelations
in researchworkto evaluateex anteinnovativecroppingsys-
have been also proposed (Bockstaller et al. (2008). In every
temsduringthedesignphaseandtohelptoselectandimprove
case, this raises the question of uncertainty linked to indi-
mostperformantsystemsforexperimentation.MASCisbased
cator results. For an indicator based on the nitrogen balance
on quantitative predictive effect indicators (see Fig. 2) and
multiplied by a coefficient (see Fig. 3), Mertens and Huwe
can alsobe usedtoevaluateactualcroppingsystems(ex post
(2002) handled uncertainty of data by implementing an ap-
evaluation).DEXiPMisbasedonqualitativecausalindicators
proach based on fuzzy logic so that no unique value but an
whichareaggregatedtomakequalitativepredictiveeffectin-
intervalisgiventotheuser.
dicators.This makesthe evaluationworkmuchfaster than in
MASCinspiteofhighernumberofbasicindicators.Forsome Many indicatorsare available at field and farm level as it
methodslike IDEA, aggregationis based on a sum of scores comes out from the overview given in this article. However,
thatisquestionedbymanyauthors(Bockstalleretal.,2008). for example, water quality indicators should be used at the
MASCandDEXiPMdecisiontreesareimplementedthanksto scaleofthewatercatchmentorforalandscape.Emissionscan
theDEXisoftware(Bohanecetal.,2008).Thistoolallowsthe be assessed at lower scale of cropping and farming systems.
design of such qualitativedecision trees using “if then” rules For indicatorassessing emissions, results can be upscaled by
andinputvariablesorganizedinclasses. aggregation of results obtained by calculation of an average
valueathigherscaleweightedbythesizeorthenumberofen-
tityatlowerscale.Suchaggregationathigherscalelikeana-
tionisnotrelevantforlocalimpact,e.g.waterquality,erosion,
6 Discussion whereas it is possible for global impact, such as greenhouse
gases.Upscalingrequiressomestatisticalskillsfordataman-
agement but must also integrate new processes (Stein et al.,
Theclarificationofpreliminarychoicesdescribedin Sec-
2001) and new environmentalcomponents(e.g. non cropped
tion3isimportanttoguidetheuserinhisselectionofanevalu-
area). In any case, even without an upscaling procedure, the
ationmethod,toavoidhimacontingentselectionledbyavail-
possibility to work at a fine resolution (e.g. field) for large
abilityofamethodinhisorganizationorsurroundings.Indeed,
extent (e.g. a water catchment) is an important challenge for
suchachoicecanleadtotheuseofanon-adaptedmethodthat
agronomiststo enable to work on realistic scenarios of man-
doesnotmeethisneedsor hismeansor evenmoreto biased
agementevolution,allowingfinerdescriptionofcroppingsys-
evaluation of sustainability. In any case, the great number of
tems than only the type of crop and average fertilizer rates
indicatorswithinsomethemeslikenitrogen,aswellastheva-
(Leenhardtetal.,2010).
rietyofevaluationmethodsmakesthepreliminarystepofclar-
ificationessentialtoavoidarandomlyapproachequivalentto Asalreadymentioned,sustainabilityisbynaturea multi-
alottery.Consequently,someauthorsproposealistofcriteria dimensionalissuewhichaddressesasetofcriteriawhichcan
to select the “best” method(Bockstaller et al., 2009; Feschet besimplyorganizedinalistorinamorecomplexframework.
andLairez,2015;NiemeijeranddeGroot,2008),orevenmore Aquestionrisessoonerorlaterconcerningthenecessityofan
aninteractivedecision-aidtoolsuchthePLAGEwebplatform aggregationtofacilitatetheinterpretationofsetofresults,es-
(Surleau-Chambenoitetal.,2013). pecially when more than 30 indicators are used (see Tab. 2).
D102,page8of12
C.Bockstalleretal.:OCL2015,22(1)D102
Comments:objectives,typeofindicators,aggregationmethod Evaluationofsustainabilityatfarmleveltomakefarmerssensitivetothisstake.Useofcausalindicatorsforenvironmentaldimension,sumofscoreswithineachdimension.TheglobalsustainabilityscoreistheworstofthethreedimensionsEvaluationofsustainabilityatfarmleveltomakefarmerssensitivetothisstake.Noaggregationofindicators.Alargerangeof(causal)indicatorstomonitorchangeinmanagementregardingsustainabilityforafarmnetworkatregional(national)level.Noaggregation.Decisionaidtoolforaction,designandselectionofawiderangeofindicators(fromffdierenttypes) Evaluateandrankcroppingsystemsbyidentifyingstrongandweakpointsregardingffsustainability.Useofpredictiveeectindicatorswhenpossible.AggregationthankstoDEXisoftware.exanteRapidevaluationofinnovativecroppingsystemstoselectthemostperformantones.Causalqualitativeindicatorsaggregatedffinqualitativepredictiveeectindicators.AggregationwithDEXisoftware ssier
o
2014). Numberofindicators 42 34 120 230 39 61 justice. D
ckstaller, Numberomaincriteria 10 18 19 13 8 8 dwomen,
o n
B a
mFeschetand Decompositionofsustainabilityin /Scale/componentindicator /Dimension/criteriaindicator /Axis/compartmentindicator /Dimension/principles/criteriaindicator/Dimensionaggregated/criteria/basiccriteriaindicator/Dimensioncaggregated/criteria/basiccriteria/indicatorpractices ofcommunity
o nt
fr d nd me
inagriculture(adapted Dimensionsofsustainabilityconsidered Economic,socialanenvironmental Economic,socialandenvironmental Economic,socialenvironmental Economic,asocial,institutionalaenvironmental Economic,socialandenvironmental Economic,socialmandenvironmental articipation,empower
ustainability Scale Farm Farm Farm Farm,production/sectorlandscape Croppingsystem Croppingsyste overnance,p
s g
uationmethodsof Typeofproduction Arable,livestock,winegrowing Dairyproduction Arable,livestock,winegrowing Aquaculture Arablecrops Arablecrops assesforinstance
val mp
e o
sixFrench Periodofconstruction 2000–2008 2010 2003–2007 2005–2008 2005–2012 2007–2011 mensionenc
ble2.Overviewof Nameofthemethod IDEA(Zahmetal.,2008) Diagnosticdedurabilité–RAD(Féret,2004) DAESE–OTPAetal.(Guillaumin,2007) EVADetal.(Rey-Valette,2009) MASC2.0etal.(Craheix,2012) DEXiPM(Pelzeretal.,2012) heinstitutionaldi
a T
T
a
D102,page9of12